So no matter what happens in Massachusetts tomorrow..
 

Either Brown is going to pull off a shocker or Coakley is going to survive what looked like a loss and that brings me to my question. The very fact this seat is even showing a chance of Republican control let alone a very real threat of a Democratic staple being lost is IMO very telling about how the population feels about our President and it cant be stated enough that I am not the only one with serious concerns
Will this Senate race, the turns of New Jersey and Virginia on Governor and sliding national poll numbers convince Obama to go more to the center or will he ignore this and maintain his far left course? He did run on a center platform yet ran to the left as soon as taking office and I am convinced he knows the public has caught on and doesnt like what is happening.
Now he can either take this lesson and become a more center minded leader as Clinton did after his wake up call or arrogantly ignore the very folks who put him in power at his, the Democratic party and our country as a wholes peril and I want to know what others think.
What will be his future way of doing things when it is obvious he is losing both support and confidence of the voter?

Eh, who knows. His approval rating is right at 50% according to this article:

http://www.cbsnews.com/blogs/2010/01...y6113290.shtml

It's interesting to look at the numbers of past Presidents one year in. Look at W- 82%. Sure did erode in a big way after that. Look at Reagan- 49%. He sure did pick it up, and didn't do it by running to the middle.

It's tough to say. I really do think a good deal rides on Health Care. If they get it done his numbers will get better. The right wing guys sure spent a lot of rhetoric on this. No way it can be as bad as they said it would. After that, it's really all about the economy. If things start picking up he's golden, just like Reagan. He'll say "look, it's working!" and he'll be able to move his agenda forward.

But I think you're quite wrong. He's closer to center than W was. Certainly closer to center than Reagan was. You're taking the talk show guys too seriously. What exactly is it that you think makes him so left? Health care reform? Nixon tried to do it and his plan was much more liberal. He's been very cautious on everything else. Can't call that Afghanistan plan liberal. Can't call the tax cuts liberal either. He's playing pretty well down the middle near as I can tell. And no hate filled rhetoric against gays or immigrants like we've seen from the right in recent years.

No, I think Obama will be just fine. I don't think he'll move at all because there is nowhere *to* move unless he becomes a Republican. Shoot, he hasn't done much that a Republican President hasn't already done or tried to do in the past.

I disagree Ed. He has much room to move. A politician who does not adapt would to me, be no better then our last schmuck.

IMO the current prez gives two shits about the middle class. Its gonna come home to bite him in the ass unless he does something.

Mass often elects republicans. Don't confuse the love for Kennedy with the party that he was a part of.
NJ was never going to Corzine this time around. It had nothing to do with national DEMOCRAT VS REPUBLICAN rhetoric. It was an anti Corzine vote.

The problem is simply letting the right get all the press with their buzzwords, you know "death Panels" "Socialism", "Big Government" "Government Takeover" all certified bull manure but not counterd by the left with the truth.

Frankly Brown is enough of a yahoo that should he win he will most likely do more to piss off the independents than he will to win them over to the do nothing party.

I've said it before and I will say it again. If Obama does not start addressing the economy in a recognized manner, these individuals are going to start to be bounced by association.

At the moment, the administrations primary focus appears to be on; #1 Health Care Reform and #2 Climate Change with the economy trailing in third position.

Disregarding one's personal opinion of the merit or implementation of one or all of the big three, lets for argument sake assume that those are the three. If #3 doesn't move to the #1 position, it may be game over.

I am not trying to start a pissing match over what is more important here. I just think that it is becoming clearer that by in large, people are much more concerned about the state of the economy.


RC

I agree. Obama appears to be resolute in his agenda without recognizing that circumstance often dictates agenda for the successful in government.

Yeah, it would make more sense to build the economy and tax base before
spending money we dont have. But they are backward thinking democrats
out to destroy the free market enterprise in this country.

Well, there's no question that I view the world through liberal glasses, so I could certainly be wrong. I'd honestly be intersted in specific initiatives that you feel are far left.

Oh for crying out loud, he inherits a fucked up economy, FUBAR'ed by the free market, two effing wars neither of which we needed nor could afford. Manages to keep us from going over the cliff economically and everyone is upset? Spoiled darlings, sitting around pissing and moaning, you want real trouble? Come on back to 1930 with me, I'll show you real problems, oddly enough precipitated by another Republican, you people never learn do you.

That is not the intent. The intent is to reel in some of the grotesque excess that pools instead of running downstream.

I think it's a mistake to try to read too deeply into a single special election. Polls that measure presidential approval ratings are famously fickle (as is American public opinion from which they derive). Dubya had historically high approval ratings at one time, but will likely go down historically as one of our worst presidents. Similarly, Reagan had the lowest approval after one year of any American president since modern polling began, yet has been canonized as one of the greats (at least by the GOP).

