President Obama tried to galvanize the country to progressive purpose in his inaugural speech, arguing that in this era, advancing time-honored individual aspirations requires collective action.
As attempts to square the ideological circle go, this was a rhetorical triumph. Yet if Obama is to realize his goals, he will have to rally the country on a continual basis.
Comments
exactly. the power of the bully pulpit is what Obama needs to wield. He must continuously pound home his message over and over to win the ideological struggle with the wealthy elite and the Republicans. Do that religiously, and he may get a Congress he can work with in 2014.
I see Scot is willing to help our President with his agenda, why am I surprised, yes, those evil mean republicans. FYI Scot, President Obama has been taking his agenda to the people for four years now. I hope he gets everything he's looking for, when it crashes the people will certainly be surprised.
Which part of congress has not passed a budget since 2009 as required - answer the senate controlled by Democrats
so whose fault is it ?
You are using semantics to score points, which makes you part of the problem, chief. Prior to 1974 there was no such thing as a budget resolution process. Congress enacted the Congressional Budget and Impoundment Control Act of 1974 in response to Nixon's refusal to spend funds allocated by Congress for programs he didn't support. Were it not for the Watergate Scandal he'd have vetoed it and Congress would not have had the votes to override. The resolution itself has no legal teeth. It is a process for declaring that both Houses are in agreement on which appropriations to vote upon, and given the partisan split, the probability that a Republican-controlled House and a Democrat-controlled Senate will even agree on whether it is partly sunny or partly cloudy are next to nil. Congress is under no obligation to actually pass the resolution; if they fail to do so, the appropriations priorities laid out in the most recent resolution are kept in place. The actual functioning of government is funded by appropriations bills, and those have been passed every year, albeit begrudgingly at times. Whose fault? Yours, since you support the partisan atmosphere that exists.
and bush was able to pass a budget with a democratic congress and senate ?
Scot, these worde from your column were chilling: "Obama must keep uppermost in mind that the best way to win in Washington is make his opponents fear the consequences of thwarting him"
NEW PARAGRAPH: What made this line so bad, was that you spent the entire column showcasing how bad the Republicans have been, and touting Obama's gift at oratical appeal to the masses. Then, you toss aside any pretense that Obama is a reasonable man, and suggest he simply dare them to disagree, as he will make the, look like extremists.
NEW PARAGRAPH: This is gamesmanship and "brinksmanship" that trumps any such conduct from the GOP. Obama has NEVER been able to negotiate. He simply demands what he wants, calls the opposition extreme, and forces his will on an unwilling nation. (sometimes by fiat).
NEW PARAGRAPH: His defiant, angry inaugural speech portends more of the same. He has no desire to work with the half of the country which disagree, but his cheerleaders like Scot will continue to act like his conduct is serious, and to chastise his opposition. Yes Scot, your closing idea proves that you see no need for the president to work with the opposition.
Scot is going along with the plan, demonize the republicans, destroy them, then the liberals can continue with their agenda. Just remember this when it alls comes crashing down, be funny to see how Scot defends that.
Hopefully the Pres has finally learned thar you can't negotiate with zealots who refuse to negotiate.
What B.O. wants to do is push our country faster towards the horrendous financial sewer of Southern Europe. I applaud all Republicans who do everything they can to stop him.
Rediculous
Barry, have you looked at how low the yield is on long bonds lately? It hardly bespeaks Southern Europe.
Clearly Scot has shed any pretense of objectivity as regards President Obama. What Scot is advocating is the Imperial Presidency, one which denies the Constitutional concept of three seperate but equal branches of government. Any moderate who cast her/his vote for President Obama in the recent election is geting a rude awakening. This president is trying force our centrist nation sharply to the left. I hope that Congress and the Courts have the courage to reign him in.
"rein". No Pun intended.
RJ: Detail these sharp moves to the left for us ...
Obama - the food stamp president, and lord of the low-information voter.
Actually people seemed surprisingly well informed and involved in this election. Republicans take this view that folks who do not agree with them are uninformed at their own risk. I think the truth of the matter is that regretfully some folks cannot deal with the concept that the country has not moved to a position of desiring big government, but that it has moved to a positioin of saying, "we want certain things to be done by govt.". The R's need to reconsider what a "conservative" position looks like in this new paradigm.
This comment has been removed.
The difficulty for Republican's here and for those commentors here is that they fail to see that the public has moved. They fail to see or perhaps do see and cannot deal with the idea that not only the demographics of the nation but the mindset of those in those demographics have moved. We seem to have had an interesting confluence of events. The President sees it, main stream Republicans see it, but the far right and their supporters cannot seem to deal with it.
