The Obama Presidency - 2008 & 2012

[Swaggs]

Robert Byrd is being replaced by 36-year old Carte Goodwin. Kind of cool, as his late father was my mother-in-law's first cousin. Also interesting, as he is obviously an up and comer and these type of appointments are usually for old timers. He is almost certainly just keeping the seat warm for the current governor, but at his age, I'd imagine that he has his eye the governor's seat at some point.

[Ronnie Dobbs2]

Jesse,

It might behoove you, after already being banned here once, to try to cut out the smarm.

[rowech]

Originally Posted by SteveBollea

Regardless of what somebody on the TeeVee may tell you, the US is nowhere near bankruptcy or even being in the Greek-style crisis. Our interest rates are still near zero, we're still the reserve currency of the planet, and 80% of our debt is in US Treasury Bonds.

But yes, for the last 30 years, thanks largely to conservatives (of both the DNC and GOP stripe), people have been sold the idea you can have higher spending _and_ tax cuts!

And who is going to run on a platfrom that says they will cut spending and increase taxes and expect to get elected? So we continue to do what we're doing and it eventually tanks.

[JediKooter]

Originally Posted by rowech

Don't have a choice if they aren't state requirements and other things are.

Totally understand that, but, what are the costs of increasing recess time and PE compared to revamping the food system in schools? It's not like test scores have seen a surprising increase by the cutting back of recess and PE.

Color me cynical, but, unless more parents actually get involved and care enough, no amount of money they throw at this issue is going to solve it.

[sabotai]

Originally Posted by SteveBollea

Pro-Tip for the libertarians in the thread. Vast majorities don't actually want to cut spending in those evil big government programs you all hate so much.

So?

[rowech]

Originally Posted by JediKooter

Totally understand that, but, what are the costs of increasing recess time and PE compared to revamping the food system in schools? It's not like test scores have seen a surprising increase by the cutting back of recess and PE.

Color me cynical, but, unless more parents actually get involved and care enough, no amount of money they throw at this issue is going to solve it.

I think that's the case for most of what people are trying to fix. Until we switch how our society, in particular families, change how they do things, it really isn't going to matter.

[JediKooter]

Originally Posted by rowech

I think that's the case for most of what people are trying to fix. Until we switch how our society, in particular families, change how they do things, it really isn't going to matter.

Makes great bullet points for candidates though.

[rowech]

Originally Posted by JediKooter

Makes great bullet points for candidates though.

Agree...politicians are really in sales...not politics.

[Mizzou B-ball fan]

Obama: Voters to decide who caused 'this mess'

(AP) – 1 day ago

WASHINGTON — President Barack Obama acknowledges that the fall elections could amount to a referendum on his stewardship of the nation's affairs.

Obama tells NBC in an interview that "nobody in the White House is satisfied" with continuing high unemployment.

But he also says the midterm congressional elections could come down to "a choice between the policies that got us into this mess and my policies that got us out of this mess."

The president said in the interview he believes voters "are going to say the policies that got us into this mess, we can't go back to." He also said Washington "has spent an inordinate amount of time on politics — who's up and who's down — and not enough on what we're doing for the American people."

Obama is borderline delusional if he really believes that the voters will buy this line of thinking and not blame his administration and the Democrats for our current situation. He's nearly halfway through his first term and we're not even remotely close to 'out of this mess' as he implies.

Even if you do think that Obama did do something of note, there's little question that voters aren't going to blame the old guard. He's going to get the blame regardless. Continuing to blame Bush is a real problem for this administration nearly two years in.

[JPhillips]

Real change would mean telling people they should vote for the GOP.

[JonInMiddleGA]

Originally Posted by SteveBollea

Also, yes, there's bureaucracy in every large system. But guess what, I'm going to guess that bureaucracy among the government and large corporations is about the same over the long-term or even better on the government side considering the government is still larger than even Wal-Mart.

FWIW, my experience has been that the amount varies a good bit from one mega-corp to the next. Some are indeed government-like in the layers, while others are much more straight forward. My dealings with Wal-Mart corporate have left me with the impression that they're better than average in that regard, when you need a decision it usually doesn't go more than a couple of people deep to get one, they seem pretty good about letting people do the job they were hired for & I haven't seen much clutter. I know they were just a placeholder for your comment, but just sayin' ...

