My God, you are an idiot.

[sgtclub]

Originally Posted by Adder

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?

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.

[Greedy,Greedy,Greedy]

Originally Posted by sgtclub

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

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

[sgtclub]

Originally Posted by Greedy,Greedy,Greedy

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

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

[Greedy,Greedy,Greedy]

Originally Posted by Sidd Finch

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.

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.

[LessinSF]

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

[Adder]

Originally Posted by Sidd Finch

But on the deficit and budget, and the economy to the extent it relates to that, he hasn't shown leadership.

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

The Ds on the board have generally concurred on this -- ...should have addressed the debt ceiling when [W cuts were extended], etc.

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.

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.

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.

[Adder]

Originally Posted by sgtclub

But his job is to inspire confidence and he has down the exact opposite.

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.

[Sidd Finch]

Originally Posted by Greedy,Greedy,Greedy

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.

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.

[Sidd Finch]

Originally Posted by Adder

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.

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.

[Adder]

Originally Posted by Sidd Finch

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.

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.

[Greedy,Greedy,Greedy]

Originally Posted by Sidd Finch

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.

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.

[Tyrone Slothrop]

Originally Posted by Sidd Finch

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).

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.

[Hank Chinaski]

Originally Posted by Tyrone Slothrop

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.

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.

[Tyrone Slothrop]

[Greedy,Greedy,Greedy]

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