http://www.politico.com/news/stories/0910/42100.html

The mid-terms will be about Obama and the crappy job he has done to date...

This is the reality, no matter how unfair or inaccurate it may be...

Michale.....

But I think this is more as you say, because of perception rather than reality.

It's an interesting strategy because what Republicans want to do isn't so popular.

http://congressionalconnection.nationaljournal.com/2010/09/despite-electoral-landscape-go.php

But the party seems to be seeing a resurgence.

So it's interesting to ask the question why?

This is where I think CW is right when he talks about how Republicans have done a better job claiming the moral high ground.

Cheers
David

Birther stories aren't "bad news"...

CrapCare stories that show that health care insurance is going to rise because of CrapCare is bad news. And it's factual.

Stories of out of control spending by Democrats is bad news. And it's factual.

Stories of poll after poll after poll that show an ever increasing margin of GOP wins over Democrats is bad news. And it's factual..

I could go on and on... And often do! :D

Like I said... If you cheery pick only the good news, of course it's easy to say, "It's not so bad for Democrats."

Don't get me wrong. I too, am a Cup Is Half Full kinda guy myself..

But I do try to ground myself in reality... :D

Michale.....

I guess if you consider birther stories factual.

I'd go so far as to say if one listens to the news and ignores conservative news then things really don't look so bad.

Exactly. If one ignores the bad news, then things really don't look so bad..

The problem is, the bad news is as factual as the good news. And there is a LOT more bad news for the Democratic Party..

TIM KAINE, HEAD OF DNC: We're the underdog party. Even when we have a majority we're the underdog party.

"We'll have to pass {CrapCare} to learn what's in it."
-Nancy Pelosi

It's the way of politics these days, apparently.

Why do they have to call Obama a Muslim, call Democrats socialists, talk about Sharia law, paint Obama as not being born in this country, blame Democrats for everything and talk about basically everything but what they would do?

The same reason that Democrats blame Bush for everything... At this point in time, all of them have nothing better..

But the point is, ANYTHING is better than a future with Democrats at the helm...

That's the reasoning of the Independents and the NPAs..

Hay, don't kill the messenger, just because you don't like the message.. :D

Michale.....

I'd go so far as to say if one listens to the news and ignores conservative news then things really don't look so bad.

The real proof will be come Nov 2.

You may very well be right. It's what many of the polls seem to think.

But will it be a good thing for the country? Riddle me this, if conservative ideas are so good for our country, why won't conservatives talk about them?

Why do they have to call Obama a Muslim, call Democrats socialists, talk about Sharia law, paint Obama as not being born in this country, blame Democrats for everything and talk about basically everything but what they would do?

Cheers,
David

But you know what they say about making assumptions. :D

We can argue the state of mind of the Independents and the NPAs til the cows come home...

The real proof will be come Nov 2...

Wanna lay any bets?? :D

Michale....

Unemployment is stabilizing. The latest jobs report was better than expected.

http://money.cnn.com/2010/09/03/news/economy/august_jobs_report/index.htm

The stock market has stabilized and is up for the year.

I guess if you read NewsMax you'd think the end of the world was coming. But that's every edition of NewsMax. The perception doesn't match the reality.

But you are right about perception. Republicans and their media networks are doing a good job in shaping the perception you describe.

Here's a hypothetical for you, Michale. If people are making decisions based on perception and anger rather than fact, is this a good thing for our country?

I'd encourage people to look at the facts. It's not great yet, Michale. You're right. But there's a lot of encouraging signs and it is going to take time.

Cheers
David

That's when Democrats were in charge of Congress..

Are we in better shape than we were 6 years ago??

No, we are not...

It's gonna take some time. I believe we're seeing the start of things getting better though.

For example??

Unemployment is rising. Our debt is soaring.. Economic apocalypse theories that were laughed at a year ago are being given serious consideration.

Things ARE getting worse. This is the reality, but more important, this is the perception.

And it is that perception that will kill the Democrats at the election booths.

Like I said... The Democrat's only campaign strategy is, "Do you want to go back to the GOP style of governing??"

Independents and NPAs are screaming, "HELL YEA!!!"

Michale.....

p.s. The Republicans had 8 years to dig the hole. I really think it's premature to make large blanket statements like this.

It's gonna take some time. I believe we're seeing the start of things getting better though.

I'd say we're in better shape than 2 years ago.

To continue the football analogy, seems like we were about 2-14 in 2008. I'd say under Obama, we're more like 8-8 over the last year.

Do we want to go back to the team that went 2-14? The team that by their own admission has no new ideas.

Cheers
-David

After 9/11, Democrats came together with Republicans to present a united front. Many didn't like this or agree with it, but they bought into the idea of doing what's right for the country.

I disagree.. I think that Democrats AND Republicans came together to do what's right for the Country..

It was only afterwards that Democrats tried to walk back their actions and claim, "Well I really didn't WANT to vote that way, but I feel intimidated to do so."

In other words, "morning after" guilt.

But make no mistake. The actions taken in the aftermath of 9/11 were the right things to do.

