Re: I don't get it.
 

Yea, I just don't see it. The difference between Move-on and T party is not rule based. It is success based. We just had an election, and the T party sent 80+ members to congress. This had nothing to do with the rules. This is a ground movement like no other we have seen in our lifetime.

Re: I don't get it.
 

It's hard to see who that would be.

Not just unlikely, but no chance in hell he would get nominated. Heck, I would consider voting for him, which means no chance his party would.

Darn socialist, Kenyan, terrorist-pal'ing, inexperienced rube who just wants to expand government.

Btw, I really don't get this from you. What characteristics make for a fit president, and which ones does Obama lack?

Re: I don't get it.
 

I would wait a bit before you give it too much credit. Many of those people seem likely to be gone in about a year and a half.

Re: I don't get it.
 

He has absolutely ZERO leadership skills and has been rendered totally impotent by both parties.

Re: I don't get it.
 

You sound like Harry Reid. You may be right, but it depends on whether they are successful or not in 12. If they are, they are going nowhere.

Re: I don't get it.
 

Was there ever a time where you honestly thought that Kucinich could be considered for VP?

I doubt she will win the nomination -- but I wouldn't laugh off anyone who thought she could. More importantly, she'll do well enough to be influential, and thus drag the party ever closer to the lunatic fringe.

Re: I don't get it.
 

And yet, people equate the Ds and Rs, and claim that both pander to their fringe.

Re: I don't get it.
 

Yeah, that's what I meant by "coming from you." I get this critique from the left.

But from a purported fiscal conservative, he's given you much of what you claim to want.

Is it that you expected him to be able to make Boehner and company be even more fiscally conservative? I just can't see him as the problem in that regard (and yes, I know you share Sebby's belief that despite what the CBO says and what was intended, HCR will be costly, but that's a difference of opinion, not a failure of leadership or character).

Re: I don't get it.
 

You thought I was suggesting they may all decide to retire to Mexico?

I can't imagine that you really need the clarification, but I think it's likely that many of the Congressmen who came in on the Tea Party wave will not win reelection and thus will not be around to be sworn in to the next Congress.

Re: I don't get it.
 

It's really pretty simple. If you run primaries where 1/2 of 1/3 of 1/3 of the electorate can select your candates, you encouarge a more radical orientation in your party than if you run primaries where 1/2 of 1/3 of 2/3 of the electorate can select your candidates.

Why do ultra-left candidates not get elected to major offices in Massachusetts while ultra-right candidates get elected in Kentucky? In each state, the winner of one party (Ds in Mass, Rs in Ky) is overwhelmingly favored. In Mass., independents can vote in the Dem primary, but in Kty indepedents cannot vote in the Republican primary.

Note that there are 3 or 4 lawsuits going on right now where the Republicans are trying to close primaries in states that mandate all parties hold open primaries. The left would often love to see Dems close primaries, but it is fought by the national party. The R's national party, however, fights to close them. If the Rs opened those primaries, independents would cause the defeat a ton of tea partiers in the primaries.

Re: I don't get it.
 

I disagree.

He's gotten through some pretty major legislation, and it was Boehner who showed zero leadership in the debt negotation - he couldn't even get his own party to support his plan in the house. I'm not saying Obama showed 100% leadership, but his percentage was a lot higher than the crybaby.

And now for something completely different
 

Re: I don't get it.
 

Yeah, that's what I was hinting at with the socialist stuff. Obviously Club isn't saying that, but for a guy with no leadership he sure got through some legislation that has the Tea Party worked up (HCR, Dodd-Frank, stimulus, tax compromise, etc.).

Re: I don't get it.
 

The people who complain that Obama isn't leading are people who refuse to follow him when he does. It's a complaint that says much more about the complainer than it does about Obama, an excuse for acting as if he's not legitimate.

eta: The people who attack Obama for this on from the left usually have completely unrealistic expectations about what "leadership" and a few words can do to change underlying economic and political dynamics. They seem to think that Obama should just give a few speeches and the opposition to him will wilt.

