The Clinton Thread II

[Marx]

I don't think the GOP wouldn't be as obstructionist towards Hillary as they are with Obama.

The biggest problem with the Obama Administration is that Obama just doesn't know what the hell he is doing. It's not his ideology. It's not that he's elitist or out of touch. It's that he doesn't know what he's doing at all.

Take the recent debacle where John Boehner told him that he couldn't hold a joint session of Congress to give a speech. It was an unprecedented move where even Democratic pundits came out and said that Obama looked petty. That would have never happened under Hillary because Hillary would have had the common sense not to schedule such a thing during the GOP debate and she wouldn't have done it so publicly.

There is also the fact that Obama doesn't know how to work with Congress at all. Back when the Democrats had a supermajority in Congress, Obama still had trouble getting things such as the stimulus and Obamacare passed because he had trouble with conservative Democrats. And now that the GOP has the House and the Democratic Senate majority has deteriorated to the point where it is now expected that the GOP will retake the Senate in 2012, Obama can't get anything he wants done because the GOP is bitter towards him for how he treated them during the 111th Congress and because he kept trying to push incompatible ideas onto them.

Obama's negotiating skills in Washington are considered to be horrific by all sides of the isle. He doesn't know how to pick his battles at all.

Hillary on the other hand, is far more pragmatic. She knows how to work with Congress because she actually spent time in Congress (and even though I don't agree with her politically, I will say that she did a terrific job as my Senator, she actually did work to represent Upstate New York). She dealt with them during the Clinton Administration. She knows when a proposal is dead in the water like attempting to raise taxes on those who make over $250,000 a year. She wouldn't waste political capital on lost causes like Obamacare. And she would have turned things like the debt ceiling debacle into victories if the Republicans were obstructionist.

That is why I think that Hillary would have been a far better President. She would have known what to do. Hillary supporters have earned the right to say "I told you so."

Thank you.

 

[hippie_hunter]

Thank you.

I stand by every word. Those who voted for Hillary in the primaries have absolutely every right to gloat that Obama was the wrong choice. Hillary would have never damaged the Democratic brand the way Obama did and she would have never devastated the Progressive movement the way Obama and Pelosi have.

 

[Quetzal]

Couldnt agree with you more hippie. She actually has spine and wouldnt have been afraid to use some political power to get what she wanted (while still maintaining some degree of restraint)

 

[DACrowe]

I don't think the GOP wouldn't be as obstructionist towards Hillary as they are with Obama.

So, you're saying they would be as hyper-partisan and obstructionist? Because I agree.

The biggest problem with the Obama Administration is that Obama just doesn't know what the hell he is doing. It's not his ideology. It's not that he's elitist or out of touch. It's that he doesn't know what he's doing at all.

I disagree there strongly. But that would be rehashing old arguments. Suffice it to say I think he's had a very hard time communicating with the American people and the stimulus solution was entirely too small to tackle our economic problem which was far larger than we realized in 2009. But he's done too much right in terms of policy for me to write him off as a bumbling novice like Jimmy Carter, as much as his detractors like to pretend he is.

Take the recent debacle where John Boehner told him that he couldn't hold a joint session of Congress to give a speech. It was an unprecedented move where even Democratic pundits came out and said that Obama looked petty. That would have never happened under Hillary because Hillary would have had the common sense not to schedule such a thing during the GOP debate and she wouldn't have done it so publicly.

I believe that was more of a mix-up by Bob Daley than Obama's personal decision-making. That is a weak example and also doesn't take into account the hyper-partisanship of the post-Tea Party GOP that allows Boehner to slight the POTUS to cheers of his own party.

There is also the fact that Obama doesn't know how to work with Congress at all. Back when the Democrats had a supermajority in Congress, Obama still had trouble getting things such as the stimulus and Obamacare passed because he had trouble with conservative Democrats. And now that the GOP has the House and the Democratic Senate majority has deteriorated to the point where it is now expected that the GOP will retake the Senate in 2012, Obama can't get anything he wants done because the GOP is bitter towards him for how he treated them during the 111th Congress and because he kept trying to push incompatible ideas onto them. Obama's negotiating skills in Washington are considered to be horrific by all sides of the isle. He doesn't know how to pick his battles at all.

I agree Hillary is better at handling Congressional members because she is more political in nature than Obama. She is also more centrist, so she could keep her own party's blue dogs (who are now all but extinct) happier in 2009. However, I still reject the BS about GOP are bitter towards Obama because of his perceived negligence of them in the 111th Congress. Politicians have thick skins for these matters (at least the establishment does). They don't work with Obama because they're hyper-partisan and value destroying him more than helping the country. The GOP is a horrible minority party because they refuse to accept the legitimacy of a Democratic presidency. They pulled this same **** with Clinton in the '90s. Clinton simply responded to it better and made Newt Gingrich a fool....until he gave them their smoking gun with Monica. But Hillary wouldn't have done that....at least I hope not.

Hillary on the other hand, is far more pragmatic. She knows how to work with Congress because she actually spent time in Congress (and even though I don't agree with her politically, I will say that she did a terrific job as my Senator, she actually did work to represent Upstate New York). She dealt with them during the Clinton Administration. She knows when a proposal is dead in the water like attempting to raise taxes on those who make over $250,000 a year. She wouldn't waste political capital on lost causes like Obamacare. And she would have turned things like the debt ceiling debacle into victories if the Republicans were obstructionist.

I think she is both more political and more partisan. She learned from watching them try so viciously to destroy her husband and herself in the '90s. I honestly believe Obama was surprised in 2009 when he was hit with the kind of nastiness that for decades had only been reserved for the Clintons. All of D.C. was surprised in 2011 when that nastiness became worse than the Clintons' pre-Monica attacks.

But her not doing "Obamacare" shouldn't be a selling point to liberals who want someone other than Obama. I agree she would have forsaken HCR by early 2010 and we would still be at square one in our HC problems and children would still be denied coverage because of "pre-existing conditions." You're not winning me over there. As for $250,000 tax payers seeing Clinton level increases being "politically dead," I doubt it. That is something she would fight for and perhaps be more cunning than Obama over. It is end-of-the-day smart policy that is only dead because of obstructionist Republicans who would rather America to fail than their bid for the WH in 2012. This is the kind of fight Hillary would love to take and she'd be very aggressive about it.

That is why I think that Hillary would have been a far better President. She would have known what to do. The GOP wouldn't have been as obstructionist with her as they are with Obama because Hillary knows how to fight and she knows when to drop ideas that have no chance of passing. They would be too afraid to be absurdly obstructionist because they did so with Bill Clinton and lost.

Here I disagree. The vitriol Obama faces was aimed at Hillary pre-primaries. The GOP base and think tanks have convinced themselves they lost in 1995 because Newt crumbled under pressure. They were as awful to Bill as they are to Obama, the difference is Bill was able to out-politic them. Hillary would probably have been better at this game, I agree. But I'm not entirely sure and again, the major policy victories Obama went after in his first two years (HCR, CFPA, DADT Repeal, etc.) probably would not have gotten done. Obama spent his political capital on doing things that helped Americans. Hillary would have seen the loss of capital in doing these things and spent it on her reelection. So, it's a give-and-take is my point.

Hillary supporters have earned the right to say "I told you so."

