Re: Or was it a case of not reading posts?
 

Nor do they get asked the same questions - reporters ask the campaign staff about the campaign, and expect answers, and reporters ask the WH staff about policy, and expect evasions.

I think most people here realize that I've run statewide campaigns - there is no way a top campaign official avoids answering questions from the press about other people running for the same office unless they expect to have no access whatsoever to the press (eg, get fired). They may get to choose when to speak, but speak they must.

Re: Or was it a case of not reading posts?
 

I guess the only answer is that once you're president, you can't run for re-election without looking un-presidential.

Re: Or was it a case of not reading posts?
 

I understand that you don't wish him well, but what does Obama's leadership have to do with the economy? Industrialized economies are all suffering from a financial crisis. There seems to be broad agreement that there isn't much that Obama could do to fix our problems, and that Republicans on the Hill (inter alia) would block many measures. The people like Hank who think that it's all just a question of consumer confidence (and that the right kind of inspirational speech from the President will restore things) are not only deluded, they are part of the problem because they get in the way of solutions. Meanwhile, a large number of people, like yourself, have become distracted from our fundamental, immediate budget problems by our long-term fiscal problems, and likewise are part of the problem rather than part of the solution. What "leadership" do you think should have solved all this? What's astonishing is how high Obama's approval ratings are, given the massive unemployment, but that seems to reflect that people blame Bush for the economy.

Re: Or was it a case of not reading posts?
 

I think you know the answer to your questions. Club likely thinks the economy would be a-okay if only we had stronger austerity, no health care reform, and the elimination of perceived future threatened regulation.

He's already said Obama needed to lead more on the debt ceiling, where he should made the magic speech that would led Boehner and Cantor to say "yes, we would like more of what we asked for like Obama offered."

Re: Or was it a case of not reading posts?
 

I think Club likes the GOP position on the debt ceiling because he does not like to pay taxes and is in favor of things that cut government spending. I think Club, like many Republicans, attacks Obama for not showing "leadership" when what he really means is that he disagrees with Obama's priorities and policy views. When Obama does show leadership, Club tends to disagree with him, IIRC. Club generally does not agree with Obama, and is quick to find fault with him -- e.g., Obama is making a bad choice because a campaign spokesman put out a statement about Bachmann's entry into the race seven weeks ago. (If the spokesperson had said nothing, you could call it a lack of leadership.)

None of that is that interesting to me because I feel like I understand where he's coming from. What I'm interested in is what he thinks is wrong with the economy, and what he really thinks Obama could have done about it. There is this knee-jerk view on the right that tax cuts are always good because they permit more business investment, and that we'd be out of this recession if only the government collected and spent less money. Not sure whether that's what Club thinks or whether he was looking for some other form of leadership.

Re: Or was it a case of not reading posts?
 

I think Club is now particularly upset with each of you, since it is very unpresidential to have you, as spokessocks for the President, responding to him.

Re: Or was it a case of not reading posts?
 

I wish him well in the same way I wish America well.

I agree with Hank. Economies are about investor and consumer confidence, which can be affected positively (to a degree) through leadership. What is Obama's plan? Oh, wait, I forgot, we have to wait until he gets back from vacation in September to find that out. After 2.5 years, he finally has time to address the precise issue that got him elected in 08.

How am I distracted?

Re: Or was it a case of not reading posts?
 

This is laughable. I have said countless times that while I hate taxes, I recognize that to solve the long term structural issues the math doesn't work without them.

Obama has not shown leadership on these issues. He put out 1 plan, that was voted down in the Senate 97-0. Throughout the debt ceiling negotiations, he never put out a plan. David Gergen has my proxy on Obama and his lack of leadership in the last 6 months. If you didn't see him on CNN last night, he pretty well summarized my thoughts.

Re: Or was it a case of not reading posts?
 

Maxine waters has mine.

Re: Or was it a case of not reading posts?
 

