Politics Obama - Actually doing a good job?

The annual CPAC conference is coming up next week.

The headliners are Marco Rubio, Ted Cruz (who claimed at one time that nine Harvard professors were communists and plotting to overthrow the government and most recently claiming that the newly appointed Sec of Defense is in bed with Iran) Rand Paul (of the Tea Party budget cutting $9+ trillion over 10 years) and...........

...Sarah Palin (who no longer has the Fox platform but is still preaching "death panels" and had a recent post on her facebook that the Obama administration is stockpiling ammo for potential civil unrest, a claim that has been debunked on multiple occasions).

Not invited? Chris Christie and gay Republican groups.

Yet the tent keeps getting smaller and more extreme.

 

So, your answer is humor?

I forgot, Obama has opposition. I wish I could get away with that. I have opposition, therefore I can;t get my job done.
--- merged: Mar 4, 2013 at 3:51 PM ---

I doesn't it work for Obama? In my view, he has not put any effort into using the Clinton playbook as you describe it.

 

This clearly confirms my earlier point. I will change party if Christie is anywhere near the ticket in 2016. I was close to changing in 2008, if not for Palin. I did not like Romney and was not going to vote for him until Ryan. I am tired of "moderates" being on the top of the ticket.
--- merged: Mar 4, 2013 at 4:00 PM ---

Not all of them. He does not need all of them. I think he has caused moderates to become entrenched with the extreme. The point of my question is that I know were I stand with moderates and it won't change - the other side does not give them anywhere to go. Why don't you welcome them? Why doesn't Obama establish a strategy to get them on his side rather than alienating them. Why do people like DC assume they are bigots, or stupid or want to kill granny, etc.?

 

You dont accept any data that discredits supply side/trickle down, particularly non-partisan reports that determined it does not stimulate growth or jobs to any measurable degree or generate significant revenue, but only adds to even greater income inequality.

The point I was making is that y0u were grossly misinformed, once again, about a viable Senate Democratic planned that is certainly more than " a theoretical plan...worthless".

You would think that eliminating many farm subsidies to agribusiness (not small family farmers) would be something the "free marketers" would support if they were serious about debt reduction.

Ignoring the facts and spewing the baseless right wing talking point of the day doesnt work here, Ace.
--- merged: Mar 4, 2013 at 4:05 PM ---

Hey....dont put words in my mouth.

You dont like what Cruz and Palin and others say, take it up with them.

 

Ryan is a good example of the above. He won his Congressional seat again last November, but couldnt win his Congressional district for Romney/Ryan. (Obama won the district by 3 points.).

 

Ace...how would you characterize these people:

Majorities of Republicans believe that Obama:

• Is a socialist (67%)
• Wants to take away Americans' right to own guns (61%)
• Is a Muslim (57%)
• Wants to turn over the sovereignty of the United States to a one world government (51%)

Also large numbers of Republicans also believe that Obama:

• Resents America's heritage (47%)
• Was not born in the United States and so is not eligible to be president (45%)
• Is the "domestic enemy that the U.S. Constitution speaks of" (45%)
• Is a racist (42%)
• Want to use an economic collapse or terrorist attack as an excuse to take dictatorial powers (41%)
• Is doing many of the things that Hitler did (38%)
• Believe that "he may be the Anti-Christ" (24%)
• Believe "he wants the terrorists to win" (22%)

 

There are other ways to increase revenues, I am not interested in another supply-side debate.

If Obama clearly state his goals "compromise" can easily be accomplished. I will give an example of how you could "compromise" with me and how you see it as "compromise" and I don't.

We both agree that we want improved educational outcomes for urban children. I think the most best way to do that for children at risk right now, is to offer them school choice. Certainly vouchers is one way to accomplish what I want, but it is not the only way. For example you may hold the position that public funds diverted away from public schools is the wrong thing to do. Perhaps the solution is to allow urban children in failing public schools the option to go to other public or public charter schools in the city. So if one school out of ten is failing allow the children in the failing school to enroll in one of the other 9 or in a magnet/charter school with clearly define behavior expectations. My objective is accomplished, your objective is accomplished and we can see what happens and then revisit the issue after some results start coming in. I don't see that as "compromise" - I got what I wanted and you got what you wanted.

Worthless is the wrong word, a plan on paper has the minimum value of the paper. Until a plan is implemented its value is more theoretical than anything else.

