Obama to Cave to GOP and Cut Medicare, Medicaid and Social Security

I basically agree with all this with just one quibble:

Obama's not asking for a "hike" or raise in taxes. He is only asking to let the Bush tax cut for the rich, which was passed with an expiration date, to actually expire.

That's not an Obama-inspired hike; the cut was always intended to be temporary and Bush's own expiration date for it has already passed.

 

Another, more real-world, way to put it.

If you get a one-time bonus at work which boosts your income that year, but which you've been told will be a one-time deal only, and then the next year you don't get it, yes, your income is lower than it was last year, but have you gotten a pay "cut?" Of course not. I'm sick of people saying this is a tax hike. It isn't.

 

Man Clinton really knows how to play the game right. Obama needs to learn some of this.

http://www.nationalmemo.com/article...he-would-use-constitutional-option-raise-debt

 

This part is particularly awesome. I was never a great fan of Bill Clinton but he is an exceptionally talented dude and he has an incredible mind.

 

Wha do you guys think Of the Gang of 6 compromise?

 

I just skimmed an article on it and I didn't see the revenues. Are they there? All I saw was spending cuts and tax cuts. I'm also curious to know if there are significant cuts to defense spending.

Since you're apparently familiar with it could you give me your take on those two issues?

 

Maybe it's time you took a second look at him. Clinton is no different today than he's always been. What irks me is that a man as intelligent as President Obama either doesn't possess Clinton's political savvy or instincts, or else he's kept those traits pretty well hidden since getting elected. Obama should have the Republican leadership back on its heels, instead of appearing to react to their playbook. I hope he's listening to former President Clinton's advice. Why Obama seems to have put the man who ran for the office he holds in a closet, instead of front and center, is a mystery to me. That's my opinion.

 

I've probably taken more looks at him than 99% of the population. I read everything on politics I can find. And the 1992 election was the peak of my obsession with politics. I know more about that era than I do about what's going on today.

And I do think he's different. I think he's evolved a lot, even during his presidency. In comparing him to Obama, go back and see how effective Clinton was in his first 2 years in office. His health care bill failed terribly and he had to remake himself entirely after dangerously low numbers due to dangerously few accomplishments (and a few big failures) in his first couple years. He did this largely by tacking right and triangulating himself between the Republicans and his own party. Yeah, he was a tougher guy than Obama, but he wasn't a better Democrat.

He changed tremendously during his presidency though. One of the things I never liked about Clinton was that he was a very poll-driven president and governor. I believe it all goes back to the first race he lost, which was a re-election effort in Arkansas. When he ran to retake his position he was very clear with Arkansans that he heard them and that he would give them what they wanted rather than what he wanted. Try and find an unpopular position he took other than the failed health care deal.

I also deplored Don't Ask, Don't Tell, especially when his promise had been to repeal the ban on gays in the military and he actually promised it would be his first act. Well, it wasn't and it was the first official U.S. law to not only endorse, but to insist upon, closeting.

And I thought his welfare reform bill was beneath contempt. Loved him in the former Yugoslavia though. That was balls and a big win.

Obama hasn't done anything anywhere near as horrible in my eyes as Clinton's welfare reform yet, though the welfare reform stuff came through later in Bill's presidency so O's got some time.

But I think he's grown far more since his presidency. His awkward and sometimes embarrassing moves during Hilary v. Obama, notwithstanding I think he's been a tremendous ex-president and elder statesman. But he was always a genius. That's never been in dispute.

 

It's sort of amusing to see the deification of Clinton by progressives these days. He was everything that it seems people hate about Obama. His one true progressive policy initiative - health care reform - was a miserable failure. For all of his personal charm and popularity, he oversaw the destruction of a multi-decade Democratic majority in the House, after which he abandoned all attempts at progressive legislation and moved directly to the center. He enacted DADT and DOMA, which people now yell at Obama for not opposing forcefully enough. His second term saw no domestic policy accomplishments of note and focused almost entirely on foreign policy. For all that, he seems to be considered the model President to progressives.