Contrast this with after the financial crisis and Obama's election. We had another opportunity to pull together in crisis. Obama laid out a very centrist agenda and asked for support.

I have to cry BS on this..

Obama didn't "ask for their support".

Obama laid out his agenda and expected everyone to see his "logic". When the GOP balked, Obama shrugged his shoulders, said "Well, I tried" and then just did what he wanted to do.

That's Obama's idea of "bi-partisanship"...

He gives the GOP every opportunity to get on board with HIS agenda. If they choose not to, then that's touch cookies and Obama does what he wants and blames the GOP for being the Party Of No..

No better example of this is the CrapCare "summit"...

What happened? Republicans decided to start campaigning by opposing Democrats on everything. They called Obama a socialist and screamed "You lie!" etc. Even though he included plenty of conservative ideas.

And, apparently, Obama DID lie.... The CBO Actuary section just released a report stating that, BECAUSE of CrapCare, health care costs will RISE thru 2019 which is as long as they projected...

I could go on and on about all the fallacies that Obama spewed about CrapCare that turned out to be dead wrong.

WHY would the GOP support such an abomination?? Why would ANY sane American???

At a time when if everyone worked together, we could lower the deficit and get the economy back on track, Republicans are still fighting for selfishness -

Read up on the concept of The Prisoner's Dilemma. :D

Regardless, let's be clear and honest here.

Obama's policies DO NOT WORK...

Democrat's policies DO NOT WORK...

It's the GOP's duty to their constituents and to this country to fight these policies because they DO NOT WORK.. These policies make things WORSE...

Seems to me like the Democrats have a stronger case when it comes to doing what's right for the country. Even if it involves some higher taxes for those of us who benefited the most when times were good.

Really???

On what do you base that on???

The nearly 10% unemployment nationwide?? 12+% in some states???

Can you honestly and truly say that things are better now then they were 4 years ago??

And keep a straight face doing it?? :D

I don't think you can...

I think this is a key difference between the two parties that Democrats would do well to emphasize. Heck, I'd be willing to pitch in a little extra right now if it would help our country.

The problem with the Democrats is they are simply promising more of the same... And, as the last 4 years CLEARLY show, the Democrats' ideas are BAD ideas.

This is what the majority of Independent and NPA voters believe. And they will adjust their votes accordingly.

And, oh yea... JAGS WON!!!! :D

Michale.....

After 9/11, Democrats came together with Republicans to present a united front. Many didn't like this or agree with it, but they bought into the idea of doing what's right for the country.

Contrast this with after the financial crisis and Obama's election. We had another opportunity to pull together in crisis. Obama laid out a very centrist agenda and asked for support.

What happened? Republicans decided to start campaigning by opposing Democrats on everything. They called Obama a socialist and screamed "You lie!" etc. Even though he included plenty of conservative ideas.

At a time when if everyone worked together, we could lower the deficit and get the economy back on track, Republicans are still fighting for selfishness - the rich getting to keep the large share of the pie they took during the past 30 years.

Seems to me like the Democrats have a stronger case when it comes to doing what's right for the country. Even if it involves some higher taxes for those of us who benefited the most when times were good.

I think this is a key difference between the two parties that Democrats would do well to emphasize. Heck, I'd be willing to pitch in a little extra right now if it would help our country.

Cheers
-David

Hooooaaaaaaaaaaa!! :D

Michale.....

What do you think bipartisanship would look like in Afghanistan, CB?

I don't believe in bipartisanship when it comes to war, D. The framers gave the Commander in Chief gig to the president. It's up to him to make the decisions and lead the troops. Americans don't have to like his decisions, and they get to weigh in on election day. But there can only be one commander, and public opinion shouldn't sway his commitment to winning. That's something I've always liked and admired about Bush. He stuck to his guns, no matter what the polls said. And he took plenty of public-opinion hits, to be sure.

But I'll take a commitment to winning over a poll-following Commander in Chief any day of the week.

Hell with that!!

It's 12 noon somewhere!!! :D

Michale.....

LOL. Cheers, man. The countdown to beer thirty is at T minus 7 hours and counting.

So who defines this absolute good, Michale?

Oh, that's easy..

I do... :D

How is what you think best for the country better than what I think?

Tell ya what... You handle domestic issues and I'll cover national security and foreign policy...

Whatta team!! :D

This is why the cries of bipartisanship seem to ring false to me. And why I believe triangulation has not worked.

Once again, we agree... For different reasons, to be sure, but agreement nonetheless...

And I think we have to balance this need with other needs - our economy, for example.

We do need to take into consideration other aspects of our needs, I agree..

However, our security needs should remain paramount.. Because, without security, nothing else matters.

"A civilization flourishes best when it can protect itself."
-George Kirk, FINAL FRONTIER

Michale.....

Apologies, Michale. Missed this one. I'd say that security is definitely important, but I think there are different approaches to national security. And I think we have to balance this need with other needs - our economy, for example. We've hashed through a lot of this before though so need for me to ramble :).

So who defines this absolute good, Michale? How is what you think best for the country better than what I think?

Context is everything, my mortal marketing enemy.

It is definitely important, CB. Witness Shirley Sherrod.

