Obama visits the Republican Caucus

[NickCole]

I’m not sure if conventional correlations will hold true, but presume that time will tell.

It is interesting.

Isn't it?

I think it might be a winning, if cyincal, strategy if Obama had a clear vision of programs to address our needs, and a strategy or the will to push them through. Or if there were people in Congress like Ted Kennedy eager and able to push through programs like health care reform. But that's that the case. Democrats have a great big boat with a powerful engine, and no rudder. So what's happening is Obama sets the stage for big cheering and popularity but then doesn't use that power to make anything. That might be fine if we were sailing along with a great economy and no worries, but our society is in storm waters, we're in critical need of leadership and direction and potent programs, the kind of help a rich government like ours can provide, and Obama's not interested in that.

So we've got a bunch of people wildly cheering a President who isn't making anything better but puts on a good show. Ever see Evita?

 

[BeMused]

A few comments.

1. It was a very good political performance.

It was truly masterful.

2. Obama was less than truthful throughout, continuing his administration's less than truthful lines. Something you pretend is true doesn't become true because you repeat it boldly.

Something the Republicans seem to have much bigger problems with than the Administration...

There are tons of examples like the stimulus bill did have earmarks, and it would have been very easy to be transparent about the health care reform process (nobody forced Obama to make backroom deals with PhRMA, etc) and broadcast debate and negotiations on CSPAN, and it's not true that Obama has kept his pledge about lobbyists. The list is long and none of it's new.

Technically he told the truth on earmarks in the stimulus, if you go by the definition of what earmarks are. Earmarks are funds allocated in amendments to bills and do not go through the normal budgeting process in Congress. There were none of those in the Recovery Act. People often, wrongly, conflate "earmarks" with "pork". They are not the same thing. Earmarks are a specifically defined legislative tool, while pork is an ill-defined political term to describe "local spending that people who don't live in that locale don't like and consider wasteful". There was TONS of "pork" in the Recovery Act. That's was part of the point. This "pork" was not allocated through the earmarks process however, it was allocated through the normal legislative procedures. And Obama explained that, if you cared to listen.

As for the transparency, certainly you have a point, he neglected to mention or take responsibility for the White House deals with health industry giants.

As for lobbyists, Obama repeatedly says, TRUTHFULLY, that his Administration has the toughest restrictions on lobbyists serving in the Executive Branch than any in history. Has he allowed former lobbyists into government through waivers? Sure he has, but that's way more restrictive than lobbyists have ever needed before. The idea was to make it more visible, not just to bar lobbyists. Feel free to provide this "long list", because I'm interested in parsing it.

3. If what Obama and his supporters really want to accomplish is getting Republicans to work with Democrats then Obama's performance and his supporter's high-fiving over his big win make this a failure. If you want a group like the Republicans today to work with you, and you're in power, you use reconcilation not smackdown. Cheering on Obama's big win as if Government is a sporting event between Team Democrats and Team Republicans, of an event where ObamaCo asked if he could attend a Republican Retreat after the Dem loss in MA, is not the way to get Republicans to work with him. It was a way to get his supporters and the media to cheer for him as if this were a campaign and he wanted to win against Republicans in an election.

What should he have done when confronted with these delusional talking points then? Cave? Say "you're right, crap, why haven't I been listening to you all along?" That would have been stupid. You're making it sound as though he was disrespectful towards the Republicans. He wasn't at all. He was partisan, but he was extraordinarily respectful. He structured it like a debate, and he's a good debater. There was nothing wrong with his performance at all.

Also, as has been pointed out to you, they invited him. They gave him the opening.

You're completely misreading the message this sends to the public, IMO. This was like Question Time in the UK. The President was able to demonstrate that he DOES listen to Republicans. That he IS willing to look at, and when appropriate, adopt their ideas. He demonstrated that he is VERY smart, and very wonky, even without notes or a teleprompter. You cannot deny that he demolished the Republicans on their talking points. In fact the Republicans themselves are admitting that. It is THEY who are in a corner now, not him. Maybe to very anti-Obama people this could be construed as a misstep by Obama, but I think the Republicans are going to have a lot of pressure on them to at the very least commit to future "Question Times". They'll look like whiny children if they refuse. This was a MASSIVE political win, and contrary to what you seem to be implying, getting the Republicans to participate is about POLITICS, not policy.

So if ObamaNation wanted to score points and humiliate the opposition and set up election year campaigns for Us Versus Them, then A+.

But if Obama wanted to build a bridge to make Washington work better and pass good legislation, then Epic Fail.

It was a fine reminder of who Obama is and what he does, and of why his first year has been such a failure, and why his next three years will be at least as bad. He says he wants one thing, to make himself look virtuous and elicit cheers, and his actions are about something else entirely.

Now you just look like a sore loser. "Waaaa Obama called out the Republicans on their shit! HE'S not always truthful EITHER!! He's just PROVING what a JERK he is!! This is gonna SUCK for him!!"

Yup, just like in the campaign...everything is great for John McCain...

 

[NickCole]

^^ It was good political theater.

Whether or not it was masterful or a success for Obama depends on what we want to achieve and the results of the event.

