Are republicans willing to let the economy fail to win an election?

Geez...

I could do more research and pull up plenty of examples but I'm not going to bother with this anymore. You seem to be fixated about this to the point that when I am basically agreeing with you you won't settle for anything short of absolute agreement.

 

Stop acting like Obama! Damn!

 

I am trying to follow exactly what is being debated here the last couple of pages and it appears to be an interesting, but somewhat confusing multi-sided debate between Major, Rhad, Pgabriel and Deckard.

If I can sum up your points it appears:
Rhad is criticizing Obama for being essentially a closet conservative who hasn't done enough to advance / protect liberal issues.
Deckard is close to Rhad's view put's a partisan spin that he needs to do more for his party.
Major thinks Obama actually is much more conservative than people think and is beyond party.
Pgabriel loves Obama.

With the full understanding that I will piss all of you off by being a wishy washy fence sitter yet again I think there is some truth to all of those positions. I frequently criticized the Obama 2008 campaign for being vague and nebulous and I think this is partially the consequence of that as we have four people who were ardent Obama supporters back in 2008 arguing now about the Obama Admin.. Obama became a cipher in many ways were people projected what they believed how Obama would govern when given his relatively short record in national politics I think things weren't clear exactly how he would be.

Besides just his record his style has been one that is hard to get a handle on. He is an intellectual who likes to see all sides of an issue and a pragmatist (remind you guys of somebody ) who believes in getting things done and is more than willing to horse trade to get that done. At the same time for one so gifted in oratory he hasn't really been able to craft a central vision of what his Administration is about.

 

Anyway how did a thread criticizing Republicans get turned into a debate about Obama?

 

"More" research? You haven't done any. And don't even act like I'm following you around for no reason. This is on-topic -- in fact it IS the topic -- and you just repeated it again, so I replied.

You continue to parrot the lazy talking point that "both sides do it," with zero to back it up, when that is patently untrue.

I'm not fixated on it, but every time that you say it again I will reply to say no, wrong, you've shown no evidence of this, not even a tiny bit, and your caveats are worthless as long as you keep repeating this baseless meme.

When you say "both sides do it but..." you are not "basically agreeing with me." You are saying the polar opposite of what I am saying. Hear me now, I guess for the first time: both sides do NOT do it. AT ALL. Prove me wrong with just a scrap. You can't and you haven't even tried. You are dodging like basso here.

"More research?" Hilarious. Yes, how about more than zero?

 

Because Republicans are willing to let the economy fail to win an election, that much has been true for a while, and many Republican-leaning posters here on the BBS agree with them, even the non-joke ones.

The fact that there's even a "serious" debate about whether or not the US should default on its loans and toss the global economy into chaos should clue anybody in on this.

 

I'm sorry! ;-)-

I enjoyed reading this post. While I think your characterizations are a bit narrow, at least in my case (perhaps a bit broad in others), the gist of what you're saying has some truth in it. I particularly like that you pointed out Obama's lack of record in national politics when he ran, and that some of his supporters "filled in" what they wanted to believe. However, he actually took many positions during his campaign that were progressive and, in some cases, liberal, and while it is common for politicians in this country to say pretty much anything to get elected, I honestly thought the President would adhere more to those positions once he took office. He has disappointed me. One of the worst things he did, from my perspective, is cave on the "temporary" tax cut for the rich. Obama DID NOT have to give in on that issue. I keep hearing that it was needed to pass other things, that to not do it would hurt the Democratic Party in the elections. I never thought that, but many did. Guess what. It didn't matter. Not a bit. Could the Democratic Party have done any worse in the midterms? Is that even possible?

So he contributed to the deficit, contributed a lot, by caving to the GOP. He gets no credit for it from Republicans. In my opinion, Obama hurt Democratic chances in the midterms by caving on this issue. It was a mistake. I heard at the time that that fight would come again in a couple of years, so why worry? The chaos swirling around Washington right now is evidence, at least to me, that an opportunity was lost. A chance to make the tax system just a tad less skewed against the middle class was lost. The control of Congress was lost in the House, as was the ability to do what was needed with tax policy. The fight should have been then. It wasn't, and for that, the President deserves a nice helping of blame.

 

The facts are so elusive! If only we had video!


<iframe width="560" height="349" src="http://www.youtube.com/embed/4mRRKz9E0m8" frameborder="0" allowfullscreen></iframe>

<iframe width="425" height="349" src="http://www.youtube.com/embed/8USRg3h4AdE" frameborder="0" allowfullscreen></iframe>

<iframe width="425" height="349" src="http://www.youtube.com/embed/gF3MC-TkpRQ" frameborder="0" allowfullscreen></iframe>

 

Obama didn't cave on the issue before the midterms. He was the one pushing Congress to vote on it. Pelosi was getting pushback from members in vulnerable districts - for whatever reason, they didn't want to take that vote, so the Congressional leaders decided against forcing the issue. I think all of us here at the time were in agreement that this was a terrible decision and costly to Democrats. But Obama only negotiated away that issue in the December lameduck session - after the elections - in order to get DADT, etc. Prior to the elections, Obama was squarely on the "please vote on this" side of the issue.

