WSJ: Out of the Way, Please, Mr. President

[mardi gras skin]

Out of the Way, Please, Mr. President (people aren't listening anymore)
http://online.wsj.com/article/SB10001424053111903554904576460381949867902.html

President Obama signaled this week, for the first time, that he might back a temporary debt ceiling increase to allow work to continue.

That's good. But a note on his efforts in the drama. It is time for the president to get out of the way.

For the longest time he wouldn't engage, and now he's engaged. For the longest time he didn't care about spending, and now he cares about spending. Good, both in terms of policy and for him. But his decision to become engaged has become a decision to dominate, to have his face in front of the television with his news conferences, pronouncements, and what his communications people are probably calling his "ownership" of any final agreement. He's trying to come across as the boss, the indispensable man, the leader. And, of course, the reasonable one.

That's all very nice and part of Political Positioning 101, but at this point it's not helping. He's becoming box-office poison. His numbers are falling. The RealClearPolitics composite job approval poll rating has him down six points since June 2, when the debt ceiling crisis began. That fall, from 52% to 46%, exactly tracks his heightened media presence and his increased attempts to be seen as dominant. Public Policy Polling, a Democratic firm, said that if he ran for president today he'd lose, that his job numbers are "worse than they appear," and that he continues to have real trouble with undecided voters.

And if you've watched him lately, you know why. When he speaks on the debt negotiations, he is not only extremely boring, with airy and bromidic language—really they are soul-killing, his talking points—but he never seems to be playing it straight. He always seems to be finagling, playing the angles in some higher game that only he gets. In 2½ years, he has reached the point that took George W. Bush five years to reach: People aren't listening anymore.

[Sniffler]

Bull****. I'm still listening.

[Burgold]

Oy vey.

This article exemplifies an enormous part of the reason we are where are today and not for any of the reasons the writer suggests.

[mardi gras skin]

Why are we where we are today?

My take: Lack of leadership. Bush and Obama have both whiffed. Though they approach the plate differently, neither of them has made contact. Bush's "good and evil" ideaolgy burned itself out not long after the towers fell. Obama's "stewardship" mindset is fine in times of prosperity but is totally unhelpful when the economy is in tatters.

And I think Noonan is correct. Obama is swiftly becoming irrelevant. No one expects him to be the one to craft a policy which gets the economy back on track. He's just the steward.

[G.A.C.O.L.B.]

Guess what Reagan's poll numbers were at this point in his presidency? Ditto Clinton? 46% is amazing considering the state of the economy.

Oh: Hack article.

[Burgold]

Why are we where we are today?

My take: Lack of leadership. Bush and Obama have both whiffed. Though they approach the plate differently, neither of them has made contact.

Bush was a great leader. Everything he wanted got done the way he wanted it done. He didn't need to veto for his first six years. The dems wilted before him and the Republicans did what they wanted to. Obama is a weak leader in that respect. He couldn't engineer a 1/4 of Bush's productivity with a supermajority. The reason we are where we are today is myopia, lack of cooperation, and gamesmanship.

When the game becomes all important everyone loses.

[mardi gras skin]

Guess what Reagan's poll numbers were at this point in his presidency? Ditto Clinton? 46% is amazing considering the state of the economy.

Oh: Hack article.

So you're comfortable with his leadership and with the approval ratings he has right now. You're likely an outlier but we have those on both sides of the spectrum.

Burg, see my edit above. As for 1/4 of Bush's productivity, pushing through massive health care legislation seems like a massive accomplishment.

[Burgold]

Well, animating Frankenstein's monster is an achievement. The degree of compromise andsausage making done for the Republican's benefit because they won the PR war and the Dems were desperate to get at least a few Reps to vote yes shows that the Republicans weilded great power. Therefore, even Obamacare as it was eventually passed, demonstrated a failure in leadership.