The GOP should be careful about drawing some deeper meaning from current Obama polls or the Massachusetts special election, lest they think that they're actually doing something right. If they continue to kowtow to the right wing crazies and alienate Blacks and Hispanics in the process, they'll paint themselves into a corner called irrelevance.

Ha, Ha! LMAO! Rob speaks the truth, and I'm loving it.:D

Obama "far left"? Only in America. Compared to the rest of the world he's a staunch Conservative Republican. You guys....................:confused:

Dave

Sorry but if I hear the words "Free Market" again I might just buy a gun. Greed is ever with us and will not go away any time soon. Even in Haiti they are running a black market in drinking water,what bigger example of greed do you want?

As for the Wall Street boys they don't see first hand what their greed has done, their neighbourhoods have no foreclosures, they are not the fathers who feel shamed because they can't put food on the table despite their best efforts. Carrion, just plain carrion, evil people who should not live. They contribute nothing to the nation, only take, and take some more, and yet more. I am not a saint nor an especially great person, but there is no one on Wall Street fit to lick my boots..

A reality of our political system is that government representatives cannot accomplish anything if they cannot get elected, especially when the things to be accomplished take more than two or four years. Unless President Obama can pass a healthcare plan, his credibility as a leader, and hence as a political figure take a serious hit. Morever, the perception of his influence becomes diminished in congress, and legislators are less willing to participate in his initiatives, or at least those in congress who actually debate instead of saying no, no, no, like a two-year old.

Accordingly, the reality is that the healthcare bill has to remain priority. Remember, however, that one impetus in going forward with the healthcare bill is the effect of medical costs on our economy, and on the pocketbooks of most working (and retired) Americans. Also remember that the first initiative, occurring before any healthcare bill was proposed, was the stimulus plan. That plan focusecd on the economy (along with secondary goals like rebuilding infrastructure and creating jobs in alternative energy industries).

Regards,

D-Ray

What I am saying is he needs the break the molds and start crossing more lines.

It was no secret I supported Single payer insurance for every last one of us, regardless of income.

Nearly everything else he said hes going to do he handed off to others to screw up. That man needs to get in the ditches and start digging like the rest of us. Then I will respect him. Not a minute sooner.

For sure he should not have left it to those lamebrains in Congress to write the bill without giving them a template.

He needs to jettison Rahm Emmanuel.

John

I remember saying words to this effect during the 2000 election. I kept hearing Bush supporters saying we needed a change. I would ask, what is it you want to change? The relative world peace, or the roaring economy? They got both.

Never can think of a time in my life when people so overwhelmingly defied all logic. One of the most prosperous periods in our nation's history and we didn't elect the guy most like him? Well, most of us *did* vote for him. All the same, why was that election even close?

So we got Bush. We got the "change" we wanted. Two wars and an economy in the toilet. So what do we do now? Blame the guy who replaced him.

This is playing out frighteningly like 1994.

Whose to say we would not have gotten those things without bush in for a second time ?

The wars and the tax cuts which combined to wreck our economy and our image around the world happened in Bush's first term.

John

And the most perplexing thing of all are the hoards of well intended, proudly self relent folks who somehow unknowingly act as their bitches.

Let them do their own tea baggin'.

Same here. The bill presently being considered is garbage, more income for the investor class.

In all honesty, I respect a man who has convictions and stands by them. I may not agree with them but do respect that. It's just that we have some very pressing issues to address right now and Climate Change (for example) falls pretty far down on the list for me personally. I would have to believe that he is not spending every waking moment on this but by the same token, enough already.

I would like to believe that this, we could agree on.

RC

I think Obama needs a big change and I agree bouncing Rahm would be a great start. Polls come and go and swing up or down but I think there is a pattern here and while I am not an the inside I do think Obama needs to not only adjust his goals but needs to seriously make an effort to work with the Right. Like it or not the message of "NO" is working simply because the majority dont like his agenda.
Just like the country held Bush accountable for his "Read my lips" promise the country is turning on Obama for his broken ones aswell but its a series of promises not one big soundbite. Everyone can see its business as usual, everyone can see there is no more transparency but infact there is less, many can see deals being made by special interest groups yet we were told the wouldnt find their way into 1600, he promised a Net across the board cut in spending, sorry folks, he said he was going to "ban all earmarks" that didnt happen, he promised any Bill would be posted for 5 days online for the public to view before he signs, broke that one too, and the latest promise he made that folks have come to remember is the fact he attacked John McCain as a guy who was going to "Tax healthcare benefits" and proudly noted that McCains idea was so unpopular it has never in the history of our country been done.
So the left can blame the Right as the party of NO, can blame the media for relentlessly reminding folks how our President strayed from both his message and promise he ran on, can blame the past administration for what it "inherited", he can blame like the best of him but until he starts taking control and responsibility for his own actions I think he and his party are in for a long cold day in November no matter what happens tonight.