Re: I don't get it.
 

All that matters is whether they will go to heaven, and voting for someone who is pro-choice, for example, dooms one to hell.

Re: I don't get it.
 

Don't try that subtlety stuff around here.

Re: I don't get it.
 

Well, ok, so Less boiled a lot of the craziness down to one sentence. Welcome, Republicans! Please call them predestined, though, not "chosen".

Re: I don't get it.
 

One could build a justification for voting for a pro-life candidate around the "render unto Caesar" verses.

Re: I don't get it.
 

I keep forgetting about that because I can no longer discuss politics with my brother the minister.

He thinks the pastor up north who has the IRS on his back for preaching politics from the pulpit is right. He got mad when I said I didn't want my pastor telling me who to vote for, even if it's for someone I'd already intended to support, and that if my pastor lost tax deductions for my giving, I'd find another church.

Re: I don't get it.
 

No.

Re: I don't get it.
 

I expect the president to lead. He is the poster boy for the incredibly shrinking president. His "lead from behind" tactic is an oxymoron. He has no ability to calm the financial markets (see the precipitous drop last week during his speech), and it is quite clear that he has no idea what to do now on the economy. The guy is an academic. Very smart, but zero real world experience, and he has been exposed.

Re: I don't get it.
 

This doesn't make sense. The Tea Partiers won in the General Election, not just the primaries.

Re: I don't get it.
 

I would argue that Pelosi should get most of the credit for passing most of the signature legislation.

Re: I don't get it.
 

This is the response to all of the legislation he's been able to get through? Because you want him to fix the economy/markets with a speech?

Re: I don't get it.
 

All true.

But on the deficit and budget, and the economy to the extent it relates to that, he hasn't shown leadership. The Ds on the board have generally concurred on this -- should have addressed W tax cuts earlier, should have addressed the debt ceiling when that was done, etc. More broadly, he should have been presented a clearer and more specific approach to stimulus now, deficit reduction in the medium term, and entitlement reform/cost controls for the longer term.

It's a tall order, I know. But I thought he had it in him, both the vision to see what was needed and the courage to talk directly to the public about it.

Re: I don't get it.
 

Of course not. But his job is to inspire confidence and he has down the exact opposite. He is now insignificant in the discussion, and he knows it. His Mojo is gone.

Re: I don't get it.
 

Damn. Forget it, I don't think you're equipped to understand the point.

Re: I don't get it.
 

I understand the point, it's just wrong [board motto]

Re: I don't get it.
 

See, I don't quite agree on this. I actually think Obama's view of the world is markedly more conservative than the average House dem's, but markedly more liberal than the average House republicans, and that he actually wants to be brokering a compromise and getting them to work together.

Problem is, the Rs won't play, and the only way for him to get what he really wants at this point is for the Rs to get beaten up some. Until then, they're unwilling to compromise. Thus, we on a pause for meaningful legislative action and playing out some politics. In the second term, if the Rs take a beating in the next Congressional election (looking increasingly likely), he can get what he wants.

To Dems concerned that he hasn't led on things he doesn't believe in, I answer: yeah, Hill lost.

Re: My God, you are an idiot.
 

I think someone asked if Judge Frank Hull of the Eleventh Circuit Obamacare opinion was a woman. Frank is - http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Frank_M._Hull

Re: I don't get it.
 

I think that's pretty tough to say. Cantor and Boehner walked out. What would the leadership position have been?

Yes, I do think that's a fair criticism. I think he miscalculated the degree to which the Rs were willing to behave badly.

But was it a failure of leadership? Personally, I think he thought he could work a grand bargain that would get the Congressional Dems to agree to entitlement reforms that they wouldn't agree to otherwise. Why didn't that work? Boehner and Cantor.