The only time I've ever felt in politics anyone has earned an "I told you so" about these speculations of "what if" has been McCain and Gore supporters in 2000. Everything else is conjecture and moot.

 

[hippie_hunter]

So, you're saying they would be as hyper-partisan and obstructionist? Because I agree.

The GOP would still be as hyper-partisan, but I highly doubt that they would be as obstructionist. They would have a fear of Hillary that they don't have of Obama.

I disagree there strongly. But that would be rehashing old arguments. Suffice it to say I think he's had a very hard time communicating with the American people and the stimulus solution was entirely too small to tackle our economic problem which was far larger than we realized in 2009. But he's done too much right in terms of policy for me to write him off as a bumbling novice like Jimmy Carter, as much as his detractors like to pretend he is.

He's more than a bumbling novice at this point, he's politically incompetent. And he doesn't have a communication problem. You can salvage a communication problem, but you can't salvage the fact that the American public hate his policies. They hate the stimulus. They hate Obamacare. They hate the bailouts. No amount of proper communication can fix that.

I believe that was more of a mix-up by Bob Daley than Obama's personal decision-making. That is a weak example and also doesn't take into account the hyper-partisanship of the post-Tea Party GOP that allows Boehner to slight the POTUS to cheers of his own party.

I certainly agree that the hyper-partisanship allows Boehner to slight the President to cheers of his own party, but the fact remains that if Obama can't even schedule a speech properly and do it so incompetently, shows that Obama has a lot of problems that need to be fixed and right away.

I agree Hillary is better at handling Congressional members because she is more political in nature than Obama. She is also more centrist, so she could keep her own party's blue dogs (who are now all but extinct) happier in 2009. They don't work with Obama because they're hyper-partisan and value destroying him more than helping the country. They pulled this same **** with Clinton in the '90s. Clinton simply responded to it better and made Newt Gingrich a fool....until he gave them their smoking gun with Monica. But Hillary wouldn't have done that....at least I hope not.

They did pull this **** with Bill Clinton in the 90's and guess what? They lost. And they lost BADLY. And they faced political consequences. They don't want to repeat such a mistake.

The don't work with Obama because they have no fear of him, due to the fact that he's politically incompetent allowing them to be obstructionist. They don't fear political consequences because the public now sees him as irrelevant and his re-election prospects look very dim with Romney or Perry as the nominee.

There would be political consequences if they fought Hillary. She knows how to fight. She knows how to pick her battles. While they would act like an opposition party, there would still be some fear of her because she shows levels of relevance and competency.

However, I still reject the BS about GOP are bitter towards Obama because of his perceived negligence of them in the 111th Congress. Politicians have thick skins for these matters (at least the establishment does).

It's not ******** that the GOP is bitter towards Obama for how he brushed them to the side in the 111th Congress. And now that they actually have power, payback is a *****. This should be a lesson to future Presidents to not treat the opposition as irrelevant, because if they end up in power, they will retaliate.

The GOP is a horrible minority party because they refuse to accept the legitimacy of a Democratic presidency.

Just like how many within the Democratic Party refused to accept the legitimacy of George W. Bush's Presidency. Sorry, but if you're going to call the GOP out on this, you have to call the Democrats out for treating Bush the exact same way.

I think she is both more political and more partisan. She learned from watching them try so viciously to destroy her husband and herself in the '90s. I honestly believe Obama was surprised in 2009 when he was hit with the kind of nastiness that for decades had only been reserved for the Clintons. All of D.C. was surprised in 2011 when that nastiness became worse than the Clintons' pre-Monica attacks.

I do believe that Obama was surprised by the nastiness. But that's because I think he had the idea that he would have been some Mr. Smith Goes to Washington type of guy and when the reality slapped him in the face, he got a little bitter about it.

But her not doing "Obamacare" shouldn't be a selling point to liberals who want someone other than Obama. I agree she would have forsaken HCR by early 2010 and we would still be at square one in our HC problems and children would still be denied coverage because of "pre-existing conditions." You're not winning me over there. As for $250,000 tax payers seeing Clinton level increases being "politically dead," I doubt it. That is something she would fight for and perhaps be more cunning than Obama over. It is end-of-the-day smart policy that is only dead because of obstructionist Republicans who would rather America to fail than their bid for the WH in 2012. This is the kind of fight Hillary would love to take and she'd be very aggressive about it.

It's not whether or not she wouldn't have done something, it's about her wisely spending her political capital instead of wasting it on what many pundits (even those who are highly revered) that call the biggest political blunder in modern political history. And she wouldn't constantly try and bring up ideas that have no chance of passing at all (the tax increases on the wealthy were just an example).

Here I disagree. The vitriol Obama faces was aimed at Hillary pre-primaries. The GOP base and think tanks have convinced themselves they lost in 1995 because Newt crumbled under pressure. They were as awful to Bill as they are to Obama, the difference is Bill was able to out-politic them. Hillary would probably have been better at this game, I agree.

The GOP base will say that the GOP lost because of Newt crumbling, but they know the reality. They lost because Bill out-politiced them. I'm not with the Clintons politically, but they are freaking geniuses in the realm of politics.

But I'm not entirely sure and again, the major policy victories Obama went after in his first two years (HCR, CFPA, DADT Repeal, etc.) probably would not have gotten done. Obama spent his political capital on doing things that helped Americans. Hillary would have seen the loss of capital in doing these things and spent it on her reelection. So, it's a give-and-take is my point.

Obama wasted his political capital on things that the public hates, some of which will most likely be dismantled (Obamacare), and pointless fights. They aren't victories when the public hates them and they will be pointed to as the reason why he lost re-election.

The only time I've ever felt in politics anyone has earned an "I told you so" about these speculations of "what if" has been McCain and Gore supporters in 2000. Everything else is conjecture and moot.

Hillary Clinton would have been far more effective that Obama. I've really come to the conclusion. I think that Hillary would have coasted to re-election, even in this bad economy in 2012 as opposed to Obama who is so damn politically incompetent, even his re-election strategy is ******ed when it should be so simple.

 

[DACrowe]

The GOP would still be as hyper-partisan, but I highly doubt that they would be as obstructionist. They would have a fear of Hillary that they don't have of Obama.

Doubtful. They didn't fear her husband and impeached him over a *******, so I doubt they'd fear her.

He's more than a bumbling novice at this point, he's politically incompetent. And he doesn't have a communication problem. You can salvage a communication problem, but you can't salvage the fact that the American public hate his policies. They hate the stimulus. They hate Obamacare. They hate the bailouts. No amount of proper communication can fix that.

They hate Obamacare because of GOP lies and misperception (death panels, government takeover, the very name Obamacare), just as most fail to realize the stimulus did at least stop the excessive 2009 bleeding and have been misled by Republicans to believe he signed TARP....a Bush-era policy (that was actually quite successful).

I certainly agree that the hyper-partisanship allows Boehner to slight the President to cheers of his own party, but the fact remains that if Obama can't even schedule a speech properly and do it so incompetently, shows that Obama has a lot of problems that need to be fixed and right away.

But again....it was Bob Daley's screw-up (if you believe Boehner's spin) and Obama had nothing to do with it. It is a weak example based on looking for an excuse to dig Obama. He didn't make the call and nobody will remember it by next week.