We both know there are some farm subsidies that are not in the best interest of the country but are in the best interest of a selected few at the expense of the majority. Sugar subsidies comes to mind as one example.
--- merged: Mar 5, 2013 at 11:43 AM ---

My standard for quality differs from yours. The number one issue for me above all others is - trust. I can disagree with a person I trust all day long - but they would have my unyielding support and loyalty. Being the most articulate, the best educated, the most credentialed, the right sex, the right image are either meaningless to me or secondary. I don't trust Christie, and I think he is a bombastic A-hole.
--- merged: Mar 5, 2013 at 11:48 AM ---

True they do not have clout, they have no home in our current political environment. Why wouldn't a savvy politician (I am not one) want to peel these people from the right one at a time - start a trend - every time you get one the next in line is easier to get. Most Presidents have employed this strategy to get their agendas passed. The recent Lincoln movie was very interesting in this regard. It was insightful and clearly illustrates the differences in leadership and Obama's failings.

 

I think people answer questions about "socialism" without a clear definition of the term.
I think many look at what has occurred in Chicago in terms of gun restrictions and perceive that Obama wants to use that model on a national level.
I think there are Muslims who think Obama is a Muslim based on his father being one - I think that is reflected in the poll results.
I think many perceive the UN as a means to undermine US sovereignty and the US Constitution. There have been UN initiatives discussed in this regard.
All the above are points reasonable people can debate and discuss and it not be about some "ism's"

Again, I think if we do more than a superficial analysis of these points we can get somewhere. There are some racists in the world, sexist, prejudices related to religion, national origin, sexual orientation, etc. - I think the percentages are small and are getting smaller. I am proud of the progress made in theis country and I certainly would not make broad generalizations about people in the Republican Party in this regard.
--- merged: Mar 5, 2013 at 12:06 PM ---

There are many points (most) in the movie that are historically accurate. I referenced the movie, because the plot is centered around the central leadership issue of building a winning coalition one politician at a time. I doubt many people were aware of the effort Lincoln put into building his coalition for the passage of the amendment to end slavery.

PS - I am not referring to Lincoln The Vampire Hunter - I am referring to Lincoln, the Spielberg movie.

 

Please point me to any proposal by the Tea Party wing of the Republican party that would demonstrate a willingness to compromise, by any reasonable definition?

Aoe.. so you werent parroting the right wing bullshit of the last week that the Senate Democrats had no specific legislation, knowing that most of their readers/listeners/followers are too lazy to get the facts themselves and they (and you) believe everything you hear or read that fits your agenda?

You dont have to be honest with me, Ace. Be honest with yourself rather than suggesting that all legislation is theoretical until enacted.

 

It appears that we agree that 2/3 of Republicans are ignorant when it comes to understanding socialism, including past candidates you supported - Palin, Cain, Ryan.

What UN initiatives would undermine US sovereignty? Are you one of those 51% of Republicans who are UN conspiracy nuts?

Why are you giving a pass to the 40-50% of Republican who believe Obama is the "domestic enemy of the Constitution" or that he wants to destroy the country or take dictatorial power?

 

The key component of Romney's economic plan was tax reform, closing loop-holes while maintaining tax revenues. In this general outline countless opportunities were available. Many are still willing to follow this approach. I can support tax rate increases - only after a clear demonstration that spending is being addressed and after our tax code is fixed - I would be flexible in terms of how. In my view, for some reason you can not hear what is being said.

I quoted what I heard from Boehner and I referenced him in my comment. It was pretty clear.

You can choose your way to describe plans that will never be voted on, and I will choose mine. Until actual legislation is drafted in a form for a vote it is rhetoric - if that has some special value to you, fine.
--- merged: Mar 5, 2013 at 4:36 PM ---

Obama once made a comment about "spreading it around" meaning he supported income redistribution. This is a tenant of socialism. If you ask 100 people to define socialism, even Democrats, you would get 100 different answers. It is not my fault you put value in vague polls.

You throw out a number of topics that could be worthy of a thread - I don't really know what you want to do. If I start responding I will be accused of one of the many things you folks don't like about my posts.
--- merged: Mar 5, 2013 at 4:38 PM ---

I am telling him that there is a superficial view and there is a more detailed and insightful view of the data he cited. He reacts on a superficial level, I tend to do some digging trying to understand what the data is really telling me. He could be 100% correct in some of his assumptions about the data.

 

Ace...as I noted before, from a selfish partisan perspective, I hope today's Republicans Party, which by any objective measure is more extreme than anytime in my lifetime, continue along the path that you unquestionably support, w/o regard for the facts.

For the good of the country, I hope the more reasonable and rationale conservatives (that would not be you) somehow find a way to restore their voice within the party, but I wont hold by breath.