For a centrist, it was perfect - because it led to great middle-of-the-road policy prescriptions that worked well. It's exactly the route Obama has taken, but is constantly criticized for. The only real difference was that (a) Obama did accomplish actual liberal policy items and (b) Clinton was popular, in large part due to being President during the midst of a global economic boom, while Obama became President at the beginning of the worst financial crisis in 70 years. History clearly tells us that approval ratings are substantially tied to economic growth - reverse the two and Obama would have been as popular as ever, and Clinton would be hated.

It reminds me a lot of how Republicans think of Reagan as the perfect Republican - nevermind his willingness to raise taxes, provide amnesty, and all sorts of other things that would be completely unacceptable in today's GOP. Time seems to heal all wounds.

 

Damn, Major. I think you're probably the best poster on this forum. You're certainly my favorite to read.

 

I'm not deifying his political positions. He compromised on far too much.

What he was really good at was playing the game. He knew how to deflect blame and get credit. The Contract with America was by far a better organized Republican effort to galvanize support than the current Republican nonsense, yet Clinton got credit for most of the provisions of it that got passed. He also knew when to speak up. Go replay Clinton's interviews and speeches during the government shutdown. He talked down the Republicans repeatedly and he wasn't particularly presidential about it. I wish Obama took that attitude right now. The Republican debt ceiling is childish and asinine and someone needs to act a little more like an adult. A little bit of anger and frustration is a good thing right now because he should be frustrated.

I've said it earlier that Clinton and Obama are largely the same in terms of their politics but Clinton reaped the political rewards for his compromises yet no one gives Obama a shred of credit for the compromises with the Republicans. Obama is a poor salesman. That's my issue with him. The Republicans have just been superior at developing a message (no matter how stupid it is). And Obama has done a poor job of countering that narrative.

I mean take a look at the interviews with Clinton on the Daily Show before the 2010 election. He sells a narrative on what the Democratic position should be as opposed to the directionless mess that preceded that election. Democrats continually overthink and over-analyze everything when people want simple and straightforward messages to digest. Obama succeeded in the 2008 election in large part because of an overly generic campaign slogan of change and hope that got liberals on board (who thought he would be some super progressive) and moderates/independents (who thought that he would just not be President Bush).

Clinton knows how to play politics. Obama is still learning. But to be fair, Clinton wasn't that great in 1992 either. He learned over time and I think Obama will do the same.

 

He better learn fast, because he's coming up for reelection, and the polls are not looking good.

I don't know about the rest of you, but I shudder to think what Romney will do if elected, and I don't think America can survive another neo con President.

 

Just so you know, I have looked at him more than 99.53% of the population. I agree with your assessment and didn't particularly like him, I just wanted you to know about the extra percentage points.

I do think he is the greatest politician of my life so far, though. He was like TMac - all talent, no heart or follow-through...although he did win two National Championships.

 

I don't know if it's a case of time healing all wounds so much as the fact that the splinterizing of the information age allows people to live in their own fact-insulated realities more so than ever before.

 

I have not reviewed it, but my understanding is there are cuts to defense spending. The additional revenue comes from following the deficit reduction committe by reducing the tax rates, but getting rid of deductions.

If my understanding is correct, then I am all for it.

 

I agree he was great at all that stuff. But what did any of that get him? The GOP still gained substantial majorities. And no progressive policies got enacted, so it's not like he was successfully influencing legislation that much. All it did was help his personal popularity. It strikes me as very similar to what Obama is doing - but no President is going to be popular in a 9% unemployment environment. If the economy was great, everyone would love Obama right now too.

I agree with this - he does a fantastic job in framing issues well. But he was happy to compromise with the GOP and run away from progressive policies - that seems to be what, at the end of the day, upsets liberals the most about Obama.

It's worth noting that he barely touched on the themes of hope and change in the general election. Most of that sloganeering was in the primary - his general election campaign was focused strongly on very specific issues, and his policy positions were far more detailed than McCain, or even Bush/Kerry/Gore in the last several elections. I do agree he benefited tremendously from the political environment in 2008 though. Clinton, however, similarly benefited to a lesser extent in 1992 with a recession going on and in 1996 with a weak opponent (as Obama may very well see in 2012).