They did pull this **** with Bill Clinton in the 90's and guess what? They lost. And they lost BADLY. And they faced political consequences. They don't want to repeat such a mistake.

They did lose badly, but they pushed Boehner to shutdown the government in April and to default in August, saying they only lost in '95 because Newt threw in the towel too early. That tells me many of them didn't learn a lesson and considering afterwards they impeached Clinton over oral sex, I HIGHLY doubt they'd be any more humble with a woman they characterized as a lesbian and a murderer in the 1990s and 2007.

But you're right the Clintons are better at responding to such evil crap.

The don't work with Obama because they have no fear of him, due to the fact that he's politically incompetent allowing them to be obstructionist. They don't fear political consequences because the public now sees him as irrelevant and his re-election prospects look very dim with Romney or Perry as the nominee.

Perry's numbers have been plummeting in the last week. I do agree they don't respect Obama. Never have and never will. Obama's mistake has been trying to work with people who never respected him to begin with and getting burned a dozen times for it between 2009 and summer 2011. Hillary would not have tried the bipartisan route and would have been clobbering them from day one. But I stand by the man who has accomplished so much (DADT Repeal, CFPA, New START, Student Loan Reform, Libya regime change without invasion, Osama bin Laden dead, drastic al-Qaeda assassinations and, yes, HCR) as weak or incompetent.

Unemployment and continuing to concede the messaging war to the GOP have been and remain his biggest liabilities. The latter cost him dearly in the debt ceiling fiasco, starting with it happening in the first place.

There would be political consequences if they fought Hillary. She knows how to fight. She knows how to pick her battles. While they would act like an opposition party, there would still be some fear of her because she shows levels of relevance and competency.

She wouldn't treat them like potential partners, but treat them like enemies as she and her husband did. I agree she would have come out much stronger of 2011. But while she'd be more successful politically, I have reservations about what her policies would be--i.e. I think the economy would be just as abysmal and we'd have a lot less to show for it domestically and another decade of Afghanistan.

But in terms of partisan fighting, she is a warrior and not a concilliator. So, if reelection is the main goal, then yes, she'd probably be in a stronger position right now....but we don't know for sure.

It's not ******** that the GOP is bitter towards Obama for how he brushed them to the side in the 111th Congress. And now that they actually have power, payback is a *****. This should be a lesson to future Presidents to not treat the opposition as irrelevant, because if they end up in power, they will retaliate.

It is ********. Obama did not slight GOP senators and Boehner and Cantor dropped the first gauntlet in 2009 when they refused to even discuss a stimulus package with the WH in February of that year. McConnell said at the beginning of 2009 that his first priority was to make Obama a one-termer. They have just maintained the same obstructionist ******** in 2011 because they, like you, perceive Obama's attempts at bipartisanship as weakness and took full advantage of it...again. But it was nothing about payback and all about self-empowerment. Governing the country isn't even an afterthought to them or their apologetic excuse for being so recalistrant that you're repeating in this thread.

Just like how many within the Democratic Party refused to accept the legitimacy of George W. Bush's Presidency. Sorry, but if you're going to call the GOP out on this, you have to call the Democrats out for treating Bush the exact same way.

No Dems under Bush ever said things like "Did Bush mastermind the 9/11 attacks that murdered 3,000 Americans to start an illegal war in Iraq? Well, I take the president at his word, but if other Americans want to believe that...." They didn't snub him on joint sessions of Congress and last I checked there wasn't a year where they filibustered 85% of his proposals and appointments or threatened to default the nation to force Bush to draw down troops from Iraq....

Sorry moral equivalency there is also ********.

I do believe that Obama was surprised by the nastiness. But that's because I think he had the idea that he would have been some Mr. Smith Goes to Washington type of guy and when the reality slapped him in the face, he got a little bitter about it.

I think he was surprised that, like the Clintons, they valued destroying him over serving their country. Hence the bitterness and the huge mistake of trying to befriend them again in 2011. I'm actually agreeing with you hear for different reasons.

It's not whether or not she wouldn't have done something, it's about her wisely spending her political capital instead of wasting it on what many pundits (even those who are highly revered) that call the biggest political blunder in modern political history. And she wouldn't constantly try and bring up ideas that have no chance of passing at all (the tax increases on the wealthy were just an example).

But that is the kind of fight she'd bet her political capital on because she knows public support would be with her. She wouldn't expend it on HCR....which I'm glad Obama finally got started....because she would see the political downside. Instead, she'd save that capital for this fight that wouldn't help a lot of Americans...but it would let her vilify Republicans with class warfare and help her reelection. It's really whether you value policy priorities or political victories more has remained my point.

The GOP base will say that the GOP lost because of Newt crumbling, but they know the reality. They lost because Bill out-politiced them. I'm not with the Clintons politically, but they are freaking geniuses in the realm of politics.

It's just not the base. It's AEI and the Heritage Foundation. My point is many believe they lost because of Newt failing, not because of Bill's brilliance. And in any case it doesn't mean they fear the Clintons. Otherwise Bill would not have been impeached on a flimsy distraction.

Hillary Clinton would have been far more effective that Obama. I've really come to the conclusion. I think that Hillary would have coasted to re-election, even in this bad economy in 2012 as opposed to Obama who is so damn politically incompetent, even his re-election strategy is ******ed when it should be so simple.

Out of curiosity, what do you think his reelection strategy should be? Because like George H.W. Bush, despite his accomplishments, I see few "simple" ways forward.

 

[Marx]

Clinton was impeached because of a hypocritical Newt Gingrich-led witchhunt. It was political posturing and nothing more.

As far as Obama's re-election campaign goes, the ONLY path he can really take and expect to gain any success is the "fighter of change who has tried to fight against a do-nothing Congress" line. While I do still think he could still be re-elected, he has turned what should have been a fairly easy re-election (given the current disgrace of a GOP field) into a toss up.

 

[Faramir]

But I stand by the man who has accomplished so much (DADT Repeal, CFPA, New START, Student Loan Reform, Libya regime change without invasion, Osama bin Laden dead, drastic al-Qaeda assassinations and, yes, HCR) as weak or incompetent.

I'm sorry, but I have to pitch in on those:

The DADT was not Obama's accomplishment. It was sealed and delivered to him by the 111th Congress. It was a great symbolic victory but, without more support from the Obama administration ad cabinet, it can go nowhere. It was his own Department of Defence that refused compensation or reincorporation for those already affected by DADT. They retained their 'dishonourably discharged' status.
Furthermore, the DATD repeal can be rendered useless without a repeal on Article 125 of the Military Justice Code, criminalizing sodomy, whether on relationships or casual encounters. This was strictly military issues that the Commander-in-chief could not secure or negotiate. And finally, Obama's current unpopularity puts the repeal in jeopardy on September 20th.

I can agree on bin Laden and Lybia, to a certain extent, but everything smells of radicalization there looks. For the first time in many years Al-Qaida presence is detected and is growing, Tripoli is still a chaos as the ravaging of the Israeli embassy shows, rural warlords are properly watched... And the whole deal of going there without Congress approval is a disaster for he credibility, especially when he argued that formal declaration of war was indispensable when engaging a situation that meant no immediate-threat for America.
Meanwhile, the 2011 proposed defence budget is larger than in the Bush-era. How come?