I would agree with you that climate change should not hold top billing now. To the extent that is is relevant to the discussion of the bigger issues, it does make sense, for example, to promote jobs by promoting green jobs. Steps taken for short term solutions should not be inconsistent with what has to be done to resolve long term issues. (That is one of the reasons I believe that focus on the healthcare bill is warranted, because failure to effect some reform now, can have seriously detrimental economic effects.) (For today's English lesson, note that I have utilized two different meanings of the word "effect" in one sentence.)

BTW, as I have stated elsewhere, I have some serious issues with cap and trade.

Regards,

D-Ray

convictions without reassessment is not admirable

time is change, it is the nature of life, we need to continually challenge our judgment given new circumstance

Me too. Talk about an investor's dream! I don't know which will make more money, health reform as the bill is now or cap and trade.

You know it is really strange, when I had my immigration hearing they really wanted to know if I understood the concept of checks and balances. I guess if you are born here they don't care if you grasp the concept or not.

L'homme propose, le Dieu dispose.

The president can propose all he wants but if that dumbass congress wants to go another way the best he can do is veto their bills. If they have enogh votes to override his veto he is SOL.

As Yogi said "When you come to the fork in the road, take it."

I do also (cap and trade that is).

Being in the housing and commercial construction industry for almost 25 years now, I am very attuned to "green" efforts how many have jumped on board for profit and to conform to regulation. If you could see some of the inner workings of it, I believe you might see a lot of it as a bit of a joke. Be that as it may, jobs are jobs as long as they aren't all just built on the notion of green.

We really need to start to produce a viable product in this country soon or it's going to be government and service related jobs for all of us. If you subscribe any to the notion that government does produce a product as such, we had better start investing in the private sector.

For those of you who say, well, don't just bitch, provide some solutions I give you this...

Maybe a good place to start would be to tax the hell out of corporate entities that wish to produce products overseas and at the same time, wish to bring them back for sale here. At the same time, provide incentives to manufactures that produce a product here for sale here. This would stimulate job growth here by allowing companies who wish to play by the rules the additional capitol to grow and hire.

Maybe thats just a naive approach to things from a guy who likes to cut to the chase :confused: I'm just a guy who would like to get to the heart of the problem (some of it anyway) and deal with it accordingly.

Sorry about the somewhat off topic rant. I just can't help myself :D

RC

Interesting stuff. I want to discuss it more, when I can.

Regards,

D-Ray

I understand about green jobs, but I too work around the new green projects (indirectly in the supply chain) and if someone can tell me how increasing costs is going to lead to a net INCREASE in jobs I'd sure like to know how.

Pete

Ok, so say a dem was in office then. Do you really think it would be much different ?

It's doubtful that a Dem would have passed Bush's tax cuts or gone to Iraq (I believe a Dem would have gone to Afghanistan after 9/11).

I have to agree. I think we would be significantly healthier fiscally if the supremes did not appoint Bush king.

YES!

I think the financial industry would have been regulated more effectively, we probably wouldn't have Bush's tax cuts, we probably wouldn't be in two wars right now. Who knows what other trials we would have faced in their stead, but on the whole, looking at the circumstances of the last decade, I'd say we'd be a world better off had we actually given the election to Gore as the voters wanted.

Your joking right ?

Even Gore would have been forced by the masses to declare war after 911.

The view is nice from the cheapseats and hindsight is 20/20, but the office of President isnt anyones to "give" it is earned by the Electoral College.

There's no way to know, of course, but I suspect there would have been some action in Afghanistan. Not sure what it would have looked like. Perhaps we'd have gone in and gotten Bin Laden and called it a day. I am virtually certain that we would *not* have gotten into the mess in Iraq. Clinton was big on cruise missles and limited engagement. No way to know what Gore would have done, but I suspect it would have been more limited in scope.

So, who knows? Monday morning quarterbacking and all. But we may have been in and out with Afghanistan and not gone to Iraq at all. How many trillions would that have saved?

You know they did go back and count the ballots in Florida, don't you? You do know that more people voted for Gore than Bush, right? Electoral votes aside, and that's an issue we could talk about too, Gore won the election.

And thanks for the Civics lesson. Do you really think anyone here doesn't understand the Electoral College or are you just being condesending?


http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/United_...election,_2000

"Ultimately, the Media Consortium hired the National Opinion Research Center at the University of Chicago[47] to examine 175,010 ballots that were discounted; these ballots contained under-votes (votes with no choice made for president) and over-votes (votes made with more than one choice marked). Their goal was not to deduce who actually won the election, but to determine the reliability and accuracy of the systems used for the voting process. Nonetheless, NORC concluded that if the disputes over the validity of the ballots in question had been consistently resolved and any uniform standard applied, the electoral result would have been reversed and Gore would have won by 107-115 votes.[48]"