[Greyroofoo]

Originally Posted by JPhillips

Real change would mean telling people they should vote for 3rd Parties.

fixed

[Greyroofoo]

Originally Posted by Mizzou B-ball fan

Obama is borderline delusional if he really believes that the voters will buy this line of thinking and not blame his administration and the Democrats for our current situation. He's nearly halfway through his first term and we're not even remotely close to 'out of this mess' as he implies.

Even if you do think that Obama did do something of note, there's little question that voters aren't going to blame the old guard. He's going to get the blame regardless. Continuing to blame Bush is a real problem for this administration nearly two years in.

To me it's not a question of who got us INTO this mess but who can get us OUT of this mess.

[EagleFan]

Biggest hope right now is for 2012 to get here... What a fraud this jackass has turned out to be.

[Mizzou B-ball fan]

Originally Posted by Greyroofoo

To me it's not a question of who got us INTO this mess but who can get us OUT of this mess.

According to Obama, he already got us out of this mess.

[Greyroofoo]

Originally Posted by SteveBollea

I mean, Obama's actual contribution to the debt and deficit is much smaller than Bush's. (To keep things simple, we won't try to apportion blame for falling income tax revenue based on the recession rather than tax cuts.)

Of course we're also comparing 1.5 years of Obama to 8 years of Bush here. Both presidents entered office in times of economic turbulence.

[rowech]

Originally Posted by SteveBollea

OK, you can attack Obama for a lot of things, but being fradulent? He's done exactly what he campaigned on. Large stimulus to stop even further job losses? Promised and done. Health care reform? Promised and done. More focus on Afghanistan? Promised and done. Financial reform? Promised and done. Now, you can talk about the details or the positive/negatives to those decisions, but it's not like he didn't say he was going to do these things.

On the blaming Bush part, yes, it's perfectly acceptable to blame Bush. However, if I was Obama, I would say thirty years of economic policy that have destroyed large chunks of the middle class, but that's why I'm to the left of Obama.

I mean, Obama's actual contribution to the debt and deficit is much smaller than Bush's. (To keep things simple, we won't try to apportion blame for falling income tax revenue based on the recession rather than tax cuts.)

Given that the CBO grades health care reform as deficit-reducing and it's actual budgetary impact is still near zero since most of it hasn't been implemented anyway, Obama's actual contribution to the deficit is effectively the stimulus ($800 billion over three years) and a bunch of little things like extending unemployment benefits that aren't large on this scale.* The Bush tax cuts through 2010 cost about $2.5 trillion dollars. The CBO estimate of the costs of Iraq through completion is $2 trillion dollars. The budget cost of Medicare Part D is approximately $1 trillion every ten years. In other words, Obama would need to pass seven stimulus bills to equal the impact of just those three budget busters.

And unlike Bush's policies, a stimulus wasn't really an option. I don't think anyone in their right mind thinks that McCain would not have developed a very large stimulus of his own, though it may have been, say, tax cuts for the top ten percent instead of jobs for construction workers.

* The actual increase in discretionary spending between Bush's last year and Obama's first is essentially 100% stimulus. The increase looks much bigger than the $250B appropriated for stimulus that year, but the remainder is Obama bringing onto the books things Bush did through separate bills to make the budget look smaller, like the war authorization and the AMT patch.

I didn't hold Afghanistan against either party, as its hard to disentangle who is responsible for what there.

You throw around this stimulus like it's the greatest thing ever. When the economy dips again in a couple of years and the piper must finally be paid, where will you be? The stimulus did nothing but prolong the inevitable. Of course, it's the attempt to buy more years at the expense of future generations. Well done.

[JonInMiddleGA]

Originally Posted by Greyroofoo

To me it's not a question of who got us INTO this mess but who can get us OUT of this mess.

And if the answer is "no one", then what?

[RainMaker]

Was Obama ever against the Afghanistan war? I thought this is what he campaigned on. That he would put more pressure on that part of the war no matter how retarded it was. He had to pick a country to appease the chickenhawks when neither country should have been chosen.

[molson]

Originally Posted by RainMaker

Was Obama ever against the Afghanistan war? I thought this is what he campaigned on. That he would put more pressure on that part of the war no matter how retarded it was. He had to pick a country to appease the chickenhawks when neither country should have been chosen.