Now, the CFPA is another misleading triumph of Obama.
Primarily, because it was also a result of 111th Congress legislation, not his administration.
Secondly, because it's meant to be another expensive regulatory agency in a coma. It won't work for the same reason the Super-Committee won't work either: it's "independence" grants it little accountability, there is an unprecedented amount of opposition from the current Congress, Obama can't get his nomination approved and it's giving away tax cuts in exchange for a speedy approval that just doesn't arrive.
And, last but not least, any financial bank regulatory agency would need to start with accomplishing what the FDIC and the SEC did not: securing proper oversight over TARP, or a repeal of it. And you can bet that won't happen under Obama and Boehner's watch.

And Obama's HCR actually did a disservice to the issue. Obamacare is a mess at the federal courts level. Public opinion is widely against it, and you can see the whole country taking a turn to the right. Even on the left it's not that popular, since it was funded, among other things, by a heavy cutting of Medicaid and Medicare spending. Plus, it skyrocketed the deficit simply because there is no way to pay for it.
Make no mistake, I like the premise behind Obamacare. I really think everything would go well if America had health care like the Swiss system, with two compulsory income-dependant health insurance systems, since birth, for every person. And it works like a wonder. But Switzerland also has one of the most protectionist, healthy economies out there, and lacks the political divisions of the United States. It was a clumsy move from Obama to support a 2700 pages act with provisions to alienate both the right and the left. As a consequence, it will likely get repealed and will signal a huge setback for HMOs regulation, because now public option health care is politically toxic.

Talk about accomplishments.

 

[hippie_hunter]

They hate Obamacare because of GOP lies and misperception (death panels, government takeover, the very name Obamacare),

The public hates Obamacare not because of GOP lies and misperception, they hate it because of the mandate to buy health insurance and how it's making health care more expensive. Most people see through the GOP ******** of "death panels" and "socialized medicine" and instead focus on how the government is forcing people to buy insurance, that it is driving businesses to drop their private health care plans, and utterly failed to reform health care.

just as most fail to realize the stimulus did at least stop the excessive 2009 bleeding and have been misled by Republicans to believe he signed TARP....a Bush-era policy (that was actually quite successful).

The public hates the stimulus because Obama promised less than 8% unemployment and more jobs with it. We got 10% unemployment afterwards. It didn't stop the excessive bleeding, the excessive bleeding went on.

I'll go on later, but I feel extremely tired, but I felt that I had to respond to that at least.

 

[DACrowe]

Clinton was impeached because of a hypocritical Newt Gingrich-led witchhunt. It was political posturing and nothing more.

As far as Obama's re-election campaign goes, the ONLY path he can really take and expect to gain any success is the "fighter of change who has tried to fight against a do-nothing Congress" line. While I do still think he could still be re-elected, he has turned what should have been a fairly easy re-election (given the current disgrace of a GOP field) into a toss up.

Things will never be easy with an UE number over 9 percent. In terms of policy, hoping the stimulus would be enough and then watching the economy come to a screeching halt with the money ran out this year may be his biggest policy mistake. But in terms of perception....you're 100 percent right about what he's done to his image this summer. However, I won't write that off he's Carter just yet like some posters here are.

I'm sorry, but I have to pitch in on those:

The DADT was not Obama's accomplishment. It was sealed and delivered to him by the 111th Congress. It was a great symbolic victory but, without more support from the Obama administration ad cabinet, it can go nowhere. It was his own Department of Defence that refused compensation or reincorporation for those already affected by DADT. They retained their 'dishonourably discharged' status.

I understand your anger on the latter point. ON the first, I'll admit I was wrong. I was extremely frustrated with the slow walk in 2010 the WH took with this policy. 'Why doesn't he make a sweeping deal out of this like Truman? It's not going to get done in this partisanship!' But I admit I was wrong, the Administration played it smart. They gave every last ounce of political coverage possible to Republicans and conservative Democrats right down to having Petreaus, Mullen and Gates stump before in front of Congress. He made it so unexciting and such a non-issue, that the blue dogs and few moderate Republicans like Brown, Snowe, et al. could vote for it without feeling like they were committing political suicide.

It was an ugly process that was pushed over the finish line by people like Kristen Gillibrand, Chuck Schumer and....surprisingly, Sue Collins. But the WH's strategy made it doable to my disbelief.

Furthermore, the DATD repeal can be rendered useless without a repeal on Article 125 of the Military Justice Code, criminalizing sodomy, whether on relationships or casual encounters. This was strictly military issues that the Commander-in-chief could not secure or negotiate. And finally, Obama's current unpopularity puts the repeal in jeopardy on September 20th.

It will be repealed. However, if any of the GOP candidates not named Paul or, I suppose, Romney are elected in 2012, they could executive order the requirement back. That's the sad disgusting truth of politics.

I can agree on bin Laden and Lybia, to a certain extent, but everything smells of radicalization there looks. For the first time in many years Al-Qaida presence is detected and is growing, Tripoli is still a chaos as the ravaging of the Israeli embassy shows, rural warlords are properly watched... And the whole deal of going there without Congress approval is a disaster for he credibility, especially when he argued that formal declaration of war was indispensable when engaging a situation that meant no immediate-threat for America.[/quote]

Libya can go bad. But Gadhafi was on his way out and seriously threatened to create killing fields Benghazi. I think the western countries made the right call. We can't build Libya's nation for them as we've tried to do in Iraq and Afghanistan for a decade. Bush's imperialism has sapped the empire into debt and hurt our image abroad. But saving tens of thousands, if not hundreds of thousands, of lives for the price of one day in Iraq seemed worthy. Again to the surprise of my initial skepticism...strangely it's been his policies and tactics I've most supported that have disappointed while the ones I've doubted that have had success. Very surprising.

Now, the CFPA is another misleading triumph of Obama.
Primarily, because it was also a result of 111th Congress legislation, not his administration.
Secondly, because it's meant to be another expensive regulatory agency in a coma. It won't work for the same reason the Super-Committee won't work either: it's "independence" grants it little accountability, there is an unprecedented amount of opposition from the current Congress, Obama can't get his nomination approved and it's giving away tax cuts in exchange for a speedy approval that just doesn't arrive.

Unlike much of Dodd-Frank, CFPA has teeth and will actually help consumers and was a boon. It was the one piece the WH lobbied for (I wish they lobbied for a serious Durbin-rule in derivatives myself to make another 2008 unlikely, but Wall Street is too strong a lobbyist resource). It will work just fine if it isn't defunded and/or repealed by Republicans in the four to six years.

And, last but not least, any financial bank regulatory agency would need to start with accomplishing what the FDIC and the SEC did not: securing proper oversight over TARP, or a repeal of it. And you can bet that won't happen under Obama and Boehner's watch.

And Obama's HCR actually did a disservice to the issue. Obamacare is a mess at the federal courts level. Public opinion is widely against it, and you can see the whole country taking a turn to the right. Even on the left it's not that popular, since it was funded, among other things, by a heavy cutting of Medicaid and Medicare spending. Plus, it skyrocketed the deficit simply because there is no way to pay for it.
Make no mistake, I like the premise behind Obamacare. I really think everything would go well if America had health care like the Swiss system, with two compulsory income-dependant health insurance systems, since birth, for every person. And it works like a wonder. But Switzerland also has one of the most protectionist, healthy economies out there, and lacks the political divisions of the United States. It was a clumsy move from Obama to support a 2700 pages act with provisions to alienate both the right and the left. As a consequence, it will likely get repealed and will signal a huge setback for HMOs regulation, because now public option health care is politically toxic.