I never said that this was Obama. I said it was the Administration, it looks petty for the Administration to comment on/attack the new GOP primary front runner of the day. It's politics, pure and simple, and beneath the office at this stage to attempt to preempt each candidate. Once there is a nominee, have at it, but until then, focus on your job.

Re: Or was it a case of not reading posts?
 

Google "obama" and "plan". You've been corrected on this before, so you are being thick, whether intentionally or unintentionally.

After both Obama's and Boehner's proposals were voted down in the Senate, Obama put forward a plan; Boehner did not. The talking points you are supposed to be working from condemn Obama not for failing to put forward a plan, but for failing to repropose another bill. I suggest you edit your responses accordingly, since the criticism rings pretty hollow when you criticize him for not doing the things he's done.

Re: Or was it a case of not reading posts?
 

OK, fair enough.

Respectfully, both of you are nuts. No one would deny that economies are affected by investor and consumer confidence, but these things are often indicators of more fundamental aspects of the economy. We have had a financial crisis and a housing bubble and we now have massive deleveraging going on. There is a lack of demand in the economy, and we're in a liquidity trap. All of these things drive poor investor and consumer confidence. The idea that Obama or any other President could say things to change their views and turn things back in the right direction is deluded in the extreme.

Where leadership comes into play is in figuring out what the economic problems are -- not, e.g., the inflation of the 1970s, as many people seem convinced -- and in using government levers to address them. If you think the economic problem is a simple lack of confidence then I can understand why you think Obama has failed, ipso facto. But the fact that people like you think that the problem is a simple lack of confidence is part of Obama's problem, as you are inclined to oppose the sorts of measures that would help.

I think he thinks there is almost nothing more that he will be able to get through the Congress until the next election and that he has decided to run for office for the next 15 months.

Since it's clear that there are things that he would do but not for the Hill GOP, I find it bizarre -- analytically -- that you keep carping about his "leadership." We have two parties with very different views on issues, and -- particularly on the GOP side -- a very great degree of discipline that prevents legislators from working across the aisle. They act this way for reasons that have everything to do with their beliefs and incentives. Do you really think that's Obama's fault? Of course it isn't.

You believe we should cut spending in the near term in a dramatic way, even as we flirt with (and the market tanks out of fears of) a double-dip recession.

That's fair. But you also downplayed the harm that the Republicans were doing by threatening default. I thought you were basically OK with the GOP staking out an extreme position because you figured it would driving Obama and the Democrats towards more spending cuts and fewer taxes.

If you really disagreed with the GOP's position, then saying this:

is truly weird. As has been widely reported, Obama and the Democrats DID put a plan on the table during the debt-ceiling negotiations. He did not do it publicly, because he understood it would make getting a deal done harder, not easier. This has everything to do with the dynamics on the GOP side, which you -- and Gergen, I'm guessing, but I don't watch CNN except during natural disasters and wars -- show no sign of understanding. The GOP and particularly its base have a reflexive opposition to Obama. If he proposes something, they disagree, even if it's something -- say, payroll tax cuts -- they previously liked. Obama understands that making public proposals (perhaps what you mean by "leadership"?) is antithetical to making a deal with this crowd of Republicans.

If the problem is "leadership," I ask you this: Who is there out there who might be willing to follow Obama because he hasn't "led" in the right way? No one on the Hill who could actually help him accomplish anything.

Re: Or was it a case of not reading posts?
 

Slave : DU :: you : Maxine Waters

Re: Or was it a case of not reading posts?
 

No, I haven't. Please show me his plan. Not reports of what his plan was. Not reports on what he offered to the GOP. Show me his plan.

Re: Or was it a case of not reading posts?
 

For someone who was so jaded about seeing the debt-ceiling negotiations as akin to other negotiations, you don't seem to get why it might be counter-productive to negotiate in public.

Do you really think that if Obama had made his proposals to Boehner public, it would have made a deal more likely? Of course not. Republicans would have lined up to piss on it, and then Boehner would have had to ask for more. Leadership doesn't entail negotiating against yourself.

Re: Or was it a case of not reading posts?
 

