Was Obama's Mild Mannered Talk About Compromise Today Effective?

If you look at the press conference thread, you'll notice that I wasn't impressed.

 

Do you really think Obama striking a strident no compromise tone would actually improve things after he just got shellacked (his own words)?

Yes the Republicans are being sore winners but its not going to help Obama if he comes off as a sore loser. If anything it will make him look more out of touch and reminiscent of this:



There will be a time for him to Truman like and rail about the do nothing Congress but the day after your party just got thumped in the elections and lost control of the House isn't that time.

 

Quoting Maddow is as bad as quoting Hannity -- you will never get the whole truth. However, as far as McConnell's stated goal of making Obama a one-term president, you are being pretty naive. That's the stated goal of every opposition party since the two-party system in America began.

 

That's not true about that being the most important goal for every party since the two party system began. That may have been a goal, but prior to this the other parties primary goal was looking out for the nation, and their constituents. The compromises made, and work they've done show that.

 

If this were true we would have impeached Bush for war crimes. Pelosi took that off the table.

 

That's true but you don't come right out and say that. McConnell has pretty much guaranteed that nothing will get done in Congress and considering his approval ratings are only at 12% and Congressional Republicans are around 20% that strategy might backfire on him.

FYI he reiterated his call again today.

http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/40007802/ns/politics-decision_2010

[rquoter]Senate Minority Leader Mitch McConnell on Thursday offered an aggressive assessment of the election results, calling for votes to erode the reach of the health care law that was a signature of the Obama administration.

"That means that we can — and should — propose and vote on straight repeal, repeatedly," McConnell said.
Story: Nixing — or 'fixing' — health law? Don't hold your breath

He said the only way Republicans in Congress can achieve their goals is "to put someone in the White House who won't veto" a repeal of Obama's health care reform, spending cuts and shrinking the government. [/rquoter]

 

What a POS asshat...

Just because your side won by a small majority doesn't make your policies or set of morals superior/inferior. The republicans had their chance to at least work with the Democrats during the last 2 years. Instead, they chose to stick their feet in the mud and demonize anything that passed.

Dear Mr. McConnell,

You should focus on getting people back to work instead of pursuing a more polarizing agenda of repeatedly trying to pass something that 1. won't get through the Senate and 2. will get vetoed the millisecond that it hits the president's desk. If you choose to do this, please jam a giant log up your keester. TIA.

 

Non-sequitur. I am talking elections, not impeachment. Other than George Washington, can you name a President who ran unopposed after his first term?

 

via TPM --

On McConnell, interesting to observe that the GOP minority leader who wasn't able to win a majority in his chamber (when it was clearly possible -- DE, NV, CO, WA) is the one who's now most hard charging and aggressive vis a vis Dems and Obama.

--Josh Marshall

 

There is a difference between opposing a president and making getting him out of office the number 1 goal of a party.

If it was the number one goal of the Democrats to remove Bush from office or see he was only a one termer they would have brought about charges for war crimes.

Instead the Democrats put nation over party and removed impeachment from the table.

Opposing the president is fine and good, and part of the system. Putting that opposition above all else is irresponsible, and exactly what the Republicans are doing now.

 

You make them sound so noble. More realistically, impeaching a president for war crimes would create so much outrage that all the Democrats would be out on their asses next time they were up for election.

 

how does it help republicans to come out and say the goal is now to get obama a 1 term president? its one thing to delay, delay, filibuster etc...but to blatantly come out and say you wont work with the president? wouldnt surprise me to see obama get re-elected. force congress to work together

 

That depends on the evidence they had to impeach. The Iraq war was unpopular, and while uncovering and making evidence known, it would have been a huge blow. All Cheney's shadow work would have had a light shown on it and he would more than likely have been stonewalling adding fuel to the fire.

Either way they could have done it, and moved on quickly enough to get the spotlight on to health care or something else.

 

A mashup of the Obama and McConnell speeches yesterday and today.

the contrast could not be more stark

<object width="480" height="385"><param name="movie" value="http://www.youtube.com/v/ZzeTwo7DhoI?fs=1&amp;hl=en_US"></param><param name="allowFullScreen" value="true"></param><param name="allowscriptaccess" value="always"></param><embed src="http://www.youtube.com/v/ZzeTwo7DhoI?fs=1&amp;hl=en_US" type="application/x-shockwave-flash" allowscriptaccess="always" allowfullscreen="true" width="480" height="385"></embed></object>

 

Wow


I mean, wow.


HAHAHAHA

 

I think the better the evidence, the worse it would be for Democrats. It would be very embarassing for Americans to admit before the world the commission of war crimes. To convict the president would be an admission that we are not morally superior and that our dearly-beloved democratic system is not a hedge against villainy. This wouldn't be an impeachment for perjury or sexual impropriety or some other personal trespass. It would be an admission of guilt on the whole country. The cognitive dissonance would be too much to bear.

 

plus...if Healthcare was a distraction to dealing with the economy...imagine the maelstrom this would create.

 

It could also show that we are willing to hold people accountable and then move forward committed to never doing it again.

Although I think it is difficult to apply logic to what the reaction would be. I think if we applied logic to people's reactions we wouldn't have large groups of people who look for lack of education, and knowledge in a candidate they support. So there is no real way to predict what people would think.