It is a foot in the door. Social Security was a very weak program when it was created during the New Deal. However, once these programs are entrenched into American life, they become stronger and are reformed in the future. HCR is a convoluted solution to the issue of no coverage and pre-existing conditions because a more streamlined approach would be even more demogauged into oblivion. It sadly does little to tackle costs--albeit CBO just reported it maintains solvency of Medicare for an extra eight years. You'd think GOPers would love that --but it paves the way for better solutions down the road if it can survive the 2012 election. If Obama is reelected and we reach 2014 with near-universal coverage and an end of pre-existing conditions and people see the sky didn't fall....it won't be going anywhere. That's really why reelection is so important to me. Things like CFPA and HCR will live or die by who wins the next election. And despite becoming politically toxic in the short-term....if they survive they will do so much more for this country in the long-term. Sadly, that's a big if at the moment.

 

[Faramir]

However, I won't write that off he's Carter just yet like some posters here are.

Agreed. The GOP needs a nominee that can summon some independent and liberal votes. Except Paul, and perhaps Huntsman, none of the other candidates can pull that off. Romney was a possibility, but he sunk in Tea Party rhetoric and if he¡s the nominee every liberal and many independents will run back into Obama's loving arms.

The Administration played it smart. They gave every last ounce of political coverage possible to Republicans and conservative Democrats right down to having Petreaus, Mullen and Gates stump before in front of Congress. He made it so unexciting and such a non-issue, that the blue dogs and few moderate Republicans like Brown, Snowe, et al. could vote for it without feeling like they were committing political suicide.

You're absolutely correct on that. No question there. Maybe the administration's policy was still micromanaged by Emanuel or Axelrod. Perhaps once they really gear into campaign mode there will be no more gaffes.

Libya can go bad. But Gadhafi was on his way out and seriously threatened to create killing fields Benghazi. I think the western countries made the right call. We can't build Libya's nation for them as we've tried to do in Iraq and Afghanistan for a decade. Bush's imperialism has sapped the empire into debt and hurt our image abroad. But saving tens of thousands, if not hundreds of thousands, of lives for the price of one day in Iraq seemed worthy.

You're right, again. I do think intervention in Libya was necessary. Ran Paul said that you have to be at some places, some of the time. But no nation-building, ever, like what they're doing with Afghanistan. Petraeus excuses for remaining there even after Osama's death makes no sense.

Unlike much of Dodd-Frank, CFPA has teeth and will actually help consumers and was a boon. It was the one piece the WH lobbied for (I wish they lobbied for a serious Durbin-rule in derivatives myself to make another 2008 unlikely, but Wall Street is too strong a lobbyist resource). It will work just fine if it isn't defunded and/or repealed by Republicans in the four to six years.

Which is really unlikely, given how appointing a director has massed a record of nomination denials. Which is why what hippie_hunter was saying about political capital so important. You either play it very smart and very cautious, step-by-step, or you have to be prepared to use that veto power a lot and later defend yourself at the spin room. There's no other way.

It is a foot in the door. Social Security was a very weak program when it was created during the New Deal. However, once these programs are entrenched into American life, they become stronger and are reformed in the future. HCR is a convoluted solution to the issue of no coverage and pre-existing conditions because a more streamlined approach would be even more demogauged into oblivion. It sadly does little to tackle costs--albeit CBO just reported it maintains solvency of Medicare for an extra eight years. You'd think GOPers would love that --but it paves the way for better solutions down the road if it can survive the 2012 election. If Obama is reelected and we reach 2014 with near-universal coverage and an end of pre-existing conditions and people see the sky didn't fall....it won't be going anywhere. That's really why reelection is so important to me. Things like CFPA and HCR will live or die by who wins the next election. And despite becoming politically toxic in the short-term....if they survive they will do so much more for this country in the long-term. Sadly, that's a big if at the moment.

Agreed with most but disagreed on the bold part. It was actually drafting a 2700 with convoluted and expensive solutions to a simple problem (like regulating the most unpopular pre-existing conditions) which made it so easy to the GOP to bad-mouth it. Because the public opinion didn't want it! Have even those uninsured purchase coverage? Cutting Medicare? It created enemies all over the spectrum, both sides of the aisle.

I agree America's troubles are too many to be solved in four years. But that is also a testament of inefficiency on Obama's part, and people notice that. Let's say he keeps the WH... the GOP will probably retain majority at the hill. Just look at New York, right now. The programs will not improve because it will be another round of gridlock and stumbles... and if his public image couldn't stand the pressure of this four years, in 2016 the Republicans will return even stronger and more retrograde. You can bet on that.

 

[DACrowe]

I'd just point out that a buy-in public option, a simple concept that could pay for itself and actually reduce costs of healthcare by forcing the insurance companies to compete again, could not survive the scrutiny of blue dog Democrats. What are the odds of something that actually could be labeled "big government" healthcare, such as Medicare for all, would have of passing? It had zero chance. That is why this convoluted private market solution that originates from the Heritage Foundation and a Bob Dole proposal in 1993, was tackled because it was the only way to get something that blue dogs and hypothetically some Republicans could pass. However, the GOP that supported in the 1990s and passed it as a private market solution in Massachusetts under Republican Governor Mitt Romney's leadership became "socialism," "death panels," and "government takeover."

Why? Because they only proposed it in 1993 to take the wind out of the Clintons' sails. They never cared for HCR and would rather see millions of people die in the coming years than Barack Obama have a victory. So, they voted against it. Obama only passed it in the U.S. Senate because of politicking procedure so that at the end of the day he only needed 50 votes for it to pass in its final form (it had what 54? 56? Which means some of the 58 Democrats voted against it).

It was so convoluted because if it wasn't it would have never passed the Blue Dogs in the Senate. Now, the Blue Dogs are gone so if the Democrats ever take back Congress maybe they can improve the bill. (That last part was mostly a joke.)

I hope if Obama is reelected he can focus on actually tackling the deficit in a responsible way (something Republicans will never do) and instead of going after liberal dream projects, stay focused on the economy. His most important liberal accomplishments from the first term can take root and become impossible for the GOP to remove. It's really about protecting the good of the country to me. Call Obama inefficient all you want, but a GOP Administration would end on these programs that actually will/are improving Americans' lives (HCR, CFPA, New food regulation and Student Loan Reform) and go for a strict austerity economic policy to appease the Tea Bagging base. That would cause us to enter another Depression. Whether you think Obama is ineffective or not, the alternative is much, much worse in point of fact.

 

[Faramir]

Well, I see what you're saying, but I don't buy your premise. How would a reelection allow Obama to do what he hasn't even scratched so far.

1. Even if he gets reelected, there's 1 in a thousand odds the Dems would attain Congress majority. Right now there's a Republican majority, 25 blue dog votes, and things don't look like they're gonna change. Plus, presidents usually lose support from their own party in second terms, because new figures arise seeking a nomination. So he should expect some degree of criticism from his own party.