What I want to achieve is good legislation that passes Congress and gets signed. If Obama is correct that we need Republican cooperation for that, then what we want to achieve is a decent working relationship with Republicans. If Obama achieved that then I agree his performance was masterful and a resounding success. If, however, the Republican response is anger from being scolded and humiliated by the President at their own Retreat, then I say Obama's performance was petty self-serving and disasterous.

But maybe you --and maybe Obama-- want to achieve something other than a reasonable working relationship with Republicans.

 

[iman]

^Rather interesting (and telling) that some always lay the responsibility completely in Obama's lap and excuse the Republicans from any responsibility for their failure to support any reforms. The Republicans and the Democrats are always blameless and everything comes back on Obama.
I can't take it seriously.

 

[JB3]

^Rather interesting (and telling) that some always lay the responsibility completely in Obama's lap and excuse the Republicans from any responsibility for their failure to support any reforms. The Republicans and the Democrats are always blameless and everything comes back on Obama.
I can't take it seriously.

Sorta like how for you Obama's blameless and the republicans are always wrong?

 

[JB3]

Technically he told the truth on earmarks in the stimulus, if you go by the definition of what earmarks are. Earmarks are funds allocated in amendments to bills and do not go through the normal budgeting process in Congress. There were none of those in the Recovery Act. People often, wrongly, conflate "earmarks" with "pork". They are not the same thing. Earmarks are a specifically defined legislative tool, while pork is an ill-defined political term to describe "local spending that people who don't live in that locale don't like and consider wasteful". There was TONS of "pork" in the Recovery Act. That's was part of the point. This "pork" was not allocated through the earmarks process however, it was allocated through the normal legislative procedures. And Obama explained that, if you cared to listen.

As for the transparency, certainly you have a point, he neglected to mention or take responsibility for the White House deals with health industry giants.

As for lobbyists, Obama repeatedly says, TRUTHFULLY, that his Administration has the toughest restrictions on lobbyists serving in the Executive Branch than any in history. Has he allowed former lobbyists into government through waivers? Sure he has, but that's way more restrictive than lobbyists have ever needed before. The idea was to make it more visible, not just to bar lobbyists. Feel free to provide this "long list", because I'm interested in parsing it.

Bullshit on both. Obama has claimed point blank that his administration does not allow lobbyists to hold positions in government, which is a flat out lie. He did so in the State of the Union, which was even too much for the AP to handle and they rightly harangued him for it. The man lies through his teeth when he talks about lobbyists; in the campaign it was no lobbyists at all. Then when he got into office it was one or two. Now its okay if they're lobbyists they just need to get a waiver. The man is about as trustful on that issue as slick willy was on 'I did not have sexual relations with that woman'.

Your first point is complete bullshit; pork is earmarks and earmarks are pork. It is spending inserted into a bill that was not requested by the President in the budget and is not subject to the strict control process that the rest of the fund allocations are. Pork and earmarks are one and the same. Anyone that thinks or believes otherwise has either been lied to or is lying through their teeth.

 

[JB3]

You've now been pwned twice in the same thread.

You should give up arguing the wrong side of politics and take up macrame.

Please. Like you're a shining beacon of political thought.

 

[JasunStrikesBack]

Please. Like you're a shining beacon of political thought.

Meh. By comparison...

 

[NickCole]

^Rather interesting (and telling) that some always lay the responsibility completely in Obama's lap

This thread's about Obama at the Republican Retreat.

Yeah, Obama's performance is Obama's responsibility.

Sorry if Obama's not up to handling that responsibility.

Also it's funny you didn't reply to those who lavished praise on Obama's performance, telling them Obama doesn't deserve credit for it. If he deserves praise for success then he deserves criticism for failure. And I repeat, what did he want to achieve, angering and alienating Republicans or convincing them to work with Democrats.

and excuse the Republicans from any responsibility for their failure to support any reforms.

Which reforms?? Health care reform? A bill that was a gift to Big Insurance and Big Pharma and would force Americans to buy insurance at the prices Big Insurance decides it wants? I didn't support that piece of crap either.

I hold Republicans responsible for failing to support good legislation. Opposing crap is okay by me.

The Republicans and the Democrats are always blameless and everything comes back on Obama.

I can't take it seriously.

He's the President of the United States. The One We've Been Waiting For. The Hope and Change fella. The leader of the Democratic Party that's got such a big majority in Congress we don't need a single Republican vote to pass legislation.

Yeah it comes back on Obama and his administration.

FDR passed bank regulations and New Deal programs. It happened because of him. Didn't happen when Hoover was President. LBJ passed civil rights and Medicare, Great Society stuffarooni. Happened because of his leadership. If those things hadn't happened when FDR and LBJ were President, yeah it would have been because FDR and LBJ didn't make them happen.

Obama promised to be transformational, comparing his potential presidency to Reagan's.

And all he and his loyalists can do is make excuses for him, complain it's hard and blame others for his failures. And cheer wildly when he scores a smackdown of the opposition that he claims he wants to work with.

But I take it seriously. Serious as a heart attack without health coverage.