Aren't we both supposed to be arguing the other side of this btw :)

[mardi gras skin]

Aren't we both supposed to be arguing the other side of this btw :)

It is a massive accomplishment. All the democrats got together and crafted the healthcare legislation they wanted. Every Democrat in the Senate voted for it, every Republican voted against it, and the Democrats got what they (collectively) wanted.

That's a tremendous accomplishment.

[Bang]

I don't thnk the health care bill we ended up with is what they wanted.
if they did, we'd have single payer.

I think what we got was a weak compromise to attempt to appease the unappeasable elements in congress.
They should have steamrolled them and shown them what cramming something down their throats really felt like.
Instead they caved to all the whining and bitching and didn't do what they wanted to do.

~Bang

[mardi gras skin]

I don't thnk the health care bill we ended up with is what they wanted.
if they did, we'd have single payer.

There were several democrats that flatly rejected single payer. If the democrats, collectively, had wanted single payer, the Republicans couldn't have done anything about it. The bill passed was a compromise among Democrats. Republicans were irrelevant.

[Bang]

There were several democrats that flatly rejected single payer. If the democrats, collectively, had wanted single payer, the Republicans couldn't have done anything about it. The bill passed was a compromise among Democrats. Republicans were irrelevant.

They were, but i don't think the Dems tried to let them be irrelevant. I think they tried to reach out and get some agreement.
They got spit in their eye for it, but i think that is what they were trying to do.
if they had just bullied it thru there would have been no summit meetings like we saw, no debates at all.

I think in much of Obama's floundering, the root of it has been an attempt to include the GOP, and the GOP has not returned the attempt to be open.
Obama's chief failing, in my opinion, has been to not recognize this. He should have quit trying to work with them long ago when he had the chance.
But I think he wanted to do this "healer' thing, reach across the aisle. And the other side of the aisle wants no part of it.

~Bang

[mardi gras skin]

I think they tried to include Republicans, but not because they were trying to be nice. They knew the whole thing was a dog, politically. It was very unpopular. Remember, "if we pass it, then people will like it?" Attempting to include Republican was all about political cover, not about healing rifts.

The Dems passed what the Dems could agree on, leaving the Republicans behind, and took their beating in the last election.

[Larry]

It is a massive accomplishment. All the democrats got together and crafted the healthcare legislation they wanted. Every Democrat in the Senate voted for it, every Republican voted against it, and the Democrats got what they (collectively) wanted.

And pigs fly, and the Dallas Cowboys are America's Team.

[Bang]

I don't know,, i remember that the American people voted for them as a Super Majority, and that was one of their biggest planks.. and then the right wing spin machine told us "no one wanted this" which flew in the face of everyone's vote.

I think it was a successful mission by the entire right wing media to poison it, and again.. had the Dems truly 'rammed it through'.. then none of the things that would have made it any good would have been removed.

I saw it like i see a weak parent who gives in to their caterwauling kid and gives them the candy they're screaming for. (Knowing full well the sugar rush will make him unbearable for the rest of the afternoon.. or term as it may be.)

~Bang

[Larry]

There were several democrats that flatly rejected single payer.

Yep. Probably four or five of them.

But keep pushing that spin, that of 95% of Democrats want X, and 5% of Democrats, and 100% of R's want Y, and Y gets passed, then "the D's got what they wanted, and the R's didn't affect things in any way".

[Bonez3]

Today's weather forecast....

(only thing Americans can focus on given the pseudo-ADD culture. But if the sun shines tomroow, he's the greatest)

[Larry]

But this is a hijack. Back to the OP.


President Obama signaled this week, for the first time, that he might back a temporary debt ceiling increase to allow work to continue.

Near as I can tell, I have quoted the only part of that piece (of ****) which is even remotely true. (Or at least, the only part of the part that was quoted. Based on the number of flat-out lies in the portion quoted, I have no desire to go see if there are more lies at the link.)

[Thiebear]

A proposed Saudi counterterrorism law that would give the Interior Ministry sweeping powers and mandate jail sentences for criticizing the king would effectively squelch political dissent, human rights advocates said on Thursday


could be worse.