There you go, getting closer to the talking points! He may have said it was a plan, but we don't think it was detailed enough, we don't think it was good enough, we really wanted a bill - that's what Fox wants you to say.

Look up and watch the speech and go google for the correspondence. Had you paid attention, and were you not in denial, you'd realize he was both more forthcoming and more public in the process than any other leader in Washington.

You need to remember, the lies and obfuscations mainly work among people who have just been watching Fox. To everyone else, Obama had most of the visibility in this process.

Re: Or was it a case of not reading posts?
 

You're forgetting about the budget plan he did make public (albeit not in the detail Fox wanted so they could nit-pick all the provisions in the military budget that needed restrictions on abortion added to them) back when they were debating continuing resolutions.

Re: Or was it a case of not reading posts?
 

80% of the country watches fox?

Conf. to club- see you reap what you sow.

Re: Or was it a case of not reading posts?
 

So what do you think Obama should have done about the economy this year that he hasn't done? Do you fault his leadership?

Re: Or was it a case of not reading posts?
 

i was faulting club for talking to a troll.

as to the economy, candidate obama explained he was going to fix the economy. if you're saying he can't do anything, that's cool, but understand next year people might vote for someone who claims he can do something, just like we did in 08

Re: Or was it a case of not reading posts?
 

He never claimed that "hope" was anything more real than "faith."

Unfortunately, the alternative was Alzheimers/you wish she had as good an excuse as Alzeimers.

Re: Or was it a case of not reading posts?
 

that's silly. We had the stimulus and you bitched.

Re: Or was it a case of not reading posts?
 

you and i realized that. but Ty and them thought he could walk on water.

Re: Or was it a case of not reading posts?
 

You got nothing. Got it.

Re: Or was it a case of not reading posts?
 

For someone who has nothing to say, you sure talk a lot.

Re: Or was it a case of not reading posts?
 

Of course we are real issues now. But what is compounding those issues and putting us (at least the markets) in free fall, is the absolutely lack of confidence that our leaders (Ds and Rs) have any clue how to address it. There is no backstop.

Certainly he can't get anything through congress because he doesn't know how to lead. What would Reagan or Clinton do in this situation? What did they do when faced with similar situations? They went directly to the people, WITH A PLAN, and leveraged their popularity to get what they wanted (or much of what they wanted) through. That is leadership. What does Obama do? He sits back and "leads from behind." He abdicates his obligation as the CEO. I'm not sure why. Is he timid? Or does he not know what it takes to be THE GUY? I'm not sure, and I'm not saying this facetiously, but he didn't have any prior experience in being the man, and until you've been there, it's hard to understand what that means or what it takes to lead an entity/organization.

Leaders don't make excuses, because failure ultimately rests on their shoulders. They find a way to execute. You need to face it. You guys ran the wrong person. He was a hell of a candidate, but had no experience. All hat, no cattle. You should have ran Hillary.

Let's be real clear here. We are talking about relatively small cuts in INCREASES to spending that won't be felt for several years down the line. That is not going to put us in a double dip.

Leaders are not afraid to put out their plan and take it to the public. Reagan would have gotten in his coziest suit, looked right into the camera, and told the people what was going on. Clinton would have wagged a finger or 2. This guy we have is very smart, but he is an academic. He can't execute. It's unfortunate, but it's true, and everybody knows it. I'm just saying what most Ds are saying in private. You ran the wrong guy. You got snowed with the pretty speeches and the cool swagger, and the fact that he wasn't a Clinton.

Re: Or was it a case of not reading posts?
 

I think you're talking to the wall. Ty has never really ran anything IRL (besides overseeing the trolls here running off most non-libs). Of course Reagan and Clinton faced about the same challenges and went to the people.

Re: Or was it a case of not reading posts?
 

They weren't. They both had partners across the aisle that were willing to work with them. They had oppositions who didn't view their number one priority as ensuring they were one-term presidents.

