The Politics Thread

[Money]

Max, the saying fool me one shame on you, fool me twice shame on me applies. Bush was inept - period. The guy was so out of touch on every level it was ridiculous. The only reason he got elected in the first place was because of dear old daddy and rich lobbyists. This is why no matter how angry I am with Obama his screw ups doesn't even come close to the level of Bush's. The level of expectations between the two really are irrelevant since it was and is their jobs to lead. I'm not going to excuse Bush's ineptitude because Obama's expectations were greater. If they can't lead and keep the country out of a recession they have no business being president. But it irks me that Americans who want to string Obama alive are some of the same folks who re-elected Bush and were his apologists.

Obama isn't stupid but he's a damn coward. And even though he would rather be labelled a nice guy than get tough, If I had to choose between him and 'pubs in 2012 I'm choosing Obama. It's not even a contest. Absolutely no one from from the Republican party deserves to be president. Not when their one and only agenda is protecting the rich. It's always the lesser of two evils.

Honestly, I would love if someone from the Democratic party gave Obama a run for his money and if the Dems thought he would actually win they would drop Obama in a heartbeat. Hillary says she's done. Gore? Kerry? I find it interesting that after months of being MIA he came out very passionately raging against the Tea Party.

Edited August 9, 2011 by Money

[Max]

Qfan, the NY Times criticized Obama for being to willing to compromise and not being liberal enough. This is very similar to the Tea Party criticizing Boehner for being to willing to compromise and not being conservative enough.

Qfan, you just can't blame Obama and the Tea Party for the clusterf*ck that the economy became. The fact of the matter is that for the first two years of Obama's presidency, the Democrats held huge majorities in both the House and the Senate. (Even now, they still control the senate.) After the first stimulus package was passed (early on in Obama's presidency), all further efforts to help the economy were abandoned. Instead, the Democrats focused all of their political efforts towards passing "universal" health care (which, while a long-term goal of liberals, was not the primary reason why the Democrats were elected in the first place; fixing the economy was). The health care battle lasted one year; in order to "get" government-run health care passed, the Democrats exhausted all of their political capital and goodwill from 2008 (and were left powerless to do anything more about the economy until after the 2010 midterm elections).

Money, there was a recession (that was mild compared to the Great Recession) from 2000-02, but by 2004 we had exited it. (Only in late 2007 & 2008--after the Great Recession began--was Bush perceived to be a massive economic failure among swing voters.) The fact of the matter is that at this point in time eight years ago, the job market and economy as a whole were considerably better than they are now.

[quartermainefan]

Compromise is when both sides give in. What Obama does is surrender to republican blackmail and gives them everything they want. That is the criticism.

[DRW50]

What I still wonder about is how many in our government actually want our economy to be destroyed, either because they think this will bring about end times, or because they think this will help Republicans get elected in 2012.

I also think that Obama's speech yesterday about how we will always be a AAA nation no matter what anyone says was kind of embarrassing. If you're happy and you know it clap your hands isn't Presidential, IMO.

[DRW50]

About 6 or 7 recall elections are happening in Wisconsin tonight. A few Democratic senators are up, mostly Republican senators, one Republican being in a heavily Democratic district. Given that Republicans always have more turnout, they also have a lot of money, media power, and other special elections that were seriously contested (like the state supreme court race a few months ago) have favored Republicans, I would guess they will win most of the races tonight. I can see Democrats getting one seat.

[Max]

Unfortunately, I have a feeling that many in the party out of power always hope the economy sucks, simply because all they care about is their own political well-being.

The Dems only need a net gain of three seats in order to re-take control of the State Senate. My predictions are the opposite of yours, Carl (I guess we're both pessimists!): I believe that the Democrats will re-take control of the State Senate; while the GOP has spent more money, the Dems have a more fired up base and a superior get-out-the-vote effort (largely organized by the unions) on their side. Furthermore, Wisconsin is not a swing state like the "conventional wisdom" states; rather, it is a very liberal state, evidenced by the fact that it was one of only ten states to vote for Michael Dukakis for president in 1988 (and has gone Democratic every presidential election since then). (The 2010 GOP electoral romp in Wisconsin was a complete fluke, and happened in one of the most Republican years of the last century.)

[DRW50]

Most of these seats are very Republican and the Republicans are always more motivated. Democrats tend to give up when they get bad news. I think they may win 2, but that will be spun as a crushing defeat for Democrats and probably make it less likely they'll win the last two next week.

[DRW50]

Like I thought, the Democrats won two seats, with the third close but not likely to change hands, although the Democratic Party chairman is questioning the results, mostly because this is the second recent election where one county has been the last to report and then suddenly reports a huge Republican vote tally.

Shockingly, when I looked at Google News, the 'liberal' media spin was that these results were great for Republicans and justified their anti-union policies. Somehow, if the tables were turned and Republicans won two seats in a recall election, I doubt we'd get that spin.

[Max]

While I haven't seen other media outlets' take on the WI recall election results, the folks on MSNBC were spinning it as great news for the Democrats since (1) all these seats were in Republican districts and (2) the Democrats fell just one seat short of re-taking control of the State Senate. (I have to agree that this was good--though not great--news for the Dems.)

In fact, I believe that the Dems still have an opportunity to retake control, since there will be more recall elections to come later this month. I'm sorry that I was incorrect about my prediction yesterday (about Senate control switching), but I made it after I saw endless crowing on the part of Rachel Maddow and Ed Schultz, as well as hearing a reporter on "Faux" News mention that the GOP was very nervous about these elections.

Even if the WI State Senate remains in GOP hands, Walker is still a one-term governor, and Obama will not become the first Democrat since Mondale to lose WI in a presidential election. Thus, all this talk among political "experts" that WI is a swing state is total bulls#it.

Edited August 11, 2011 by Max

[DRW50]

The next two seats are Dem-held, so Democrats will either hold what they have or lose two seats.

They are going to try to recall Walker, but with all the new voter ID laws in effect by then it would be difficult.

[Max]

Rick Perry is officially--and unfortunately--getting into the race.

Actually, I'm not 100% sure that this is "unfortunate," because his entry is a huge blow to the Bachmann campaign. Although a strong case can be made that he hurts Romney as well, Perry may actually split the Tea Party vote with Bachmann and hand Romney the nomination.

[DRW50]

I think Perry can easily outpace Bachmann and very possibly eclipse Romney, who has been running in his own bubble.

Did you watch the debate?

[Adam]

Bachmann won that straw poll thing in Iowa. Sarah Palin and her travelling roadshow showed up in the state yesterday to draw the media focus to her. Will this opportunist just declare her intentions already.

[Kylie]

[!@#$%^&*] like Iowa make me totally believe I'm better off putting my degrees to use to help the world. America is just about to cross into hopeless territory.

[DRW50]

T-Paw is TKO!

http://tpmdc.talking...ace.php?ref=fpa

To think, years and years of shaping his political career around a would-be Presidential run, to the point of crippling Minnesota (and also inadvertently helping to cause a lot of GOP electoral failures in the state during those years). Blatant flip-flopping on major issues like global warming. Hardline social conservatism at all costs. And for what? Being an afterthought of an afterthought. This after years of gushing media attention from places like The Fix.

So long. I'm sure Minnesota Republicans might want to help get Al Franken re-elected in 2014.

Edited August 14, 2011 by CarlD2