[mardi gras skin]

Yep. Probably four or five of them.

But keep pushing that spin, that of 95% of Democrats want X, and 5% of Democrats, and 100% of R's want Y, and Y gets passed, then "the D's got what they wanted, and the R's didn't affect things in any way".

:ols:

Larry, the Dems had a supermajority! Do you realize how rarely that happens? What an incredible opportunity that was? We're talking about politics here. No one person ever gets everything they want on any issue. But the Democrats had a bright, shiny moment when they could do anything they wanted without one fraction of compromise with Republicans.

The health care bill we got is the heathcare bill the Democrats, collectively, wanted. They all voted for it. Everything after that is spin.

But just to clarify your position: Every Democrat voted for it. Every Republican voted against it. The bill passed. Republicans got what they wanted. Democrats didn't get what they wanted.

That's fantastic. :thumbsup:

[Larry]

deleted post.

[Burgold]

What one agrees to is not necessarily what one wants.

It should have been true that "The health care bill we got is the heathcare bill the Democrats, collectively, wanted. They all voted for it." but the Republicans played politics brilliantly, remember the death panels and all that, they were able to even with little actual power wrest control of the debate and the result is what we have.

Now, if you want to say the Dems are responsible for this reform I agree with that. The notion that they got what they wanted or the Democratic Health Reform that the Dems envisioned, campaigned for, and was a part of their platform is absurd.

That the Dems let the Repubs do this to them was also absurd. The Dems have no one to blame but themselves ultimately, but the Repubs had way more than a finger in this process. Their DNA is in that reform up to their elbows.

[mardi gras skin]

It should have been true that "The health care bill we got is the heathcare bill the Democrats, collectively, wanted. They all voted for it." but the Republicans played politics brilliantly.

Republicans are stupid...but somehow, Democrats never get what they want because Republicans keep outsmarting them.

Its a real puzzle.

---------- Post added July-22nd-2011 at 10:18 AM ----------

Let me ask you this Burg. Do you think the health care law passed by Democrats and signed into law by President Obama is better than the Heath Care situation we were in before the law was passed? Do you want it abolished?

Because Republicans don't like it. They want it abolished. They certainly didn't get what they wanted.

[BRAVEONAWARPATH]

:ols:

Larry, the Dems had a supermajority! Do you realize how rarely that happens? What an incredible opportunity that was?

Yes, the DEMOCRATS had a supermajority....but the LIBERALS didn't. :2cents:

[killerbee99]

I am still mad that Obama and the Dems didn't just say **** the Republicans and get the single tax payer system like the Republicans always did when Bush was in office. Trying to compromise doesn't work nowadays with Republicans so I say **** them. Such a shame.

[mardi gras skin]

Yes, the DEMOCRATS had a supermajority....but the LIBERALS didn't. :2cents:

Ah...DINOs! You know, when I hear Navy Dave and others like him complain about RINO's, I know that I'm listening to a pretty extreme right winger. They're not satisfied with any moderating influence in their party.

That's kind of what I'm getting from this thread. The few moderates in the Democrat party sabotaged the process. The DINOs kept the REAL Democrats from getting what they want.

Lots of extremists in both parties on this board reject the moderates in their party. ;)

[Thiebear]

I am still mad that Obama and the Dems didn't just say **** the Republicans and get the single tax payer system like the Republicans always did when Bush was in office. Trying to compromise doesn't work nowadays with Republicans so I say **** them. Such a shame.

Bush touched that third rail on social security and walked away with a victory?
Kennedy called the president "a great American" and praised his bipartisanship and work to win passage of the education bill.

[BRAVEONAWARPATH]

Ah...DINOs! You know, when I hear Navy Dave and others like him complain about RINO's, I know that I'm listening to a pretty extreme right winger. They're not satisfied with any moderating influence in their party.

