It's also amusing to hear each part, in turn, talk about "mandates" from the people. These "mandates" are, at best, vague, but probably more fictional than anything else. Furthermore, a "mandate" only appears to be cause for hysterical obstructionism which is somewhat counter intuitive given the standard definition of the word. It's comedy in a sad sort of tragic way, but I think it really highlights how perfectly de-politicized the American electorate and government has become. It's just a giant machine - controversy is inherent and welcomed only insomuch as it maintains the status quo behind the silly speeches and current lamesauce scandals.
Republicans could have had a say if they were saying anything other than "clean sheet of paper." That isn't contributing, it is ceding control of the process to the other side.
President Obama has proven to be far better at running for President than he is at leading his party during midterm elections. I expect him to be very competitive in 2012 and he'll probably win. I don't expect him to face a serious challenge for the nomination, as he has co-opted the one person who could mount a credible campaign. The losses in the House are a blow, but the majority the Republicans have is actually quite smaller than the one prior to the 2008 election. With the Senate, I'd love for Reid to be unseated as Leader. One can only hope.
There is no doubt that inability to fully get the message out about that the stimulus package cut taxes and that TARP is being paid back contributed but without unemployment dropping below 8% it was inevitable that the Democrats were going to lose. As you note the Democrats couldn't pass a larger stimulus package and the one passed didn't lower unemployment as much as promised. I am convinced that if unemployment had dropped significantly nothing else would have mattered.
Outside of massively nationalizing and or injecting huge amounts of government capital (far larger than the stimulus bill) into the private economy there really isn't much the Federal government can do to reduce unemployment in the short term. Those things weren't going to happen.
The unemployment rate dropping below 9% would have made a big difference, IMO. The public perception was that the economy was treading water. One of the things the President could have done that might have helped some would have been far more appearances with a shovel, at the start of projects funded by the recovery bill. Old fashioned? Sure. Also effective. There are far more things that could have been done differently. I hope complacency is finally put in the dumpster, and passion comes to the fore. We'll see.
True other things could've been done that might've limited the amount of seats won by the Republicans but with unemployment remaining high it was inevitable that the Democrats would lose seats.
Meet your new Gov of Florida: This is one Dems left on the table... they needed a stronger candidate.
Its a little late for this. I haven't been following the FL gov. race but it sounds like the Dem. dropped out while trailing by less than 1%. I am wondering why if the race is that close why he isn't pressing for a recount.
would have made his later admission that there were no shovel ready projects that much harder to live down.
Stimulus Bill wasnt effective and that was created by... TARP was effective, paid back and then some which was created by... There are plenty of things they could do even if they have to create a WPA II. I'd rather pay more for people to work than not work. They could have also done more to help working people with underwater mtgs refinance. Costly options? Yes. Devalue the dollar? Yes. But I think sometimes you have to do something (like TARP) even if you don't like it and hope for the best. Once you get this country back on it's feet - then you start balancing the budget and paying down the loans. Without more action, we are going to be in a looooonnnngggggg recovery period (5+ years). I don't care who fixes it, but it needs fixing. If dems want to say we tried and it didn't work, what else could we do, then I think American's can show them that unemployment figure up close in a couple more years. You can't give up or we all lose.
If you are advocating for something like WPA you are advocating for a far greater input of government spending and intrusion into the economy than the Stimulus bill. There were proposals to help people with mortgages which also would've cost a lot of money. If that is what you are advocating the Admin. and Congress should've done that is not the message that the Republicans were campaigning on which was almost the exact opposite, less government spending. Regarding the stimulus I think there is a good argument for that it was too little but I think what else needs to be considered is that the benefits of it aren't immediately obvious. If difficult to envision, and campaign, on what would've happened if the stimulus wasn't passed which is according to most economists things would've been much worse. It wasn't ineffective just not as effective as promised. The Dems. had large majorities but not unchallengeable majorities, and even there the Dems. weren't completely united. What you are advocating would've never have passed.
Regarding the stimulus, the democrats put themselves in a position to be crucified when unemployment didn't drop and the economy didn't do a big turnaround. They campaigned on the idea that they could fix it. They harped on the idea that the stimulus would help unemployment. They are the ones who even threw numbers out, setting limits on where unemployment would go if they passed Stimulus. When they then turn around and try to get a different (probably true) narrative about how it takes time, things are moving in the right direction, we're making progress, etc. it sounds like weak sauce. We'll see it in the offseason when McNair, Smith and Kubiak try to sell us that this season was progress even if we don't make the playoffs, despite the hype before the season about this being the year. When you make bold statements and promises about what you will accomplish, you can't be surprised when you get fired when you don't deliver.
Obama's naivety hurt him a lot. He allowed others to define him early and paint him as a big spend liberal when in reality he cut taxes and increased troops. His spending was confined to the stimulus which he did a terrible job selling as a necessity and he didn't set expectations nor manage his image. He surrounded himself with practical thinkers and problem silvers but not people in touch with conventional thinking and perspective. He walked in with all these ideas and had no idea what he was in for. He got creamed but at the same time accomplished a lot and is still standing. Now its time for him to be bold again and stop coming accross as hesitent and trying to please everyone. He is too much the opposite of Bush. He needs to define himself and the tensing term of his presidency. What is he about? Because I am not even sure. I think he has to cast himself as someone who has heard the voice of the people that despite what he has done they are worried. Worried about their livlihood and that of our nation. I don't think american believes the tea party nor the republicans have the answer either. They are just trying to change what they see as not working. Obama has talked about jobs and deficits then let's see him drop the other stuff and focus on that. If he does that then he will get reelected.
Yes I am advocating more govt spending - in the right areas - at the right time. Did they even try something like that? Sure they might have started with a bigger billl but it was poorly laid out and just a waste of money. If you really started with a good plan, you can't say it wouldn't pass because of the cost if you didn't try. Sure you might have to have a cap and not put everyone back to work but at least you have hard jobs. I'm still enjoying some things that WPA built. I doubt anyone outside of the benficiary enjoys unemployment benefits. And even if it doesn't pass, then you go back and design something else. At least you tried. Even if it means staying late and not campaining. How would that look if you stayed back working and the reps took time off to travel and stump. They aren't thinking outside the box. TARP was very expensive but necessary. In the end it actually turned also be somewhat profitable. The pitiful thing the dems did pass was doomed to fail. I don't count it would have been 9.7 instead of 9.6 as a "not as effective" success - that was a fail. Then watching it fail and then not trying something new was a double fail IMO. Anyone against a bill that will generate more hard jobs in this economy will not be popular next election period. TARP was a hugh risk and it paid off. If the dems (who fought TARP by the way - the thing they use in their article as a hey look at the good we're doing) don't want to take the same kinds of risks needed to correct economy, then they should be shown the door - as many were last night. Hurrah - we spent less on a "stimulous bill" to save our children money. Problem is our kids aren't earning any money because they don't have a job.