The Presidents speech basically said I debated and ran and won on these particular issues the American public has decided. Main stream Repubicans recognize that this coalition has determined it will not see cuts to SS, Medicare etc. that these programs are part of the American scene and has shown that the R's cannot win a national election running agaist these programs. Hence we see an attempt to change the very way President's are elected by altering the electoral college.
Main stream Republicans now must return to the old fashion means of legislating which is acting in the loyal opposition. This they accomplish by bringing bills to the floor molding them with amendments as they can while they seek a means to reformulate their message to a national public that has changed. I am hopeful that the R's will take this more pragmatic role, recalculate the message and seek a way forward that includes those programs that the American public believes to be a permanent part of this nation.
The country needs a strong Republican Party but one that recognizes what the vast majority has made clear it desires from government. There is nothing in the word "conservative" that says we cannot have these programs that have long been a staple of the nation. It is in fact conservative to "conserve" something that has now long been a part of our national scene. "Conservatives" should in fact seek a means to conserve these programs and their benefits through a proper tax code that meets the national needs.
This comment has been removed.
Actually it is they themselves as "absolutely" right and everyone else as "absolutely" wrong hence alienating more thean half the country.
Attaturk:
Maybe you have missed this, but the GOP controlled House has passed budgets, the old fashioned way. It has been the senate that has refused to engage. They have simply relied on "continuing resolutions" to maintain spending at existing levels. It is the Democrats who have refused to negotiate.
The GOP would be guilty of malpractice if they simply went along with the Democrats, because "the people have spoken". The path the president wants makes no cuts in spending, and no reforms to entitlements. Even if the people "want" to commit suicide, the grown ups need to step in.
"Richmond" you miss the point. Sure the House passed budgets the President presented budgets both are fine shows of political gamesmenship. The real test is in the Senate, does the filibuster rule change, do Dems allow the old process to be reinstated for amendments etc. I'm not just blaming R's but I am saying they will be better served by accepting the minority position as loyal opposition and presenting a "conservative" option for retaining what the public desires.
If the R's take your position, which they have in the past, "We're right and everyone else is a foolish child", then they will continue to lose national elections. Ideology while important does not win elections. The message and the policies must reflect the will of the people as closely as one can reflect it. It is in the nature of "conservative" to bring change about slowly not radically and certainly not at the expense of the party's existence.
"he will have to rally the country on a continual basis."
The devil is always in the details. Scot, you hit the nail right on the head, "the country". It is becoming apparent that "the country" is becoming more divided every day this president is in office, and sharply so. Your premise is that Obama should keep "campaigning" to keep the pressure on, to rally his supporters to force issues. Campaigning, and saying those oh-so-forceful sounding slogans goes over great with the base that loves him, it has exactly the opposite effect on those who wish he had never been born. A leader does not lead by ramming agendas down throats, that might work for a little while, but not in the long run.
The best Obama can hope for is that he can campaign hard enough in the next two years (while he should be leading the country) to get more support in the Congress.
He is an orator, not a leader. I will give one example: Gun control. After all the speechifying, what exactly did he accomplish? Signed 23 Executive "actions", some that require congressional funding. Supported Feinstein's bill that may not even make it to the floor of the Senate and has virtually no chance of being passed in the House. He formed a panel led by Joe Biden that only served to further alienate gun owners, rather than gather them in to help work towards a solution. His actions would have been great during a campaign, not so much when he has to lead a nation and solve a problem. Later, he will try to further divide the country by placing the blame on Republicans, but the fact is, about half the country view gun control very differently than the large eastern cities and a few other large metro areas.
To heck with it, I will give another example, he is going to attempt another divide, Gay Rights. So far, this has been a States issue, now he is going to involve the Feds in it, or attempt to. After all the rhetoric, will the Federal government become involved? What congressman wants to touch that hot potato? But after the dust settles, Obama will be pointing fingers again.
You say it is "rallying the country", really? It looks more like carving the country up like a Xmas turkey.
Good lord, history, you expect quick results. The gun control debate is just beginning. Let's see where it is after, say, six months. A lot of it, after all, will require congressional action.
Well, Scot, I am disappointed. Like everyone else, the Sandy Hook tragedy really struck home. I was hoping this was something that we could all get behind and work towards a solution as a nation.
