My God, you are an idiot.

[Greedy,Greedy,Greedy]

Originally Posted by Cletus Miller

Yes, I am. The campaign and the office of the POTUS are not the same. Obama (and any other POTUS) does not personally get to wear two hats, and the campaign shouldn't speak to policy (just as the WH staff should not speak to the election), but the words of the campaign staff are not the words of the President.

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.

[Cletus Miller]

Originally Posted by Greedy,Greedy,Greedy

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.

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

[Tyrone Slothrop]

Originally Posted by sgtclub

ETA: Nice leadership Obama. 26% approval rate on the economy. But I'm the crazy one . . .

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.

[Adder]

Originally Posted by Tyrone Slothrop

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.

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."

[Tyrone Slothrop]

Originally Posted by Adder

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."

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.

[Greedy,Greedy,Greedy]

Originally Posted by Tyrone Slothrop

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.

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.

[sgtclub]

Originally Posted by Tyrone Slothrop

I understand that you don't wish him well

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

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.

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.

How am I distracted?

[sgtclub]

Originally Posted by Tyrone Slothrop

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.

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.

[Hank Chinaski]

Originally Posted by sgtclub

David Gergen has my proxy on Obama and his lack of leadership in the last 6 months.

Maxine waters has mine.

[sgtclub]

Originally Posted by Cletus Miller

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

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.

[Greedy,Greedy,Greedy]

Originally Posted by sgtclub

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.

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.

[Tyrone Slothrop]

Originally Posted by sgtclub

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

OK, fair enough.

I agree with Hank. Economies are about investor and consumer confidence, which can be affected positively (to a degree) through leadership.

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.

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.

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.

How am I distracted?

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.

Originally Posted by sgtclub

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.

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:

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.

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.

[Tyrone Slothrop]

Originally Posted by Hank Chinaski

Maxine waters has mine.

Slave : DU :: you : Maxine Waters

[sgtclub]

Originally Posted by Greedy,Greedy,Greedy

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.

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.

[Tyrone Slothrop]

Originally Posted by sgtclub

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.

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.