All I remember is something about closing GITMO his first year in office. After that, I stopped taking the foreign policy part of his campaign seriously.

[RainMaker]

Then why are you talking about him if you didn't even know the stance of one of the Presidential candidates?

Obama calls situation in Afghanistan 'urgent' - CNN.com

[molson]

Originally Posted by RainMaker

Then why are you talking about him if you didn't even know the stance of one of the Presidential candidates?

Obama calls situation in Afghanistan 'urgent' - CNN.com

I was making a little joke. But yes, I definitely remember pretty much all of the Democrats telling us how Afghanistan was the "right war".

[molson]

Originally Posted by RainMaker

Then why are you talking about him if you didn't even know the stance of one of the Presidential candidates?

Obama calls situation in Afghanistan 'urgent' - CNN.com

I was making a little joke. But yes, I definitely remember pretty much all of the Democrats telling us how Afghanistan was the "right war".

I thought they were just saying that so they wouldn't appear "soft on terrorism". (i.e. you couldn't criticize one war unless you supported or suggested another). But maybe they actually believed it.

[sterlingice]

Originally Posted by Greyroofoo

According the Wikipedia, a F-22 costs 150 million. And they're just so much cooler than a school lunch.

SI

[JediKooter]

Originally Posted by JonInMiddleGA

And if the answer is "no one", then what?

There's never going to be a solution if people keep voting for the same people over and over and over and over and over and over.

[SirFozzie]

Probably just a "actually getting things done" bump, but interesting news, the Democrats have retaken a six point lead in the Generic D v Generic R polls. May be a bit too early for Republicans in the House and senate to start laying out who gets what when they take over..

Democrats take generic ballot lead - Andy Barr - POLITICO.com

[albionmoonlight]

Originally Posted by SirFozzie

Probably just a "actually getting things done" bump, but interesting news, the Democrats have retaken a six point lead in the Generic D v Generic R polls. May be a bit too early for Republicans in the House and senate to start laying out who gets what when they take over..

Democrats take generic ballot lead - Andy Barr - POLITICO.com

I still fear the GOP, so I'd like to take this poll to heart. But mid-terms are all about base enthusiasm. And I think that the GOP has that in droves. Personally, I think that the GOP has been a bit too shrill to attract the moderates, but that won't be a factor until 2012. I imagine that most moderates will stay home this November.

Of course, I may be totally wrong about all of this. It just seems right to me.

[JPhillips]

I wonder if the GOP presidential hopefuls are wishing for not quite majority gains. Seems like the worst that happen for the GOP is to actually give them the reigns of power. I doubt the public would be in a mood to elect a GOP president after two years of endless investigations and Tea Party bills.

[albionmoonlight]

Originally Posted by JPhillips

I wonder if the GOP presidential hopefuls are wishing for not quite majority gains. Seems like the worst that happen for the GOP is to actually give them the reigns of power. I doubt the public would be in a mood to elect a GOP president after two years of endless investigations and Tea Party bills.

And everyone in D.C., I am sure, remembers how Clinton, who was weak enough in 1994 to hand control of Congress to Gingrich, became unbeatable by 1996 because he had two years to pump himself up by slamming Gingrich.

[rowech]

Originally Posted by albionmoonlight

And everyone in D.C., I am sure, remembers how Clinton, who was weak enough in 1994 to hand control of Congress to Gingrich, became unbeatable by 1996 because he had two years to pump himself up by slamming Gingrich.

Didn't help that the Republicans ran someone who had no chance of ever winning simply because of the way he looked.

[larrymcg421]

Latest Gallup poll actually has Dems ahead on Generic Congressional ballot 49-43:

http://www.gallup.com/poll/141440/De...ic-Ballot.aspx

[SirFozzie]

*poke poke poke* see at 3:26

Oh, and in cynical news.. with the temporary replacement for the late Senator Byrd in, the Senate broke a GOP filibuster and are close to passing a bill restoring jobless benefits (retroactive to June 2nd), and the benefits will expire in.. November. Gee, I wonder why they chose THAT date.. :P

[flere-imsaho]

Originally Posted by rowech

Didn't help that the Republicans ran someone who had no chance of ever winning simply because of the way he looked.

That's a curious explanation for Bob Dole's loss.

Crippled arm aside (which, really, no one ever really noticed), Dole looked just like any other politician at the time.