ETA: By the way, it's pretty rich for you to talk about the debt ceiling negotiations as if Obama should have learned nothing from the HCR reform and budget negotiations. Like he should just keep smiling and arguing to the people that he is right while the Rs keep moving the goal post.

Re: Or was it a case of not reading posts?
 

Sad, but they think you are being a troll with this line every time you use it. SMH.

Re: Or was it a case of not reading posts?
 

If you want friends, be friendly.

Re: Or was it a case of not reading posts?
 

Do you think Obama's leadership has anything to do with the broad swaths of people who disagree with him on policy (or, in your words, are part of the problem)?

I generally agree with the policy directions Obama wants to take; if it were left to him, I think it's likely he would have enacted stronger short-term stimulus, eliminated the Bush tax cuts and taken other medium-term efforts on the deficit, and even, maybe, do more about the longer-term fiscal problem of entitlements.

But very few people seem to think that. You can blame Rs -- they deserve it -- but why is he so much less effective on convincing people that such approaches are right? Why are there so many people who are "part of the problem" -- particularly when it was a very different set of policies that got us into this mess?


eta: Put differently, other than blame the Rs, what's a frustrated Dem to do?

Re: Or was it a case of not reading posts?
 

You can say that about Reagan. Pretty hard to say that about Clinton.

Even leaving aside impeachment, the Newt gang only became willing to work with Clinton when he brilliantly turned the government shutdown and the Contract on America around on them.

Re: Or was it a case of not reading posts?
 

Well, let's think about that, but let's consider W too.

Take the examples of No Child Left Behind, Medicare Part D, and welfare reform. Whatever you think about those policies, they are all examples of a pres from one party reaching out to work with members of the other party on something that the those opposition members wanted. The end result in each case was a compromise that in which the pres's preferences moved policy in his direction, but ultimately gave the opposition much of what it wanted.

That could have happened with the debt ceiling and entitlement reform, but Cantor and Boehner walked out instead.

By the way, to my recollection anyway, none of those examples involved a pres selling his position to the public and forcing the other side to agree because of his popularity, exactly because it involved giving the other side a big part of what it wanted. It's truly strange that Obama is criticized for not leading when he was trying to give the House Rs something they purported to want.

Someone older than me perhaps can weigh in examples for on Reagan and H.W. (tax increases?).

Re: Or was it a case of not reading posts?
 

Why do you think they had willing partners?

Re: Or was it a case of not reading posts?
 

See my post above, but the obvious answer is that they got votes from the other party.

Re: Or was it a case of not reading posts?
 

So, you say Clinton had people across the aisle willing to work with him, who were not devoted to making him a one-termer. I respond by saying that Newt and the Rs were pretty dedicated to derailing Clinton. You reply by talking about W? I'm confused.

I agree that W had people across the aisle that were willing to work with him. For two reasons, I think. First, the Dems have never been nearly so able to march in lockstep as the Rs. Second, the Dems faced enormous pressure to do what W wanted because of W's political machine. (For example, you left out a certain war that many Dems voted for, in which there was quite a bit of selling to the public.) Beyond that, a pres never needs to "sell" tax cuts. The public always wants tax cuts.

But none of this has anything to do with Obama's situation. I agree, Obama is in a much different situation than W. Thus, I don't think W provides much use for discussing whether Obama has failed to lead.

Re: Or was it a case of not reading posts?
 

You didn't answer the question. You talked about W, which was an entirely different dynamic. The answer is that they both had the public behind them, and were able to leverage that support.

Re: Or was it a case of not reading posts?
 

Adder was too young to remember the 90s.

W had people behind him on the war because he had public support for the war and (unfortunately) couched it in terms of patriotism. On NCLB, he worked with TK because they both had a common goal and frankly, because federally backed education reform is traditionally a core D issue. Same with Part D.

Re: Or was it a case of not reading posts?
 

Indeed. I remember how cute he was a law student posting on the old boards.

Re: Or was it a case of not reading posts?
 

Clinton got rabid opposition too, and you are right, that it took the shutdown to temper that a little.

But I also talked about welfare reform. That was Clinton and the R congress.