Maybe he needed better speeches, but that is what he said. Personally, I think he didn't give better speeches because he wanted to leave open room to work with the Rs, but yes, in retrospect that seems to have been a bad idea as they have been shown to be unwilling to work with him under any circumstances.

But as I said, I found the criticism odd coming from Club. I understand why those further left have been disappointed with his leadership -- it hasn't been very left -- but I don't know what more a purported fiscal conservative could want from him (leaving aside HCR). The limiting factor there has been the House Rs.

Re: I don't get it.
 

What would you have him do to inspire confidence? He can't shoot the Tea Party caucus in the head, can he?

Aside from removing the roadblocking crazies, I can't think of much else that would help him inspire confidence.

Re: I don't get it.
 

I agree that part -- maybe the major part -- of his problem was the expectation that people could be grownups and work together on compromise. In that, he gave the Rs way too much credit, and gave the Ds a little too much.

But he's the President. If the President wants to rise above partisanship and promote a compromise to the middle, he has to state a vision of that compromise to the public and get public acceptance for it. In other words, use the bully pulpit. This is especially true in the current climate, where one party refuses to discuss any compromise (even the ones that they proposed a week ago), and where people are listening to dumb ideas (like, we don't need any increased revenue, or default isn't a problem).

It's been a real difficulty that no one could point to a piece of paper and say "that's the President's plan, it's what he talked about last night, and he has convinced me it's right. I want my rep to vote for that."

I don't think that it was because Obama lacked the vision. It may be because he lacked the courage, but I doubt it. I think it was mostly that he wanted to forge a compromise internally (meaning, in DC), then sell it externally (to the country). And that was brass-ackwards.

Re: I don't get it.
 

I think my response to GGG covers all this, except the idea that people are disappointed with his leadership because they want it to be "more left." I, for one, don't. The approach I think is right is towards the middle, which is where I see Obama and why I supported him. It wasn't the direction, but the force and manner of pushing it.

Re: I don't get it.
 

I hear you. I don't think it would make any difference, because I think no matter what plan is articulated with the full extent of his oratorical powers the congressional Rs would have said no.

And I think had he done what you suggest, they would simply lambaste him for not negotiating with them or allowing them any input. Which, of course, is what they did with health care any way after he begged them to participate.

Re: I don't get it.
 

I'm not arguing any of it was perfect, but on HC, he staked out the middle ground, used a Republican concept of individual mandates, and pretty much got what he wanted legislatively but got screwed politically by it. I'm ok with that, he used his political capital to achieve some good.

But he only gets to use the capital once, and he won't have it again until he clobbers a few Rs. He gave us leadership on Health - but the cost was such that he's got a play a less risky game today. It's not as inspiring, but it seems to be working politically, given that people are really ready to skin both Boehner and the Tea Party alive at this point. They are both deeply deeply unpopular.

There are several places I wish he would have led differently - notably, requiring an extension of the debt ceiling as a cost of the extension of the Bush tax cuts - but I'm not going to argue he didn't lead there, just because he didn't go in the direction I wanted.

Re: I don't get it.
 

A really significant part of the conservative base is more invested in opposing Obama than it is in any particularly policy outcome. If Obama moves to the center (i.e., right) to meet them, they will move away from him because that's what matters more to them. You see this again and again. An example is healthcare, where Obama eschewed long-standing Democratic priorities like single-payer and the public option in favor of a moderate Republican proposal, private payer with mandates, only to see Republicans discover that what they had previously supported is unconstitutional and socialistic. You see it with the stimulus, where Obama eschewed more effective vehicles in favor of tax cuts, but did not pick up a single GOP vote in doing so. You cannot lead the country if a single part of it is psychologically dedicated to picking a fight with you.

Re: I don't get it.
 

Obama gave up on single payer to get the Dems he needed. Most of the are no longer in congress, but they were then and he needed their votes.

now WTF?
 

Re: I don't get it.
 

http://s-ak.buzzfed.com/static/image...3443714-13.jpg

Uh, are Hank and Clubby backing Bachman or this guy?