 

I know this won't affect anyone here, but this is a decent listen to all who have never been in any Economics teachings...

<iframe width="560" height="349" src="http://www.youtube.com/embed/d0nERTFo-Sk" frameborder="0" allowfullscreen></iframe>

 

<iframe width="480" height="390" src="http://www.youtube.com/embed/aC-go5Xx23U?hd=1#t=0m27s" frameborder="0" allowfullscreen></iframe>

 

I was being somewhat tongue and cheek with the characterizations so they weren't meant to catch any nuance.

Just found it the back and forth interesting.

Obama did make some promises but if I recall he also couched many of those with qualifiers while he was also vague about many of them too. That said there can be no doubt that he has let down liberals but given that Obama's campaign put forward the idea that he was going to change the tone of government it would be inevitable that he would let down liberals at some point. Changing the tone would mean compromising with Republicans at some point. FWIW, he's also failed to change the tone of government but I don't think all of that can be laid on Obama.

As for something specific like caving in on continuing the Bush tax cuts. I personally didn't agree with that but it does seem like a lot of things got passed because he agreed to that and if I was to score it just based on what Obama got versus what Republicans got it seems like he got more.

As far as how this helped or hurt Democrat chances that particular compromise was after the elections so that didn't factor in. Laying Democratic failures all on Obama's door step I don't think is that fair. With the economy down and a long drawn out health care fight in was inevitable the Democrats were going to take a hit. At the same time we shouldn't underestimate the effort and energy put out by the GOP and Tea Party movement. They turned out people to the polls which in a midterm election is what usually makes a difference.

Once again I believe that compromise was after the election so it had no impact on it. Also if I recall the Republicans were holding hostage the budget to the tax cuts, another example of Republicans willing to court disaster, so while it was a cave on Obama's part he had good reasons to make that deal.

As I said before I didn't agree with that compromise at all at the time but looking back it did prove advantageous, at least in the short term.

 

on gitmo, obama doesn't have support of his party. i'm not sure what the legalities are as far as his authority to close it on his own, but where to put the prisoners becomes a political issue.

my take, i really don't know

i think obama caved a bit on having trials against terror suspects in federal courts as opposed to miltary tribunals

I really don't see the point of prosecuting whistleblower from the nsa, but i think it isn't a broken promise. national security causes a gray area imo

 

i'm gonna go back on one thing about clinton, balancing the budget is actually a democratic ideal if you look at spending under republican presidents.

 

I feel so many more rolleyes than one for this post and for your failure to support your poor argument, but to keep repeating it anyway.

It is as if you said "I agree that socialism is basically the same as fascism" then I said "no they're not, at ALL, and here's why" then you said "okay you have a point but they're still the same" then I said "prove it, prove it with one single flimsy piece of support" then you said "I agree that socialism is basically the same as fascism but there are caveats" then I said "no, no you are totally wrong, PLEASE some support for your argument please" then you said "Geez. Rolleyes. I'm in basic agreement with you and I'm not going to bother with this anymore."

You get an "F" in debating. Very lazy and disappointing.

 

I laughed. repped.

I've said this sort of thing before but I'll say it again just in case my posts in this thread have gone too far in one tangent or another...

In an interview some time ago, Obama pointed out that he acknowledged not everyone was happy but that his real goals were to "move forward", that is "to get things done". In that vein I acknowledge his compromises as part of what he has to do, particularly with such a recalcitrant opposition party.

However, what I don't like (and what I really agree with re: Greenwald) is that I think Obama sells short his capabilities and positions, and usually in a way that strikes me as blatant catering to the powers-that-be. Some might call that politics, I call it nasty. I'm anti anything that furthers our debilitating social stratification. I dislike maneuvers that throw the poor, the sick, the children under a bus, simply to achieve some pseudo-compromise. More to the point, often these compromises undermine or just outright throw away the most reasonable options for the sake of some bitter ideological dispute - and it's done in such a way that begs the observation that this "moderate" position was the real goal from day one. That's...I dunno...defeatist.

 

I'm Chinese and I approve this message.

 

I think they are saying from the Chinese point of view it would be better for Michele Bachmann to run the country as since she would run it to the ground it would help China.

Anyway I think they are saying that sarcastically.

 

this is exactly how this is playing out. the repubs walked on a small deal, now they are walking on a big deal, i hope the american people are paying attention.