That's kind of what I'm getting from this thread. The few moderates in the Democrat party sabotaged the process. The DINOs kept the REAL Democrats from getting what they want.

Lots of extremists in both parties on this board reject the moderates in their party. ;)

I stand by my statement. :)

[mardi gras skin]

I stand by my statement. :)

Don't worry. Soon every single republican will be staunchly conservative and every single democrat will be staunchly liberal. No more moderates to foul everything up. :)

[BRAVEONAWARPATH]

Don't worry. Soon every single republican will be staunchly conservative and every single democrat will be staunchly liberal. No more moderates to foul everything up. :)

There aren't many moderates in the Republican Party right now. :)

[mardi gras skin]

There aren't many moderates in the Republican Party right now. :)

Absolutely. And that's a real problem.

[The Evil Genius]

There aren't many moderates in the Republican Party right now. :)

I disagree. I think the party is predominantly moderate. That said, if you amended it to say, "There aren't many strong moderate voices in the Republican Party right now", I would agree with that.

The strong voices are coming for the nutjobs. They have captured that party and drove it off the cliff...and the moderates have become the lemmings and jumped off with them.

[BRAVEONAWARPATH]

I disagree. I think the party is predominantly moderate. That said, if you amended it to say, "There aren't many strong moderate voices in the Republican Party right now", I would agree with that.

The strong voices are coming for the nutjobs. They have captured that party and drove it off the cliff...and the moderates have become the lemmings and jumped off with them.

You're right. I stand corrected. :cheers:

[Burgold]

Republicans are stupid...but somehow, Democrats never get what they want because Republicans keep outsmarting them.

Its a real puzzle.

Strangely... frighteningly, I think this seems to be true

---------- Post added July-22nd-2011 at 10:18 AM ----------

Let me ask you this Burg. Do you think the health care law passed by Democrats and signed into law by President Obama is better than the Heath Care situation we were in before the law was passed? Do you want it abolished?

I'm honestly not sure. I don't think I want it abolished, but I think it requires some real extensive surgery. The problems in it are huge. As I've said before, I was for health reform for moral and not economic reasons. It seems that the way this reform it was constructed it somehow failed the economic test and isn't providing enough support to those who need it. Still, there are some good ideas in there. What we need is what we don't have. Tough minded people who don't give a damn about politics and aren't in the pockets of lobbies who can plunge both their hands in and take this pack of compromises and keep the good and cut out the bad. Right now, we have a bill designed by surgeons that were squeamish and fainted at the sight of blood.


---------- Post added July-22nd-2011 at 11:38 AM ----------

OT:

Dinos (dinosaurs) are extinct. RINOs (rhinos) are on the extremely endangered list.

Just something to think about.

[NoCalMike]

The Democrats likely didn't get Single Payer, one because the corporate interests would never allow such a thing to happen. As long as they are padding the pockets, we aren't going to get a real healthcare system overhaul.

Secondly, the "blue dog" Democrats were not going to risk their political future over it. They know they would have to go home and try to win re-elections in counties and districts that were bombarded with "death panel" nonsense and the like.

Just a sad state of politics.

As far as Moderate voices go. My honest assessment is that the Right needs the super-right, more than the left needs the super-left, which is why we have the current situation with all the debt-ceiling nonsense. You can see right through most of the (R)'s when they go on these shows and are saying things they don't even believe, however there is a real fear in their heads that if they don't cater to the 20% of their party that consider themselves "tea party" folks, that they will never have a chance to win an election again. Therefore that 20% minority becomes artificially stronger and more important.

Let me ask, when was the last time the Super-Left was actually catered to and coddled and made sure "everything will be ok" to? Certainly not with the Healthcare reform or Obama's economic policies. However you see the exact opposite with Republicans regarding this whole debt-ceiling farce of an outrage they have created.