 

I haven't seen too many details either, but my understanding is that the "$1.5 trillion in tax cuts" is misleading. It lets the GOPers get on board by "cutting taxes", but it really doesn't. It's all in the form of a permanent AMT fix - right now, they just fix it every year instead, so it all comes out the same. But this way, they get to do it all at once and say they cut taxes over 10 years.

 

With all of this, I expect Obama to pull a GW Bush maneuver - once he gets re-elected, he'll consider it a mandate, and just use things like Executive Orders to get things done.

 

Well you have to look at it as two separate time periods. The two years before the Republican takeover were filled with a mix of overly-ambitious work and bungled legislation. (The exception being DADT which was a terrible compromise that didnt make anyone happy) But other things such as the deficit reduction bill that raised the highest income bracket (in exchange for lowering taxes on others but nonetheless a net revenue increase with attached spending restraints), the Brady Bill, and the attempted health care reform can at least be labeled as progressive in some ways.

After that you obviously saw more of the triangulation (specifically on contract with america provisions) and I certainly am not a fan of those bills. At the same time he still pushed through the Children's Health Insurance Program (with a republican congress and senate), his work on Israel and the Middle East has not been duplicated since and the Bosnian intervention. But yes there are tons of Clinton bills that are a thorn but honestly I'm not sure he could've done much once the Republicans got into power.

But the important thing to note is that if youre going to compromise like Clinton, at least get credit for it. The Republicans are so bold now that they're holding us hostage on debt ceiling negotiations because they were convinced they could extract some terrible compromise and then get all the credit for it. That's what angers me about Obama. I get the compromising part right now. (I do wish he'd gone gung ho in 2008 and just gone Tom Delay on the Senate and made them vote how he wanted so we could have a public option, real financial reform, etc.. I mean seriously arm twist the hell out of them, make them stay up until 3:00 AM in session and sleep deprive them, just every play from the Tom Delay playbook)

Yeah but Clinton was always going to compromise. He'd been the type of guy before he had even run for president. He was part of the DLCC and the New Democrats that campaigned on centrist issues such as free trade, deficit reduction, etc.. So its not exactly out of left field.

Also progressives weren't really organized as a group in the 90s. In fact one of the reasons why the Republicans won in 1994 was that evangelicals and the religious right were a powerful organized force that voted in record numbers. This compounded with the continual decline of organized labor (which saw its largest hit in the 90s) really hurt the democrats. I think Obama would get flamed less by progressives in the 90s just by virtue of the fact that organized politics were different at the time.

It depends on where you lived. The only thing you heard in poorer neighborhoods was hope and change. The reason why it was so prevalent in the primaries was because there was little to actually distinguish Clinton and Obama and generic messaging was one of the things that pushed him over the top. That said once the general election started, you absolutely had to start getting specific. But elections are won and lost with enthusiasm and simple messaging sells. To someone like you it is easy to notice the specificity of his proposals because you're the type of voter who he would target with that. To the average voter in a lower income neighborhood they received a very different message. Stratified targeting is more and more common nowadays and its pretty crucial in generating overall momentum. From direct mail to phone scripts, everything is written with specific target audiences in mind.

Plus Obama's campaign specifically focused on turning out first time primary voters. There was an unprecedented surge in first time primary voters 2008 that I think were largely built on Obama's messaging strategy. Same with the record numbers of voter registration drives in low income neighborhoods.

Lastly I will say one thing about the failure of Democrats to get elected. National politics is still number 1 in terms of impact but the state parties need to get their act together. In several states, the state party just sucks and doesn't do its job as well as the Republican state party. When it comes to fundraising, paying for technology, coordinating between overlapping campaigns, organizing volunteers, etc.. there are plenty of states that flat out either dont do any of that or suck at doing some or all of those. This has direct implications on close congressional elections when say a Republican state party can infuse funding into a local race and the Democrats can't do the same. Republicans made it a priority 20 years ago to make effective state parties in all 50 states. Democrats still haven't figured out this concept yet.

 

I'll respond to the rest later (great post) - but this is one thing that really frustrates me. Howard Dean did a brilliant job working on this issue with the focus on competing everywhere when he was the head of the DNC - and was in charge during the big Democratic year in 2006. Then they promptly booted him and ran away from his ideas for reasons I can't understand.