2. Obama's primary and seemingly only tool to fix the economy has been stimulus plans. He created new agencies. He watched over a huge deficit increase. His Secretary of Defense proposed the largest DOD's budget since the WWII era. Even his health care plan increased costs. He still allows Bernanke to come up with plans that consist mainly of quantitative stimulus (more inflation, less foreign investment, more devaluation).

So, from 2012 to 2016 everyone in Washington will make of him their favourite punching bag, trying to attain a nomination out of it.
With the same conditions as he is in now, or worse... how can a reelection untie his hands? What will he do different? I do not know. Perhaps his campaign hasn't come up with a clear message. But it's about time.

 

[DACrowe]

It would give him renewed political capital and instead of spending it on liberal dreams like HCR, he should focus on the two areas our country is most suffering in domestically--short-term growth and long-term deficit reduction. The jobs proposal shows he has the right idea, increased investment (and, yes, stimulus) in the short-term and long-term deficit reductions through tax reform and careful cuts into entitlements and defense.

The GOP says they want to cut taxes and spending. That will kill us in the short-term of a cratering economy just seen in 2011 as the stimulus of 2009 ran out and we focused on spending cuts only between March and August. Now, the economy has come to a screeching halt. Unlike the GOP politicians and Tea Party base, Obama has his head in the right direction. I hope after being burned by Boehner so badly this year, he's learned not to be so trusting of the opposition and can expend that capital on the economy.

At the end of the day, it's better than the alternative because their "solutions" got us into this problem to begin with and will only hurt this country.

 

[hippie_hunter]

The economy has come to a screeching halt because of uncertainty and overregulation created by the Obama Administration. Obama inherited a lot of crap, but he's made it a lot worse.

 

[hippie_hunter]

Ron Suskind's book on the Obama Administration doesn't paint the Administration in a pretty light. Pretty much for all the **** that I've been saying:

Meeting over dinner at the Bombay Club one night, [Larry] Summers told [Peter] Orszag that “we’re really home alone,” according to the book. “I mean it,” Summers said. “We’re home alone. There’s no adult in charge. Clinton would never have made these mistakes.”

The book also claims that Treasury Secretary Timothy F. Geithner essentially ignored a key request by Obama to come up with a plan to restructure the mega-bank Citigroup, which had been bailed out by the government.

In early 2009, Obama had decided to authorize a series of Geithner-designed stress tests for the banks to determine whether they were likely to survive the financial crisis without additional funds.

According to the book, Obama saw this moment as one when he could begin to overhaul Wall Street and told the Treasury secretary to develop a plan to restructure Citi.

A month later, at a meeting Geithner didn’t attend, Obama asked about the plan.

“I’m sorry, Mr. President,” Romer said, “but there is no resolution plan for Citi.”

The book says Obama was stunned. “Well, there better be,” he said.

Suskind alleges that Geithner, who disagreed with immediately pressing a plan to overhaul Citi, simply did not produce the plan.

The book says [Christina] Romer shared her thoughts with Harvard professor Elizabeth Warren, then a candidate to lead the new Consumer Financial Protection Bureau. “Why is it always the women?” Romer asked. “Why are we the only ones with the balls around here?”

 

[Faramir]

It would give him renewed political capital and instead of spending it on liberal dreams like HCR, he should focus on the two areas our country is most suffering in domestically--short-term growth and long-term deficit reduction.

If you ask me, he got the order wrong. HCR is a big, second-term task.

The jobs proposal shows he has the right idea, increased investment (and, yes, stimulus) in the short-term and long-term deficit reductions through tax reform and careful cuts into entitlements and defense.

And every decent pundit out there agrees he has no money to pay for it. The golden rule in Washington is that budgets almost always exceed what is proposed on the bill. Right now, both his task are opposite, because stimulus and federal investments pretty much go against deficit reductions, and "tax reform" is just a pretty way of saying 'deductions cuts and tax increases'. Let's be honest, at this point in the game I can't see Obama raising taxes on the rich. I also can't see him cutting entitlements (really?) and his defense budget grows each year. Careful cuts? I hope you don't mean meaningless cuts.

What I'm most afraid of is that with each quantitative easing made by the Fed, People still depend on loans for business growth, but the banks refuse to make loans without more liquid. So, with each lending cycle the dollar is devalued, foreign investments are withdrawn, the dollar crashes even more, inflation goes up... and everything gets worth. Every commodity and service will get more expensive. Interest rates will rise again. And there's a likely chance (as experience tells us) that banks won't even make enough business loans, because we're still waiting for an oversight agency that works. I'm still waiting to see what the CFPA can do.

Obama has had a chance to make this ok. Face big contraction but avoid extending the problem much more. He is a bad economic manager, the theories of inner circle have been proven wrong, and unemployment is still very high. But he still has a "throw money at the problem, mentality coupled with disingenuous advices like "the deficit doesn't matter; we can print more money" from the likes of Greenspan and Co.

I'm still waiting to hear one convincing argument of a better second-term Obama. Really, I still do. He's not in the right direction. He's detrimental to the country. You cannot raise both taxes and spending, and you can't solve the issue with inflationary policy. Most candidates in the GOP aren't willing to cut where is most needed... but I think we all know what needs to be cut first.

 

[Faramir]

Ron Suskind's book on the Obama Administration doesn't paint the Administration in a pretty light. Pretty much for all the **** that I've been saying:

The book also claims that Treasury Secretary Timothy F. Geithner essentially ignored a key request by Obama to come up with a plan to restructure the mega-bank Citigroup, which had been bailed out by the government.

In early 2009, Obama had decided to authorize a series of Geithner-designed stress tests for the banks to determine whether they were likely to survive the financial crisis without additional funds.

According to the book, Obama saw this moment as one when he could begin to overhaul Wall Street and told the Treasury secretary to develop a plan to restructure Citi.

A month later, at a meeting Geithner didn’t attend, Obama asked about the plan.

“I’m sorry, Mr. President,” Romer said, “but there is no resolution plan for Citi.”

The book says Obama was stunned. “Well, there better be,” he said.

Suskind alleges that Geithner, who disagreed with immediately pressing a plan to overhaul Citi, simply did not produce the plan.

 

[DACrowe]

The economy has come to a screeching halt because of uncertainty and overregulation created by the Obama Administration. Obama inherited a lot of crap, but he's made it a lot worse.

Overregulation? It's come to a screeching halt because investment ended when the stimulus dried up and there is uncertainty in the market because the GOP fights every single fiscal (and otherwise) policy out of the WH. The private sector knows taxes need to be raised by why invest when you don't know when or where? The Obama Administration says they want to reform the tax code. The GOP says no. The GOP says if they don't get their way on deficit reduction, they'll let the US credit rating default. The Obama Administration says it wants to cut the payroll tax for another year and increase the cut while giving tax credits for hiring long-term unemployed....The GOP says no or argues with itself to find an answer. The GOP says it wants a lot of cuts, then walks away from a lot of cuts signaling they're not serious about deficit reduction and we get downgraded.

Partisan politicking from Congress has created so much uncertainty this year it is insane. And despite Boehner saying that his top priority is "jobs, jobs, jobs,' the House has yet to pass a single jobs creation bill and is instead focusing on solely major short-term and long-term cuts. Thereby, guaranteeing more economic retraction in 2012 and creating even more uncertainty as the GDP influx from the stimulus is gone.