The dynamics in this country are changing, especially when it comes to social values/issues. If the Right wants to continue down the road they are, they will have no choice but to try and recruit every crazy-whack-job out there that thinks gays and minorities are barbarians who belong as 2nd class citizens. We aren't hearing a lot in the news now on social issues because of the economy, but you can bet as soon as the economy rebounds, everything once again will be the fault of gays, minorities, and immigrants.

[Burgold]

Secondly, the "blue dog" Democrats were not going to risk their political future over it. They know they would have to go home and try to win re-elections in counties and districts that were bombarded with "death panel" nonsense and the like.

Just a sad state of politics.

And if I remember, many of them did anyway. Stupid play on their parts. They sabotaged themselves. Honestly, the Republicans in many ways won the health care war... at least the part of it they most cared about. They managed to turn saving lives, covering the poor, and taking away "pre-existing conditions" into an unconstitutional re-enactment of Nazism and it swept them into power.

Luckily, the Republicans were focused like a laser beam on the economy and we don't have anymore cliffs that we're dangling off of anymore. Whew.

[twa]

The dynamics in this country are changing, especially when it comes to social values/issues. If the Right wants to continue down the road they are, they will have no choice but to try and recruit every crazy-whack-job out there that thinks gays and minorities are barbarians who belong as 2nd class citizens. We aren't hearing a lot in the news now on social issues because of the economy, but you can bet as soon as the economy rebounds, everything once again will be the fault of gays, minorities, and immigrants.

Oh the dynamics are changing,just not the way you state.

It will be cast of the fault of the Liberal whites,Liberal minorities and Illegal aliens.

The Rep's are branching out like never before (unless ya count when they absorbed racist Dems back in the day)

[Henry]

I like Peggy Noonan, and I'm proud of her for not mentioning Reagan even once in that article. :)

I also liked the article. She makes some very good points about the signifucance of the Gang of Six compromise.

I disagree with her about Obama though. He's the president. Like him or not he needs to involved and he needs to be engaged with the American people right now. He shouldn't be hiding in his office because Republicans find him annoying.

[DieselPwr44]

I like Peggy Noonan, and I'm proud of her for not mentioning Reagan even once in that article. :)

I also liked the article. She makes some very good points about the signifucance of the Gang of Six compromise.

I disagree with her about Obama though. He's the president. Like him or not he needs to involved and he needs to be engaged with the American people right now. He shouldn't be hiding in his office because Republicans find him annoying.
And contrary to popular belief, he SHOULD have a plan and present it to the American people. Through the years, most presidents go before the people, tell them what they'd like to do and explain how they want to get there.

Where is Obama on this?

More and more, he sounds like Ross Perot.

What's your plan Ross?

Ross Perot: Now see here..I don't need a plan because there's a bunch of 'em just laying around Washington already.....

[Redskins Diehard]

I don't thnk the health care bill we ended up with is what they wanted.
if they did, we'd have single payer.

I think what we got was a weak compromise to attempt to appease the unappeasable elements in congress.
They should have steamrolled them and shown them what cramming something down their throats really felt like.
Instead they caved to all the whining and bitching and didn't do what they wanted to do.

~Bang

If they believed in their "beliefs" then they should have steamrolled them.

[HailGreen28]

Bush and the Republicans are fully to blame for the economy while he was in office.

Obama and the Democrats have been in power now for three years now.... and it's those darned Republicans' fault thing haven't improved.

Either: 1. Hold both parties accountable. 2. Blame Democrats for the bad times 04-08, like blaming the Republicans 08-11.

[Larry]

Bush and the Republicans are fully to blame for the economy while he was in office.

Obama and the Democrats have been in power now for three years now.... and it's those darned Republicans' fault thing haven't improved.

Either: 1. Hold both parties accountable. 2. Blame Democrats for the bad times 04-08, like blaming the Republicans 08-11.

Uh,

1) Obama has been in power for a few months over two years.

2) Maybe the reason people aren't blaming Obama for the depression, is because it hit six months before he took office. (I know, those pesky details.)