The President is no doubt a very intelligent man, I expected he would be able to see through an incredibly poorly delivered speech by the NRA and look at the content, weed out the dumb points, pluck the good ones, and do the same with everyone else who came to the panel. We didn't get that, he didn't manage to draw us all together so that we COULD go to our congressmen and say "get behind this, get it done". Instead, we are now divided.
And why wouldn't I expect quick results? The President himself said that we needed to move quickly on this issue, to protect our children. His best move would have been to rein Feinstein in and tell her to leave that "bill" in her desk drawer. He cannot even lead his own party.
Hopefully you are right, maybe we will see some results in six months, that will really protect children in schools. But honestly Scot? I did not see one thing in what the President proposed that would actually stop another Sandy Hook, and that is truly disgusting. Enough of the political manuevering, children were killed. Beef up the security, then the "adults" can haggle about the "gun control" until they are blue in the face.
Obama knows how to take his case to the people. The tea baggers will be rejected at every turn until they fade out or learn to be adults.
The tea baggers did an excellent job of taking their case to the people in 2010, many democratic congressmen faded away. Are they off learning to be adults now?
Didn’t Peter Diamond receive his Nobel Prize after he withdrew his name from consideration for the Federal Reserve Board? This op-ed makes it sound like Dr. Diamond already had the award when Sen. Shelby opposed his nomination.
No, Peter got the Nobel while still a nominee. One would have thought it might have given Shelby seconds thoughts, but no.
And the Nobel was research on Social Security and retirement, wasn't it? Is this now in the Fed's portfolio too?
It is unlikely that the 'bully pulpit' will help bring public pressure to bear on Republicans. Those from districts with comfortable majorities will still feel as though they have a mandate to oppose the President even to the point of haranguing him over whether he puts his right leg or his left leg into his trousers first. Those whose re-election in 2014 is less certain still have no incentive to legislate, given the challenges from the fringe. I would be far more interested in whether the President can sway Congressional Democrats who are on the fence. Tsynchronous below gleefully insinuates that Sen. Reid is to blame for Senate gridlock, even though Senate Democrats never had a filibuster-proof bloc; they were never sufficiently united, and now they enjoy only a thin majority. T is correct, however, that it is high time that Sen. Reid focus on legislating rather than counter-gamesmanship with Sen. McConnell.
Obama should leverage his "popularity"? According to Gallup he has the lowest approval rating since WWII. Gun control? The NRA is more popular. "Climate Change"? Is that the same or different than "Global Warming"? Either way the public has little interest in bankrupting the country based on a theory that is so feeble its authors won't publish all their data. Around the world there's growing skepticism of "Climate Change/Global Warming" with the public (if one would care to look). Worse, no countries are signing up for any treaties relating to this theory. Immigration policy? Again, there's little interest in sweeping changes among the public and more support harder border security than another amnesty. By all means, Obama shouldn't negotiate, shouldn't offer any spending reductions (much less freeze any spending) as everyone knows NOTHING can be slowed or reduced in government spending at any level, at any time. Of course, somehow individuals, families, business and other non-government organizations manage to reduce spending without the world ending but, nah, every cent spent on every government program is......yeah, an "investment" now so we can't possibly cut "investments", can we? Apparently, when you win an election with 1% more than half the voters one now has a mandate so unequivocal that you can do anything you please with no consideration of negotiating. Surely there are even more delusional ideas one can fabricate to support Obama but this piece is an excellent start.
Honestly, JJag, that's woefully uninformed on climate change. In the last year and a half, we've seen several big new reports -- including one funded in part by the Koch Brothers and conducted by a theretofore skeptic -- that have confirmed and even strengthened the scientific link.
I am curious, WE keep talking, and talking, and talking about global warming. Then I turn on the TV, Bejing, China, air so bad they are wearing masks and warning people to stay in side. I also know that it is not JUST Bejing, since China has become an industrial powerhouse.
Is China talking about Global Warming? Where is whats-his-name who invented the internet? We need to send him to China, to get them talking.
Anyone had one of those big new reports translated into Chinese yet?
Are we TALKING to WalMart and KMart about not selling anymore Chinese stuff? Hmmmm.
In american politics what we have seen is that with few exceptions those candidates with the largest war chest usually win. As a result most politicians spend too much time raising money instead of raising awareness. As americans it is our responsibility to cut through the lies "as seen on tv". These groups sometimes claim non-partisanship. They have great sounding names like the Heritage Foundation, the Pioneer Institute, American Crossroads, and Americans for Prosperity. The only prosperity their interested in is their own. So Mr. President please take your case to the american people. Hopefully you can convince a few more people to stop voting against their best interests.