Dole lost because the economy was surging, Dole didn't offer a compelling alternative to Clinton's campaign and lots of people got back on Clinton's side as he won the image war with Gingrich's Congress. In roughly that order, IMO.

[JonInMiddleGA]

Originally Posted by flere-imsaho

Dole lost because the economy was surging, Dole didn't offer a compelling alternative to Clinton's campaign and lots of people got back on Clinton's side as he won the image war with Gingrich's Congress. In roughly that order, IMO.

You left out "Dole to that point had shown the personality of a brick", which I believe definitely belongs on the list of top 3-4 reasons somewhere.

[flere-imsaho]

Originally Posted by JonInMiddleGA

You left out "Dole to that point had shown the personality of a brick", which I believe definitely belongs on the list of top 3-4 reasons somewhere.

I was bundling that in my second point ("compelling alternative"), but could have been more clear. He didn't provide a compelling alternative to Clinton from either a policy or personality/image standpoint.

But mainly people had jobs and the economy was starting to expand rapidly. Not six years earlier everyone had been quite scared about jobs and economic prospects (though that seems quaint now, given our current context). Dole didn't really stand a chance.

[molson]

Here was who the Republicans passed up in 1996, (in order of popular votes across the primaries, after Dole, who ended up with 58.82%).

Pat Buchanan - 3,184,943 (20.76%)
Steve Forbes - 1,751,187 (11.41%)
Lamar Alexander - 495,590 (3.23%)
Alan Keyes - 471,716 (3.08%)
Richard Lugar - 127,111 (0.83%)
Unpledged - 123,278 (0.80%)
Phil Gramm - 71,456 (0.47%)
Bob Dornan - 42,140 (0.28%)
Morry Taylor - 21,180 (0.14%)

Who knows, maybe Alexander or Luger would have been a better general election option than Dole....but looking at these lists makes me just somewhat suspicious that perhaps the best, most intelligent, most capabable Americans aren't going into politics (and from an overall qualifications/competence/achievement standard - Dole blows all of these guys away).

[flere-imsaho]

The common wisdom at the time was that Clinton was going to be pretty hard to beat (he rebounded from 1994 pretty quickly) and thus most of the "major" GOP candidates stayed away. Further, it felt like Dole got the nod mainly as a "lifetime achievement" award from the GOP.

[molson]

Originally Posted by flere-imsaho

The common wisdom at the time was that Clinton was going to be pretty hard to beat (he rebounded from 1994 pretty quickly) and thus most of the "major" GOP candidates stayed away. Further, it felt like Dole got the nod mainly as a "lifetime achievement" award from the GOP.

I remember everyone talking about Colin Powell as a challenger to Clinton. Wikipedia says the other major names that were encouraged to run but ended up sitting out were GWB, Cheney, and Rumsfield. (Who perhaps all got together and decided to put together a "dream team" when they were all free agents in 2000.)

There just isn't a whole lot of exciting presidential candidates anymore, it seems.

[flere-imsaho]

Yeah, I went to wiki as well because I was trying to remember some more of the "big names" who declined to run. I don't really remember talk about Cheney or GWB, to be honest (the latter still being an unknown outside of Texas, if I remember correctly). I do remember this was, I think, the first cycle where Powell got talked about a fair bit, and I seem to recall there was a pretty significant Pete Wilson movement before he took himself out of the race.

I'll bet (though I can't remember exactly) that Kemp was probably another one who took himself out and ended up being Dole's VP pick.

[JPhillips]

Originally Posted by flere-imsaho

I was bundling that in my second point ("compelling alternative"), but could have been more clear. He didn't provide a compelling alternative to Clinton from either a policy or personality/image standpoint.

But mainly people had jobs and the economy was starting to expand rapidly. Not six years earlier everyone had been quite scared about jobs and economic prospects (though that seems quaint now, given our current context). Dole didn't really stand a chance.

I was reading a bit of a paper recently that showed the economy as the main predictor of whether or not the incumbent wins from President to Governor. Other things matter around the margin, but it really is the economy, stupid.

[flere-imsaho]

Just because I'm geeking out now, I'll note that perhaps the most important pre-election event (in my opinion) was the government shutdown face-off at the end of 1995 between Clinton & Gingrich which Clinton is generally considered to have "won". I remember my parents trying to get their passports renewed at this time, which was GOOD FUN.