Obama's biggest mistake in the last year has been not releasing a plan at the beginning and letting the GOP dominate the conversation with anti-job creation rhetoric. Instead of creating a market for hiring, Congress is making it harder and the White House hasn't hit back hard enough on the matter.

If we actually have a Republican WH and presidency that is entirely about cutting spending, things will only get worse.

 

[DACrowe]

If you ask me, he got the order wrong. HCR is a big, second-term task.

The thing about HCR is that it was always going to take most of his political capital. He can do it early in his first term when he has a lot or he will likely not be able to do it. Clinton nor Bush achieved any major ideological victories in their second term. However, questioning whether it was time to tackle this issue in a recession is a fair complaint. If he put it off, it'd be at least another eight years before it got done. But in retrospect it may have cost him his presidency because that was a year where nobody was talking about the economy. Of course, if he focused on the economy and UE was still high in 2011, he could still be on the outs with independents (depending if he could have won them over Roosevelt-style....which I find unlikely) and have no major policy victories for his base beyond DADT repeal.

Really whoever became president after 2008 was kind of screwed, but that doesn't excuse a stimulus that proved inadequate to the problem. I'm just saying.

And every decent pundit out there agrees he has no money to pay for it. The golden rule in Washington is that budgets almost always exceed what is proposed on the bill. Right now, both his task are opposite, because stimulus and federal investments pretty much go against deficit reductions, and "tax reform" is just a pretty way of saying 'deductions cuts and tax increases'. Let's be honest, at this point in the game I can't see Obama raising taxes on the rich. I also can't see him cutting entitlements (really?) and his defense budget grows each year. Careful cuts? I hope you don't mean meaningless cuts.

My point is that deficit reduction should never have been at center stage at this point. That is a problem you deal with in an expansion, not a recession (or stagnating economy if you prefer). Creating jobs and getting people back to work should take precedent over long-term fiscal issues. With that said tax reform can mean more than just ending the Bush tax cuts. They can mean ending loopholes for oil companies and hedge fund managers and a multitude of other things. Is the political will there to do this in DC? No, but that doesn't mean it's wrong and it doesn't mean it isn't something Obama can't run on.

As for entitlement reform. I see him being very willing to make substantial reforms (i.e. cuts, eligibility changes and means testing), if he can get something return. The GOP won't deal on that in 2011 because they think Obama is on his way out and they don't want to reform Medicare, Medicaid, et al....they want to dismantle them. So, they'll wait for their chance in 2013. If Obama gets reelected, he will have renewed capital and I think it should go to making these tough choices now before a Chris Christie or Marco Rubio murder the social safety net four years later.

 

[chaseter]

Obama had 2 years to do whatever the hell he wanted to do...

Obama isn't willing to do any major cuts or reform because he doesn't want to be the bad guy.

 

[DACrowe]

And Bush had eight to break everything.

Seriously though, he focused on HCR, Wall Street reform, Energy Reform (which didn't happen) and the Stimulus domestically...probably in that order. That doesn't include his international policy (end Iraq, fortify Afghanistan, get Bin Laden....and the obligatory failed peace attempts between Israel and Palestine every POTUS has). In retrospect, we can say he should have just focused on the economy. By the other token, for those who believe in HCR and consumer rights, we'd have a lot less to show for such a Clintonian effort...save maybe a better shot at a second term.

In any case, by the logic that Obama did everything he could in two years, we should require all executive politicians to pull a Sarah Palin in year 3 and not seek reelection....which maybe appealing for some on this board.

 

[Faramir]

The thing about HCR is that it was always going to take most of his political capital. He can do it early in his first term when he has a lot or he will likely not be able to do it.

Or he could have built on his enormous success to a steady first term focusing entirely on the economy. That didn't happen. He tried to use the 111th Congress to pass a very polemic, contrived and politically toxic bill. Obamacare gave the Dems in the Congress the final blow before the GOP takeover. I understand your point, but I believe there are two ways of looking at this. No matter what pressures he would receive from the left, the economy was struggling and that took precedence. Everything could wait and everybody understood that. Liberals would be pleased with strong action on some social issues. And in 2009 he had huge public support to lead the charge in Wall Street reform. Instead, he battled against corporatism in health care services, and everything crumbled. The GOP only had to repeat a very simple line: "government can't force people to buy something they don't need". And that was it. When you have a long fight ahead of you and you want to secure re-election and the grip of your party on the Hill, you don't do that kind of stuff. Obama and Pelosi made the moves the right had been waiting for so long. Without that blow, other liberal issues could have been pushed forward, probably. Even raising taxes on the rich.

Clinton nor Bush achieved any major ideological victories in their second term.

Untrue. I won't talk about Bush, not only because 9/11 made his first term an anomaly, but also because his Party ran things in Washington until mid of his second term. Obama's situation bears no resemblance to Bush's... but it does to Clinton's.

Clinton couldn't pass Hillarycare in his first term... yet he passed CHIP in his second one! He refereed the Israeli-Palestinian talks in Camp David, which was done in his second term and meant a big thing for the Dems. Almost all fis first term liberal agenda fights were lost. He argued against gay discrimination, DADT was passed as retaliation. He had trouble passing nomination, and the right pummelled him on Nannygate.
During his first term he had to run from the left to the centre, when he passed NAFTA, or when he passed the income tax deductions. He made gun control a big issue, and all he got was the five-days wait period. He couldn't have lived through Lewinsky-gate in the first term.
But in those months of 1994 when he was pushing for Hillarycare, he destroyed the Democrats. The backlash was too hard. Why? Because when re-election is up, you can bet you're going to get hammered. Sounds familiar? Yet, despite all that, he left the WH with 65% approval ratings. And that's because second terms are when you have enough room to get your act together.

Experience tells us that first terms are ring-of-fire trials. First you have to get the confidence of the people, then you can move away from the centre. The heat's off you and you have more governance time once you're not running for re-election. Obama didn't assess well his true political capital, he wanted a big early victory that could seal him the reelection, and now that 'victory' has coming to bite him in the butt.

Creating jobs and getting people back to work should take precedent over long-term fiscal issues.

Both issues are closely linked! I've already said this before, nobody is taking into account how much inflation hurts enterprise. Nobody knows how much IRS regulation hurts business growth. Especially in a recession! And even if that wasn't the case, this is no ordinary deficit. It led to the debt ceiling debate, which was a major blackhole in Obama's agenda (whatever that is). We can agree that stimulus plans were unwise both from economic and political terms.

As for entitlement reform. I see him being very willing to make substantial reforms (i.e. cuts, eligibility changes and means testing), if he can get something return. The GOP won't deal on that in 2011 because they think Obama is on his way out and they don't want to reform Medicare, Medicaid, et al....they want to dismantle them. So, they'll wait for their chance in 2013. If Obama gets reelected, he will have renewed capital and I think it should go to making these tough choices now before a Chris Christie or Marco Rubio murder the social safety net four years later.

Could be. You have a point there, but a congressional victory for the Dems has to come along too, and I don't see that happening.