I would like to point out that the Democrats and Republicans need each other. Either one with an overwhelming majority is dangerous and takes the country down slippery paths. We all know that Dems love to spend, spend, SPEND. So they need some Reps to say "hold it, back off with the spending!" The Reps can be a pain with the "Business is good for the country" routine. Uh huh, sure, as corporate types figure out how to move businesses offshore and still reap huge profits as unemployment soars. But then we are told, "It is trickle down economics".
It is dangerous when it comes to social ideas too. Metropolitan areas may be more open to certain liberal ideas, not so much in the country. But given a bit of time, the rural folk usually come to accept the ideas. (they are not all knuckle dragging, confederate flag, teeth missing, idiots) In fact, having lived in rural areas, quite often they are MORE tolerant than city folk. The point being, that is why it is best to leave some social changes as "States Rights" rather than "Federal Law". If one looks at a map, it quickly becomes apparent, many states are very rural in makeup. But here in the Northeast, different story.
What worries me about Obama is that it appears he is trying to crush the Republicans and get an overwhelming majority to push his social ideas on an entire country. We have had some of that in the past, most of those social ideas have not worked.
great comment
What better example to see what happens when you crush the opposition then looking at Massachusetts.
If 1981-1993 and 2001-2009 are an indicator of anything, it is that the Republicans spend just as freely as the Democrats; the two groups just like to spend on different things at times, or direct spending to different donors, to be more accurate. The Defense of Marriage Act was also an intrusion of Federal Law into the domain of States' Rights. Republicans and Democrats need each other in order to legislate effectively. Unfortunately what we have is Democrats and Republicans defining 'needing each other' as needing a bogeyman to blame everything from smelly socks to rainy days on.
When the President "goes to the people" he is often talking to a more reasonable audience than when his audience is only on Capitol Hill. Most people would agree that in order for individuals to succeed there are things that we need to do as a community. Most people would agree that arming people with AK-47s for "hunting" is absurd. Even Mr. Scalia has hinted as much. And with good leadership, in the not too distant future, gay or straight, black or white, will be simply attributes (like Democrat or Republican) rather than stimulents for bile. For now, though, a combination of FDR and pre-Vietnam LBJ would be ideal...but I'll take what I can get.
Nahant: That "hunting" routine gets old. The 2A was not written for hunters, have no idea where you get that from.
But, I will tell ya what us gun owners could do, to make you feel a bit better. Form a militia. All gun owners in the state could easily sign up to form a militia. There is no law against it, in fact, it is protected by the 2A. We would "regulate" ourselves by appointing "Officers" and have a rank structure. Just like in the old days. Just so you know, militias typically keep their weapons at home, ready to go. In fact, you may be interested to know that the Selectmen of Westford, MA are discussing forming a town Militia as I write this. They however, have an ulterior motive.
I am sure you would feel much better knowing that you had a standing militia ready to protect you from evil gun owners should they revolt in an attempt to overthrow the government.
Scot has apparantly fallen victim to the Media's Swooning for our Messiah-Like President. Mr. Lehigh used to be a Centrist who saw Bill Clinton's successful second term governing from the Center as a model for all President's. Now apparantly he, like all of his fellow Globies, sees Mr. Obama's sharp turn to the Left (who amongst us didn's see this coming?) as his Mandate. Priceless! "Scot Brown, get over the Center where you belong. Messiah, do what you were put on this Earth to do!"
Right. Hey when a real leftist is elected, then you'll have something to go on about. That won't be for some time yet.
I couldn't help but notice your signature. You do know who was in office Septermber 11, 2001, yes? You do know who's national security team sidelined Richard Clarke when he was hyperventilating about immanent threat, yes?
I will give you the benefit of the doubt and congratulate you on your sense of irony.
To be Fair And Balanced (never an issue on Morrissey Blvd): "The fact that we are here today to debate raising America’s debt limit is a sign of leadership failure. It is a Sign that the US Government cannot pay its own bills. It is a sign that we now depend on ongoing financial assistance from foreign countries to finance our Government’s reckless fiscal policies. ...Increasing America’s debt weakens us domestically and internationally. Leadership means that 'the buck stops here'. Instead, Washington is shifting the burden of bad choices today onto the backs of our children and Grandchildren. America has a debt problem and a failure of leadership. Americans deserve better." SENATOR BARACK HUSSEIN OBAMA, MARCH 2006
but, but, but....its DIFFERENT today!!!! ::::stomping foot::::chewing lip::::::
Remember.. you cannot hold a liberal accountable for what they said (or plagarized) last week, last month, ever... only what they say to you "right now"....