Anyway, Gingrich's massive loss of face in the national press put the brakes on (if not seriously derailed) the "Republican Revolution" and gave Clinton a massive boost. As the primary season then got underway (back then it didn't really start until the actual year of the election - oh those heady days), it quickly became clear that Clinton was going to be very tough to beat and all of the serious GOP challengers to Dole melted away.

[flere-imsaho]

Originally Posted by JPhillips

I was reading a bit of a paper recently that showed the economy as the main predictor of whether or not the incumbent wins from President to Governor. Other things matter around the margin, but it really is the economy, stupid.

Krugman referenced this in his latest NYT column: http://www.princeton.edu/~bartels/econpres.pdf

Krugman, quoting Bartels: “Objective economic conditions — not clever television ads, debate performances, or the other ephemera of day-to-day campaigning — are the single most important influence upon an incumbent president’s prospects for re-election.” If the economy is improving strongly in the months before an election, incumbents do well; if it’s stagnating or retrogressing, they do badly.

[JPhillips]

I don't necessarily want to dive too deeply into the bullshit Sherrod story, but the White House canning this woman is disgraceful. It's the act of weak, and fearful poll watchers. Both Vilsack and Obama owe that woman an apology.

[JediKooter]

For the record: I was not offended by that womans remarks.

[JonInMiddleGA]

Originally Posted by molson

There just isn't a whole lot of exciting presidential candidates anymore, it seems.

You think that's bad, you ought to see what shows up to run for governor in Georgia. Exciting? Hell, it's hard to find "tolerable".

[JonInMiddleGA]

Speaking of Georgia elections anyway ... some darned good dogfights in the down ballot races, including the (D) nomination for Labor Commish, less than 1,000 votes apart out of 288k counted so far and the top 2 (R) candidates for Insurance Commish separated by less than 3k votes out of over 500k counted. Still only 70% of precincts reporting, so these are likely going to go down to counting the mailed in paper early voting ballots.

Higher profile races mostly settled, including former Gov Roy Barnes gets the (D) nomination without a runoff, congressional incumbents all winning their party primaries (mostly unopposed) except for recently elected Tom Graves in the 9th (Nathan Deal's old seat) who will just miss out on avoiding a runoff against the same challenger who he just beat back in June.

edit to add: Looks like it'll be the Palin-backed Karen Handel (former Sec. of State) vs the Gingrich-backed Nathan Deal (former U.S. rep) in the GOP runoff for governor in Georgia. Kind of an interesting showdown in that regard, at least on the surface & I'm sure that angle will get media play. The frontrunner throughout the campaign, John Oxendine (state Insurance Comm.) ends up 4th. I don't see how anyone could deny the presence of a Palin effect, Handel's surge to a 33% finish coincided very closely to the endorsement, not sure whether Gingrich's support was enough to push Deal to 2nd or if it was just Ox reluctance & the third place finisher being unable to attract as many of the defectors as Deal did.

[ISiddiqui]

Yeah, very surprising Oxendine finished 4th! I mean, I can see a "Palin effect", but Ox dropping that far is shocking. And I wonder if it'll hurt the Palin brand any that Handel was considered one of the more moderate Republicans in the race.

[JonInMiddleGA]

Originally Posted by ISiddiqui

Yeah, very surprising Oxendine finished 4th! I mean, I can see a "Palin effect", but Ox dropping that far is shocking. And I wonder if it'll hurt the Palin brand any that Handel was considered one of the more moderate Republicans in the race.

It definitely hurt Palin with me, her endorsement of Handel borders close to unforgivable.

Whether it has a broader impact will depend upon how effectively Deal can hammer away at Handel, if he's successful then Palin's cachet suffers some (and probably provides a model on how to neutralize/marginalize her within the party, attacking her every misstep that runs against the base). If he isn't, then she comes away largely unscathed.

[DaddyTorgo]

You vote for things like Insurance Commissioner and Labor Commissioner? That's so...i dunno...quaint.

[molson]

Originally Posted by DaddyTorgo

You vote for things like Insurance Commissioner and Labor Commissioner? That's so...i dunno...quaint.

I voted for a county coroner earlier this year. That was pretty awesome. I just wish there had been a debate.