 

[JasunStrikesBack]

OK, so we're clear on this... I've been very critical of Obama from early on in his presidency. I was saying "we've been had" last summer.

That said, it's hard to not roll your eyes when ones reads the over-the-top anti-Obama rants of the bitterly blind Obama haters who find childish fault in everything he does and says. Take a look at the juvenile and borderline tinfoil hat posts of Justapixel and you'll see why it's hard not to defend him at least a bit.

However.. I still support him because I feel the alternatives are much worse than any of his misdeeds. I also think that losing in MA has given him the ass kicking he's needed all along.

 

[JB3]

OK, so we're clear on this... I've been very critical of Obama from early on in his presidency. I was saying "we've been had" last summer.

That said, it's hard to not roll your eyes when ones reads the over-the-top anti-Obama rants of the bitterly blind Obama haters who find childish fault in everything he does and says. Take a look at the juvenile and borderline tinfoil hat posts of Justapixel and you'll see why it's hard not to defend him at least a bit.

However.. I still support him because I feel the alternatives are much worse than any of his misdeeds. I also think that losing in MA has given him the ass kicking he's needed all along.

See, but it was clear from the SOTU that he didn't understand what MA meant. He's still full steam ahead with his agenda, as if nothing happened. Sure, it'll be harder, but his response is just 'try harder' instead of 'lets find a better way'. There was an excellent op-ed outlining why exactly his SOTU was an abysmal failure considering what happened MA, but I can't seem to find it.

 

[JasunStrikesBack]

See, but it was clear from the SOTU that he didn't understand what MA meant. He's still full steam ahead with his agenda, as if nothing happened. Sure, it'll be harder, but his response is just 'try harder' instead of 'lets find a better way'. There was an excellent op-ed outlining why exactly his SOTU was an abysmal failure considering what happened MA, but I can't seem to find it.

Still drinking that Kool Aid I see.

I know you'd love to believe that MA meant all that "his failed policies" garbage but the stats show that people just didn't think the democrats had tried hard enough and they stayed home.

What's his name won by default. You know it and so does everyone else.

But please keep saying the republicans should just stay the course. Hopefully it'll keep you and your kind from ruining the country any more than you already have.

 

[BeMused]

Are people really still misreading the MA special election? I could write a humungous post on that election and exactly why it went the way it did, but I'd rather not...it certainly doesn't mean as much as either party is making it out to.

 

[JB3]

Are people really still misreading the MA special election? I could write a humungous post on that election and exactly why it went the way it did, but I'd rather not...it certainly doesn't mean as much as either party is making it out to.

It meant a whole lot for Obama personally. Even though people like him, they don't like his party and don't like his politics. He (and it seems you and jasun) misread it at your own peril.

 

[JasunStrikesBack]

Are people really still misreading the MA special election? I could write a humungous post on that election and exactly why it went the way it did, but I'd rather not...it certainly doesn't mean as much as either party is making it out to.

I think you're quite right there.

What it really means is that "if you run a horrible campaign with an awful candidate, no matter what, you're not likely to win."

 

[JasunStrikesBack]

It meant a whole lot for Obama personally. Even though people like him, they don't like his party and don't like his politics. He (and it seems you and jasun) misread it at your own peril.

Thanks for your concern. But let's wait and see how this one plays out, shall we?

 

[JB3]

Still drinking that Kool Aid I see.

I know you'd love to believe that MA meant all that "his failed policies" garbage but the stats show that people just didn't think the democrats had tried hard enough and they stayed home.

What's his name won by default. You know it and so does everyone else.

But please keep saying the republicans should just stay the course. Hopefully it'll keep you and your kind from ruining the country any more than you already have.

Bullshit. The stats showed that they lost because they trust the Democrats less than they trust republicans, and they didn't like the agenda of Obama. They liked Obama personally, but didn't want his healthcare, don't want Cap and Trade, and don't want any number of default liberal positions that Obama has been pushing.

And Brown did not win by default. I can't honestly believe that you think that.

 

[JB3]

Thanks for your concern. But let's wait and see how this one plays out, shall we?

We already saw it play out in MA, and if Obama keeps it up with his agenda he will risk losing the majority that the democrats worked hard to win in 2006 and 2008. He is doing exactly the thing that cost republicans, and it will come to bite him in the ass if he doesn't wise up and recognize the signs.

 

[JasunStrikesBack]

Bullshit. The stats showed that they lost because they trust the Democrats less than they trust republicans, and they didn't like the agenda of Obama. They liked Obama personally, but didn't want his healthcare, don't want Cap and Trade, and don't want any number of default liberal positions that Obama has been pushing.

And Brown did not win by default. I can't honestly believe that you think that.

OK. Whatever....

 

[JB3]

OK. Whatever....

I just don't understand why people would willingly blind themselves to the signs of a shifting political climate. The loss in MA was a sign-post on the road to the 2010 mid-terms, and it isn't something that the democrats can afford to ignore.

(and just for the record, I don't think it is some massive sign that the public wants republicans either. They're still held in contempt by the public, and that doesn't show any signs of abatement either. Moderate republicans and democrats will be the big winners in 2010, and they will dismantle any semblance of the Obama agenda when given the chance)