(famously demonstrated by the "i was for it before I was against it" comment by Sen Kerry).
A conservative must be held accountable for anything they ever said, did or thought.
Scot: have you not noticed that our country increases its debt without actually having a budget? I'd be interested to know why you don't mention the Senate refusal to pass one, when attacking Republicans for their resistance to raising the debt ceiling. Also, you don't find it odd that the president didn't mention the national debt in his address? Oh well, as long as he's a "reasonable man", willing to "work out sensible compromises" -- after having a news conference to attack those with whom he need to work, in the middle of negotiations. Don't you think you've proven you're not a racist, and can now note real flaws in our president?
Mr. Diamond was "Borked". What goes around comes around! Oh Well. That Paragon of Virtue and Morality tanked Mr. Bork, now Mr. Shelby tanked Mr. Diamond on policy issues. Stuff happens.
This comment has been removed.
One last quesion: When did Liberals become Progressives? Why the name change?
This comment has been removed.
Since all you reactionaries were having so much trouble with "Liberal", we thought it'd make it easier for you.
To an earlier psot - we are not Europe, but you can't look at the yield curve as prrof. The market has been wildly manipulated by the Fed to prop it up.
Gay rights, climatre and immigration are just point he knows he can score points with his base and demonize the right. How about talking about, debt, unemployment, LT disability rates, food stamp rolls, etc. THAT is what matters. It's the economy stupid and he owns it now.
23 million Americans out of Work and what does our Thoughtful Progressive President focus on: Immigration, ie allowing Amnesty for Illegals. Brilliant! That is the way to get Americans back to work.
Oddly enough, immigration reform is about immigration. Infrastructure improvements and cutting the social security tax were about getting America back to work. The bailout was about keeping the economy from tanking even further (so, not about putting people back to work, but preventing them from losing jobs in the first place). Of course, that came in under Bush, so...
Guys,
Some of these last post are moving into silliness. Probably no one has written more often about the deficit than I have. That said, every column needn't be deficit focused.
Not criticizing your other columns, criticizing the President's speech. You don't find it odd that HE didn't address the national debt? You don't note, in THIS column, that there is no Senate budget from which to address the debt ceiling, as you find it unreasonable for some House members to resist raising it?
It is always "silly", "uninformed", "out of touch" when one disagrees. How very Progressive!
This comment has been removed.
No, it's silly when, say, people act as though I never say anything about the debt and deficit. I've written about it on a regular basis for at least a decade.
Yes you have Scot. And you wrote about Mr. Clinton's second term, which was a Success, as being a model. Now we have a President who ran on curtailing the deificit but only offers one Silly Sound Bite: Tax the "Rich". Any sensible, mature Adult knows that this is only Red Meat for his constituents and is a drop in the bucket. Nothing, and I mean Nothing, on slowing down of the incredible increase in Federal Spending. And unlike Mr. Clinton who led from the Center, the Real Mr. Obama came out Swinging from as Far Left as you can go Monday. Do we really think that is where we need to go?
The trouble is, who is to pay to balance the budget and reduce the deficit. GOP supporters love to demonize the welfare people, disability people, TARP money etc. while totally ignoring corporate tax fraud, evasion, giveaways etc. which adds up to lots of money. Google--1 billion in tax dodges. I sense a lot of predjudice as i burrow down to the causes of vehemence in political arguments. Condemnation of the black president still exists, and a willingness to penalize those considered socially inferior still fuels much of the shrieking on the right. Obama is determined to set the record straight on who has been stiffing the resposibility of paying your fair share. It's so easy to blame the poor, the mentally ill, the sick, the unemployed for the nation's trouble and this is a card always played by the right. It's akin to bullying, picking on those who have no voice, no campaign money to send . As for those who love to blame "liberals" for the debt, it shouild be remebered that every Democratic administration since and including Truman produced a balanced budget, not so for the Republican.
The "fair share" question is a curious one. It presumes that lower tax rates have led to lower tax revenues, thus implying that some strawman is paying less than his or her fair share. But history has proven that it does not work this way. Tax revenues shot up to an all time high of over $2.5 Trillion in the 4 years following the Bush tax cuts. While rates were lower, the revenues collected were higher. This is a function of the economic growth, that is the true measure of how much tax revenue is collected. "fair share" implies a false causal relationship between tax rates and tax revenues.
