What this Wall Street Journal editorial highlights is just how difficult it’s going to be for Democrats to avoid running against Barack Obama’s record:
Look past the pro forma Republican bashing, and Tuesday’s message is stark: After nearly seven years of Barack Obama in the White House, America’s working families are struggling in an economy with fewer good jobs, stagnant paychecks, growing inequality and a system that rewards billionaires while hard-working Average Joes are left behind.
And this is the Democratic talking point. If Republicans want to make the case against Obamanomics, they can start by quoting Democrats.
That Hillary Clinton isn’t being driven from the stage by disgruntled Democrats is a token of a) just how mindlessly partisan we’ve become and b) just how mindless full stop the Republicans have become.
There comes a point at which a president owns the decisions he or, perhaps someday, she has made. For me with respect to Barack Obama that point was about five years ago. He chose to withdraw from Iraq, to remove Qaddafi in Libya, and to increase the operational tempo in Afghanistan. He’s choosing to leave troops in Afghanistan. George W. Bush didn’t force him to do it. He chose to turn his attention away from the economy and towards healthcare insurance. George W. Bush didn’t force him to do it.
I’m in total agreement with the opinion expressed. The political parties of today are impossibly self-serving, with no courage to tackle real problems fairly for the people, rather than just the advancement of their party’s popularity and advantage in the next election.
Republicans seem weak and back-biting, while the dems are simply unaccountable for the consequences of their own policy-making. I’ll also throw we the people in the brine, because they too seem mindless and hapless in assessing what is going on, demanding better and more honest choices from those running for higher office.
I don’t see how Hillary not being driven from the Democratic stage by Democrats has anything to do with the stupidity of Republicans. That’s all on the basic stupidity of the average Democratic voter.
I don’t think that’s quite true. Elderly Democrats seem determined to defend Hillary no matter what (think the logical gymnastics being performed on her behalf at OTB). Young Democrats appear to prefer other candidates for many of the reasons outlined here.
Doug’s post takes the prize in that regard with a statement to the effect, “I didn’t watch the last debate but know Hillary won because several journalists say so”. No one who has apent five minutes of study in logical pragmatics would recognize that as a vaild argument but make that point and you’re Sander’s water carrier.
I’m upset with the Republicans because they’re not presenting me with viable alternative candidates. Most of the candidates are nuts. They’re nuts in their own way but they’re nuts.
Contrary to what you may be reading, not all Republicans are nuts. I’ll name three who aren’t just off the top of my head: Jon Huntsman, Mitch Daniels, John Kasich. I could go on. They’re not hard to find.
There are presently at least two litmus tests for Republican candidate for president: you’ve got to be an interventionist and you’ve got to reject compromise. I think I’ve made it clear that I think a little more non-interventionism on our part would be a Good Thing. And complete rejection of compromise is anti-republican.
I didn’t watch the Democratic debate just as I haven’t watched the Republican debates for a couple of reasons. First and most importantly, they’re not relevant to me. When Illinois has its primary, the overwhelming likelihood is that there will be just one viable Democratic candidate and just one viable Republican candidate. Second, the format is all about showmanship and not about an exchange of ideas. As with so many media events the focus is on the media.
Actually, Bush did force him to leave Iraq. That was the deal Bush negotiated. We could have stayed only if we gave up immunity for our troops, which we should not have done. However, Obama did make the mistake of expanding in Afghanistan, following the advice of our military leaders and the SecDef at that time. He did let us get dragged into Libya at the request of our allies, and the demands of the neocons on the right. The best you can say is that it didn’t cost us trillions of dollars and thousands of lives to create the same mess we made in Iraq. Since when is healthcare not part of the economy?
To keep things in perspective, if we had a Republican (this would have ben McCAin and Pailn) in office, we still leave Iraq, we still expand in Afghanistan and stay with even more troops. We take a larger role in Libya and have boots on the ground. Worst of all, we have either bombed Iran or are involved in another quagmire there. We have no health care reform (not an issue they are willing to touch). We have even more inequality and billionaires, as tax cuts for the wealthy is one of the bedrock principles of the GOP, besides maximalist intervention efforts.
Yes, Hillary sucks. She will bring us the worst of the GOP policies, interventions galore and letting Israel dictate our ME policy, while pushing for spending on progressive policies that won’t do much but spend money. She is just GOP lite.
Steve
Mitch Daniels has found a worthwhile activity in making Purdue University a leader in college education cost control. Do you know what is the single most important element in their effort? Space utilization. Dude hired a real east ate guy as CFO. Instead of building, they use what they have. As the kids used to say…”duh.”
But of course waste, fraud and abuse doesn’t exist in government…….
So what? No president has the ability to control the actions of his successors. That’s a misconception, comforting to the Obama Administration but a lie. President Obama had a choice. He could have renegotiated the deal. He could have abrogated the deal. He chose not to.
But let’s be clear. I think the better policy choices were to do what the president has done in Iraq and to prepare for leaving a force in Afghanistan, something between 5,000 and 10,000 troops, with the primary mission of counter-terrorism on an indefinite basis. He should have done that years ago. We’ve suffered thousands of casualties in a futile effort to prop up a country that isn’t a country so he could fulfill a campaign promise.
Kasich is running.
In NYC, the consensus opinion formed among the middle class democrats/liberals and African Americans who have an interest in politics is that while Obama has not been a “great” president, its mainly because he was not given an opportunity to be as he was obstructed by Republicans in Congress almost from the get-go. The “Hope” was true, but the “Change” couldn’t happen because the man could do no right in their eyes. Whether that opinion would carry over to Hillary Clinton presidency, I’m not so sure.
“…. while Obama has not been a “great†president, its mainly because he was not given an opportunity to be as he was obstructed by Republicans in Congress almost from the get-go. ”
Least I remind you, President Obama had a high approval rating, along with substantial majorities in both branches of Congress, during his first two years in office. There was no obstruction to whatever he wanted to do — including the passage of the much derided and failing PPACA.
Just because the opposition party presents opposition to a sitting president with opposing ideas, does not give that president a “pass” on becoming a “great” president. All it does is present greater challenges to achieve that greatness. IMO, Obama didn’t have the right stuff, at the get go, and he certainly hasn’t grown much during his presidency except to pass greater blame onto others for his wide array of failures.
“…. while Obama has not been a “great†president, its mainly because he was not given an opportunity to be as he was obstructed by Republicans in Congress almost from the get-go. “
Least I remind you, President Obama had a high approval rating, along with substantial majorities in both branches of Congress, during his first two years in office. There was no obstruction to whatever he wanted to do — including the passage of the much derided and failing PPACA.
Just because the opposition party presents opposition to a sitting president with opposing ideas, does not give that president a “pass” on becoming a “great” president. All it does is present greater challenges to achieve that greatness. IMO, Obama didn’t have the right stuff, at the get go, and he certainly hasn’t grown much during his presidency except to pass greater blame onto others for his wide array of failures.