3) In "04-08", Bush had been in power for 3 to 7 years, after inheriting what I've heard described as the greatest period of economic expansion in the world. In "08-11", Obama had been in power for -1 to 2 years, after inheriting an economy that was mere days away from a depression worse than the Great Depression.

And I'll point out that, even when the economy crashed in '08, the Republicans (including many on this board) still blamed the Democrats (and continue to do so, to this day.)

----------

Now, all of that said:

Yeah, in the election of '12, Obama's vote is going to hinge on the economy. Whether it's fair or not, I think might be questionable. But whether it will happen, I think we can all agree.

It's part of the job.

---------- Post added July-22nd-2011 at 06:16 PM ----------


And contrary to popular belief, he SHOULD have a plan and present it to the American people.

Actually, I saw somebody, a few days back, make the claim that supposedly, part of Obama's deal for these talks with the GOP on the debt ceiling included the condition that the President not pitch any specific proposals to the public.

Now, I'll admit, I'm having trouble believing that, because it seems to me that if it were true than The Liberal Media would be telling everybody that "Obama can't make any proposals, because he promised the GOP that he wouldn't." Especially every time some senior GOP spokesman attacks Obama for not making any proposals.

Anybody able to either confirm or deny the possibility that Obama is under a "gag order", so to speak?

[Bang]

If they believed in their "beliefs" then they should have steamrolled them.

I agree. They absolutely should have.
I think their biggest mistake was believing they could try to be inclusive.

~Bang

[HailGreen28]

I agree. They absolutely should have.
I think their biggest mistake was believing they could try to be inclusive.

~BangTruth. Agree or disagree on a lot of important stuff done, they usually aren't done by moderates. At least, not people who were thought of as moderates while they acted. That goes for both sides of this debate.

[Larry]

If they believed in their "beliefs" then they should have steamrolled them.

If they unanimously believed in those beliefs.

Unfortunately for the Dems, if only 95% of them believe in their "beliefs", then that wasn't enough.

[Ignatius J.]

Why are we where we are today?

My take: Lack of leadership.

Isn't it really Boehner that's the one suffering from a lack of leadership? Obama is willing to make concessions left and right to get a deal done, and while there is grumbling on the left, there's not a lot of "I can't vote for this" going on. Contrast with what's going on in the house, where Boehner who can't get his ducks in a row enough to get something to the floor.

[deejaydana]

And contrary to popular belief, he SHOULD have a plan and present it to the American people. Through the years, most presidents go before the people, tell them what they'd like to do and explain how they want to get there.

Where is Obama on this?

More and more, he sounds like Ross Perot.

What's your plan Ross?

Ross Perot: Now see here..I don't need a plan because there's a bunch of 'em just laying around Washington already.....

I'm wondering why this isn't being cited more often. Is it pure politics that there is no written plan being presented by Obama on his proposed solutions? Are they just doing this as a pure poker move or is Obama this detached?

[joeknows]

Bush was a great leader. Everything he wanted got done the way he wanted it done. He didn't need to veto for his first six years. The dems wilted before him and the Republicans did what they wanted to. Obama is a weak leader in that respect. He couldn't engineer a 1/4 of Bush's productivity with a supermajority. The reason we are where we are today is myopia, lack of cooperation, and gamesmanship.

When the game becomes all important everyone loses.


i couldnt agree more with your last statement.

but it is because of the "all important game" that bush didnt have to pull out the veto stamp for 6 years. he didnt have to use it in the first year because he was constantly on vacation until 9/11. then after 9/11, the administration would persecute anyone who didnt buy into their vision. the bush administration is by far the nastiest meanest self serving administration of my lifetime. so the dems were playing "the game" because it wasnt in their political interest to speak against THE ADMINISTRATION.

i dont personally agree with that tactic but lets not pretend that bush was in any way productive. first off to be productive, you have to have a "positive effect" to "create positive productivity". i personally dont see how bush had a positive effect on any aspect of working middle class americans lives.