There is certainly a connection, but it is tenuous and fleeting. Thus if the economy grew at 6% annually, but the highest marginal rate was only 18%, tax collections would be far higher, even though, according to liberal dogma, there are some not paying their "fair share".
Cutting your way to solvency has been shown not to work, over and over.
Scot,
I see this column as one about the politics of the moment. You seem to believe that chastising the opposition, and refusing to negotiate is consistent with the legacy or President Reagan. You may not recall, but Reagan and Tip O'Neill were buddies who liked each other very much. Reagan went out of his way to work with both sides-from agreeing to a tax increase on the (false) promise of future spending cuts, to appointing Anthony Kennedy after the Democrats destroyed Robert Bork. Reagan was a statesman, and one from whom our current president could learn a great deal.
"Black President". Progressives really need to stop this nonsense. It is weak and trite. As for Mr. Obama trying to make sure everyone "pays their fair share", the Class Warfare and Demonization of Success that comes from this Adminstration is incredible. The word Entitlement says it all: Entitled! Everyone becomes a Victim which masks the real Victims from those who feel Entitled. This is not the America I grew up in but it is sure where we are headed.
Big business is truly "entitled." its just easier to set people against one another. More than once, when arguing politics at legnth, I have been surprised to hear the "N" word blurted out. Can anyone remember a president more rudely insulted and challenged, interrupted and labeled?
Don't despair- you may be a success one day, despite it all, if you try really, really hard...
I am just tired of the fawning of the left:
SuperBrain
Most important memoir since Grant
Washington like speech
Lincolnesque.
Please
Take a nap then- it's going to be a long future. Some of us didn't think much of Reagan either.
This comment has been removed.
Richmond: On the tax stuff, you are once again trying to slip the surly bonds of fiscal gravity.
BushKept: What do you see that you consider such a dramatic break with American tradition? Specifics, please. Also, please realize that much of the projected deficit is entitlements, which are spiking because of the retirement of the baby-boomers.
Richmond: Would that Congressional Republicans were as respectful of this president as Tip was of the Gipper.
O’Neill publicly called Reagan “callous . . . a real Ebenezer Scrooge,” whose program was “for the selfish, the greedy, and the affluent.”
I recall standing on City Hall Plaza when the Gipper noted that someone had told him about a game called PAC-Man where something that was big and fat and round gobbled up money, then saying: Why, I thought that was Tip O'Neill.
They both seemed to take it in good stride.
This comment has been removed.
Scot, what I consider breaks with the American Tradition is a President who villifies those who are Successful and Work Hard ("the rich", "Greedy", "not paying their fair share") while making the Federal Government not the last resort but the first resort. Everyone is a Victim under this Administration. Everyone deserves of share of the Pie. Instead of making Hard Work and Innovation values all we hear from our President is how we need to provide more. Mr. Obama ran back in 2008 as a Unifier but no President in my Lifetime has ever been more of a Divider (Class Wafare, Gender Warfare, Race Warfare and on and on). Specifically, the utter nonsense that his Nasty Campaign spewed about Conservatives hating Women was disgusting but of course the Left lapped it up. This President has not a clue on how jobs are created but "Galvanizes" his base about the things he has no experience with: Meeting a payroll, investing in people and capital, Entrepreneurship with his policies and pronouncements.
Bush, are Waytoo under a different name?
Where did he say greedy? I don't think I saw that. I think you are inputing things that weren't said.
So I take it that you begrudgingly agree with everything else? If so, I will take away Greedy. But his sycophants use it regularly. Challenge me and I will get you many "specifics". And why O why won't you answer how you have gone away from pushing for Leading from the Center like your Man Clinton, Scot? Crickets!
Scot it would be great if the president tried to fix problems and build concensus rather than start from points where americans are most divided. Its even sadder that those in the media dont call him out for it.
Our President is a Divider who capitalizes on the fact that he has the "base" on his side to back him up. The Misty Eyed Liberals (sorry can't use the P word) can't see through the Rhetoric and Swoon at the Promise. To use Scot's word, Silly!
Guys, examples, please. Otherwise you are just bloviating.
" If you've got a business—you didn't build that. Somebody else made that happen". Says everything one needs to know about this man's grasp of Small Business.