 

[DACrowe]

Or he could have built on his enormous success to a steady first term focusing entirely on the economy. That didn't happen. He tried to use the 111th Congress to pass a very polemic, contrived and politically toxic bill. Obamacare gave the Dems in the Congress the final blow before the GOP takeover. I understand your point, but I believe there are two ways of looking at this. No matter what pressures he would receive from the left, the economy was struggling and that took precedence. Everything could wait and everybody understood that. Liberals would be pleased with strong action on some social issues. And in 2009 he had huge public support to lead the charge in Wall Street reform. Instead, he battled against corporatism in health care services, and everything crumbled. The GOP only had to repeat a very simple line: "government can't force people to buy something they don't need". And that was it. When you have a long fight ahead of you and you want to secure re-election and the grip of your party on the Hill, you don't do that kind of stuff. Obama and Pelosi made the moves the right had been waiting for so long. Without that blow, other liberal issues could have been pushed forward, probably. Even raising taxes on the rich.

2010 was always likely to be a good year for Republicans. The economy would still be bad no matter how effective 2009 policies were and the Dems had just won two wave elections in a row. There was going to electorate correction in 2010. Granted, HCR helped contribute turning 2010 into another wave election, except this time for the right. But Obama was never going to have the Democratic majorities in eight years that he had in 2009-2010 and he would never have an approval rating above 60 percent, even if he was reelected and a popular president. The economy was always going to drag that down and quickly. He could have pushed HCR off and focused on the economy, which ended up being much worse than anyone realized at the time, but he didn't because that was his window. If you wanted to begin the road to universal healthcare, he picked the right time to do it. If you think it could be put off another decade, then that is a fair point.

Untrue. I won't talk about Bush, not only because 9/11 made his first term an anomaly, but also because his Party ran things in Washington until mid of his second term. Obama's situation bears no resemblance to Bush's... but it does to Clinton's.

Clinton couldn't pass Hillarycare in his first term... yet he passed CHIP in his second one! He refereed the Israeli-Palestinian talks in Camp David, which was done in his second term and meant a big thing for the Dems. Almost all fis first term liberal agenda fights were lost. He argued against gay discrimination, DADT was passed as retaliation. He had trouble passing nomination, and the right pummelled him on Nannygate.
During his first term he had to run from the left to the centre, when he passed NAFTA, or when he passed the income tax deductions. He made gun control a big issue, and all he got was the five-days wait period. He couldn't have lived through Lewinsky-gate in the first term.
But in those months of 1994 when he was pushing for Hillarycare, he destroyed the Democrats. The backlash was too hard. Why? Because when re-election is up, you can bet you're going to get hammered. Sounds familiar? Yet, despite all that, he left the WH with 65% approval ratings. And that's because second terms are when you have enough room to get your act together.

CHIP is no HCR. It's not even Dodd-Frank. Clinton's second term consisted of a number of centrist/moderately conservative victories, a failed Israeli-Palestinian peace accord and Monica. He was successful in getting his trade deals, balancing the budget, reforming welfare, bombing Kosovo (at Tony Blair's almost blackmailing) and repealing Glass-Steigall and generally deregulating Wall Street. However, the Clinton who had big plans on transforming the US disappeared after 1994 and never came back. Just as the W. who dreamed of reforming/destroying Social Security in his second term walked away empty handed because even after a reelection, his newness and viewpoint has lost its luster.

The second term tends to be more about righting problems one sees in centrist policies and/or major foreign affairs issues. The big domestic stuff always seems to fall away after so many years.

Both issues are closely linked! I've already said this before, nobody is taking into account how much inflation hurts enterprise. Nobody knows how much IRS regulation hurts business growth. Especially in a recession! And even if that wasn't the case, this is no ordinary deficit. It led to the debt ceiling debate, which was a major blackhole in Obama's agenda (whatever that is). We can agree that stimulus plans were unwise both from economic and political terms.

They're linked but one takes priority over the other. In a recession/endangered economy, the short-term needing stimulus and investment is the more immediate issue. We ended up in the debt ceiling crisis because the Dems lost sight of that and let the GOP control the agenda by hostaging the economy. Only in August did the beltway seem to realize that it's been sputtering all summer as government investment has dramatically dipped and the artificial debt ceiling crisis (who I give far more credit to the House GOP and Eric Cantor manipulating the freshmen than anybody else) only made uncertainty exponentially worse as we probably go into a double dip. Oh well.

 

[Faramir]

They're linked but one takes priority over the other. In a recession/endangered economy, the short-term needing stimulus and investment is the more immediate issue.

I want to address this particular point of your reply, because I think it's the one where our perspectives are the most different. You seem to believe in Keynesian economics, I believe in Austrian economics. What you say has been the current convention since 2008, with the likes of Paul Krugman pushing for more, in the blind belief that government investment stimulates job creation. But since FDR, that type of Keynesian policies have not worked again. They only function in certain types of crisis scenarios, in certain contexts.

First of all, it is an absolute fallacy that government creates jobs. Everybody seems sold on the idea that all you have to do keep the economy alive and 'stimulate' job creation is prime the pump: give an alleged boost to the economy by making the government borrow money and then give it to people so they will spend it. Government investment made simple, right?

But the federal government can't inject money into the economy without first taking money out of the economy. It can raise taxes (and every tax increase traditionally means IRS expansion) or it can make the Fed print all the money they need, which in turn causes inflation and markets don't respond well to that.

Both Roosevelt and Hoover dramatically increased spending, and neither showed any aversion to running up big deficits, yet the economy was terrible all through the 1930s. Ford and GW Bush also engaged in Keynesian stimulus schemes which had no impact on the economy. Keynesianism failed in Japan during the 1990s and in most governments of Latin America during the later half of the XX century. The bottom line is that it's borrowed money. FDR didn't have to worry about that because the Great Depression was an over-production crisis, so generating aggregate demand was the top priority.

Nowadays is not the case. There is no continued increase in 'aggregate demand', as Keynesians like to say, because a peak on demand is always followed by a peak in shortages. Business have to protect against shortages, so they raise prices because demand is high. This is especially true in bank lending, albeit in a different way. Everybody wants a loan in order to invest, so banks raise interest rates to prevent liquid shortages, and this has exacerbated since 2008 and TARP.

All this leads to an inevitable chain-reaction of price raising, and the most affected ones are little businesses, because big corporations are almost always the beneficiaries of liquid injections... especially Wall-Street. And investment banks, big corporations, subsidized farms, military contractors... they all take the money. The have thrived on the assumption that big corporations keep the economy moving, because Wall Street doesn't take a dive when they are happy, so they pay too little of their government debt back, if anything, rolling it over while expecting the next round of quantitative easing.

How will Obama fix this? I don't know, I haven't seen the CFPA fix the stagnation of consumer loans so far. What I do know is that government investment not only doesn't solve the problem... it worsens it. Obama's new plan is just another round of fiat money waiting to be injected into an economy that has shouted this: the definition of insanity is to keep on doing the same thing waiting for different results.

Ah, but what we do know is that the Jobs bill looks pretty on paper and on execution. Government investment always means earmarks, and you can always see the workers of any given pork project. You could see very well the workers employed in the "bridge to Nowhere". What is less obvious to the public is that the resources to build that bridge are either taken from the private sector and thus no longer available for business growth, or printed with the subsequent inflation. That remains unseen.

When Obama proves he has learned to 'stimulate' by cutting spending, and not by proposing energy taxes, passing HCR with all its expensive taxes and penalties, extending unemployment benefits, and stifling business growth, then I will believe he can decrease the unemployment rate. Until then, it remains unseen.