Right, like Romney's swing through Boston trying to find small businesses "that did it themselves." Both were found to have been helped by start up money from the government.
ah, you know darn-tootin' well just what he was saying, that it takes roads, trucks, cashiers etc. That no one can get by without the cooperation of others. My but you are one persistent, and dare I say angry little soldier. It's almost as if you're (but it can't be, coming from the Right) trying to foster some kind of Division in the populace! Oh my goodness!
This comment has been removed.
"As long-time political observer Michael Barone put it, "Barack Obama begins his second term with a strategy to defeat and humiliate Republicans rather than a strategy to govern.""
Excellent. Of course, it doesn't take much skill to humiliate a Republican.
And the corollary: a democrat knows no shame.
I think the conservatives here have to come to grasp with a central reality. Obama won in 2008 -- and yet, Republicans spent much of his first term trying to thwart him at nearly every turn. He won again last year, despite their strong belief that voters disagreed with him. It turned out that voters disagreed with them. The GOP, after all, presented a starkly different list of priorities, and lost.
That being the case, is it really unrealistic for a newly re-elected president to expect to push forward with his priorities?
This comment has been removed.
Was it really unrealistic for Republicans and Tea Partiers like me to fight his admitted agenda, "to spread the wealth around" as he told Joe the Plumber? Yes, our starkly different image of America is very different from his: do you really think we have a representative democracy just so that our share of the representatives can roll over and give his image the validation he wants? It's our job to try to convince voters to see things our way, not just join in the worship of your Messiah.
Scot,
You have some pretty serious tunnel vision in your discussion of the ills of Washington politics...you mention Boehner and McConnell, both Republicans, as key players in the dysfunction of Washington. You pontificate on them as the source of the evil and manage to finish your story without even mentioning the name of the Senate leader, the head of one third of the government. HARRY REED, know him??? That you can write an article like this without mentioning Reed, and the fact that his Senate has not passed a budget in four years, or pretty much passed anything at all, is conculive evidence you have a one-sided perspective. I guess as a progressive yourself, how could you see a good progressive like Harry Reed be part of the problem? Right.
Who's Harry Reed? Does Fox misspell the Senate Majority Leader's name? Repeatedly?
This comment has been removed.
I took a class with Richard Neustadt in 1998 - unbelievable teacher and his book remains the classic work on Presidential Power
He also did a terrific series on all the presidents for PBS some years back. Very good viewing.
Life:
Is that what I wrote Boehner? Hmm, it must have gotten changed on the copy desk. I thought I said he had shown some adult inclinations, but couldn't act on them because he was astride a Tea Party Tiger and have the young ideological guns eager to replace him.
Scot
Obama did take his case to the people: you can vote for me and prove you're not racist, then together we can spend on stuff for you while not paying for it and letting future generations carry the burden. A slight majority of voters liked the case.
This comment has been removed.
Actually his case was, "I will not cut the entitlements wihtout sacrifice first elsewher. I reject the idea of a darwinian America and I believe that we are all in this together." That was his argument.
Mr. Romney argued that "free enterprise" trickle down economics, that the entitlement state should be ended were the solution to America's problems.
Mr. Romney lost that argument. Now one can accept the idea that the public has made a pollicy decision for itself or the Party can take the position. No, we will not recognize this status quo. If they take the latter position then their future as a Party could well be in question. The fact is "Barbara" the shifting demographics of this natin do not accept your philosophy of govt. That is not to say whether your position on economics is right or wrong but simply to say it has been rejected.
Well I had to hit the golf course using my disabled veterans money, you know that "welfare" check I get. I return to a conversation that has once again broken down into almost downright silliness. I note the "libertarians' once again are unwilling to admit that what they propose what they desire is rejected by the American people. Not rejected narrowly but rejected soundly. The question that the Republican Party faces is not whether Pres. Obama is a "liberal" or a "pragmatic". It is not whether SS, Medicare, Veterans Benefits etc. should or should not exist, the question surrounding these issues has been settled, probably settled for generations. The American public has made it very clear they want these programs and want them as they are currently established. The issue for the Republican Party is how does it conserve these programs in a fashion that is congruent with their beliefs and at the same time convince the public that they the Republicans are on the side of the average American.
From my perspective the answer for the Republican Party is to one remove this T-Party nonsense from dictating their legislative agenda, these folks do not want to govern nor to legislate. If the Party will return to its own legislative roots and if the Dems. in the Senate allow the legislative process of the past to return, Republicans then make constructive amendments, propose constructive ideas towards reducing the deficit. However, to attempt to zero in on entitlements as the single driver of the deficit is to pursue a losing effort. Not because the belief is wrong but because the American people reject that proposal. The best hope for deficit reduction is a serious negotiation by both sides and unless they can rise above the silliness I have seen here they have very little hope in accomplishing that goal.
I have to say, conservatives, I think attaturk's fact-based presentation has carried the day today. He cerainly has deflated lots of hyperbole ...
Attaturk and JL usually do the dirty work around here, so kudos to them. Sometimes it's very dirty work indeed.
No one has solved any of the worlds problems here - just talking points from the left and right
How about some metrics
So here they are
Year Discretionary Entitlement Interest Deficit
Spending
2007 1.131T 1.574T .257T .174T
2012 1.289T 2.01T .220T -1.128T
I see Discretionary spending up 14% and entitlement up 21%
I'm sure not making 14% more than in 2007 - more like 50% less - and yes something has to be done about entitlements.
Unless we grow our economy - we are in TROUBLE.
What is all this "the voters have spoken" nonsense? The man won by what, 3% ??? To expect everyone who did not vote for him to just say "Game over, the country has now completely changed, and I must change with it", is pure nonsense. Many conservative voters were not thrilled with Mittens, they voted for a libertarian or did not vote at all.
3%, and announcing the country has now changed its course, give me a break! That is like saying "Captain, Captain, we are 3 degrees off course, are we still going to miss North America?"
As for Mr. AttaTurk, my learned friend: Why is it that we always have to talk about SS, VA Bennies, etc? There are MANY other areas in gov that could be cut. Hmmmm?
Well "History" I would say those particular entitlements are always mentioned because from the "libertarian" and the Republican side they are the issues they bring to the front as primary targets for cutting. I would agree with you wholeheartedly that there are many other places that we could look at to place the scalpel. Why is it we never hear about DOD spending? Farm subsidies? Numerous other subsidies? I would even ask why let us say Veterans Benefits aren't taxed just as SS benefits are taxed? I have no objection to a wide ranging look at budgetary issues.
As to this the public has spoken? It is not just the election. It is any serious look at polling in America shows that the public does not wish to see changes to these programs. I however have no objection to seeing Medicare moved to age 67 but would like to see exceptions based upon an "industry" standard related to physical requirements. I also have no problem with a chained CPI. However, my point is the party, any party that takes that position is taking a politically suicidal position unless both parties take the position together and agree not to make it a campaign issue.
Mr. Turk, you touch on some of my favorite subjects. DoD, I keep wondering, do we really "need" a $1B stealth fighter? I keep thinking "Just who is out there that we use it against?" Farm susidies, uh huh, well maybe if we could actually find a nice small unincorporated family farm somewhere. Then there is this little thing about SS disability benefits. . . the 24 y.o. who went off to college and was traumatized by being torn from the womb of his family, and now receives $800/month. Really? We are paying for that? Wonder who he votes for? All sorts of federally funded programs that are connected to our schools, I can hear someone screaming already "but that is the only way some of those children get a square meal!", but there are other less well known programs that could be axed. Then there is my favorite of all time: a study to determine the sex life of earthworms. Holy Cow! Since they are androgynous I am not quite sure what they were studying.
I am a bit against increasing age limits for Medicare and Medicaid, given that we don't seem to have any legislation in place anymore to protect older workers from "corporate downsizing" that in many cases should be termed "out with the old, in with the new, cause they will work for less".
I am pretty sure they go after SS, etc because they think the demographics look better election wise, somehow. None of this stuff is done without some serious calculating.
History: Scot isn't interested is any data from us. If Obama wants to fund a study of the sex life of earthworms, that's fine with those who blindly worship he who created them and all of us.
I'm always disappointed when someone who has something to say simply goes sophmoric. Conservatives have a legitimate argument they simply need to make it. Data while interesting is not truly political. The question is how to make the case, not my numbers are better than your numbers. I recently attended a Republican meeting here in Florida in which a number of what I would call moderate Repubs and conservative Repubs far outnumbered the T-Party folks. That implies a movement within the Party to reestablish itself as a sensible Party. I certainly hope voices such as your own will not be totally lost to the Party, but standing in the front of the train of history shouting no, is not conducive to political success.
This hypothetical study has been done anyway, B. http://science.howstuffworks.com/zoology/all-about-animals/earthworm3.htm
Scotty Taxes loves him some taxes!
yea, lets concentrate on gay marriage
now the worst in US history, having just dipped below the heretofore lowest on record.
source: http://www.zerohedge.com/news/2013-01-24/its-official-worst-recovery-ever