What do you think bipartisanship would look like in Afghanistan, CB?

A compromise on Afghanistan?? Pretty much what Professor Obama has stated.

I'd agree, Michale, that he has charted a pretty centrist path. I think he wants to get people out yet believes the country is not ready yet.

I think he's charted a pretty centrist path on just about everything. In fact, he's compromised so much he constantly angers his base. If health care was what liberals wanted, it would be single payer.

This is why the cries of bipartisanship seem to ring false to me. And why I believe triangulation has not worked.

If you're going to get called "partisan," I figure you might as well be it.

the democrats are for rent, and the republicans are already owned, but it's the same folks footing the bill

The one thing we all pretty much agree on, nypoet.

Cheers
David

Because you brought up Bush's statement about being with the US or being with the terrorists..

You brought it up as an example of partisanship. I maintain it's an example of bi-partisanship.

Turns out we were BOTH wrong :D since Bush was talking about other countries, not Americans or Democrats/Republicans.

Bipartisanship = doing what we want.

No. Bi-partisanship is everyone agreeing to do what needs to be done for the sake of the country, NOT the Party.

That is bi-partisanship. That is what we saw in the aftermath of the 9/11 attacks.

Obama has so poisoned things that I doubt even another 9/11 would bring all Americans together..

How about Afghanistan? A liberal position would be to get out of this unwinnable war. What do you think a compromise might look like?

Iraq was an "unwinnable" war at one time. Then it wasn't...

Imagine how much worse the region would be if the US had pulled out of Iraq prematurely.

A compromise on Afghanistan?? Pretty much what Professor Obama has stated..

But Afghanistan is a pretty bad example to try and impose bi-partisanship. When it comes to national security, the US needs to do what is right. Not what is popular. In issues of national security, bi-partisanship means everyone agrees on the proper course of action that's best for the country.

There can be (nor SHOULD there be) any compromise on the security of this country. Wouldn't you agree??

NYpoet,

that's the conservative formula for trying to win an argument. no matter what the topic might be, change the subject to god, gays, guns or terrorism. or in your own terms:

That's the liberal formula to try and win an argument.

Bring up god, gays, guns or terrorism and then blame your opponent for bringing it up and accuse them of harping on conservative talking points. :D

At least ya'all don't accuse me of racism.. That's the other standard liberal formula for trying to win an argument... :D

at this point, even i (self-proclaimed jewish zionist; and l'shana tova by the way) will refuse to call hamas terrorists; not because they aren't, but because that's the big-C Conservative way of distracting people from the real issues.

So, in other words, you would let a conservative dictate to you what your stated beliefs would be??

Seriously??

book burning, anyone?

OOoooo don't get me started!! :D

each community needs to take care of its own extremists, not admonish others for failure to take care of theirs.

Now, THIS we agree on 10,000%...

You think you can get the hysterical Left to abide by this?? :D

what's bipartisanship? for that to exist, there have to be two distinct parties. the democrats are for rent, and the republicans are already owned, but it's the same folks footing the bil

Essentially true, but history and the facts show that one Party is as owned and/or rented as the other...

Michale.....

Context is everything, my mortal marketing enemy. 'D

that's the conservative formula for trying to win an argument. no matter what the topic might be, change the subject to god, gays, guns or terrorism. or in your own terms:

arguing = arguing about what we want

at this point, even i (self-proclaimed jewish zionist; and l'shana tova by the way) will refuse to call hamas terrorists; not because they aren't, but because that's the big-C Conservative way of distracting people from the real issues. book burning, anyone? each community needs to take care of its own extremists, not admonish others for failure to take care of theirs.

what's bipartisanship? for that to exist, there have to be two distinct parties. the democrats are for rent, and the republicans are already owned, but it's the same folks footing the bill.

I'm not sure how you got back to this. I thought we were talking about bipartisanship.

Bush was speaking to nations, not to the Democratic party

Context. I am impressed, CB.

Ok, 'ya got me. Republican treat nations the same way as Democrats. Bipartisanship = doing what we want. Multilateralism = doing what we want.

But I'll bite for a second, CB. What do you think bipartisanship would look like? Let's pick an issue and see what it might look like.

How about Afghanistan? A liberal position would be to get out of this unwinnable war. What do you think a compromise might look like?

Cheers
David

Bush was speaking to nations, not to the Democratic party:

Good point... VERY good point..

I missed that...

Michale.....

"Our response involves far more than instant retaliation and isolated strikes. Americans should not expect one battle, but a lengthy campaign, unlike any other we have ever seen. It may include dramatic strikes, visible on TV, and covert operations, secret even in success. We will starve terrorists of funding, turn them one against another, drive them from place to place, until there is no refuge or no rest. And we will pursue nations that provide aid or safe haven to terrorism. Every nation, in every region, now has a decision to make. Either you are with us, or you are with the terrorists. (Applause.) From this day forward, any nation that continues to harbor or support terrorism will be regarded by the United States as a hostile regime."

Actually, it's the very definition of bi-partisanship because, at the time, everyone was on board with it...

It was only afterwards that Democrats got a skeered and said they didn't really mean it.. :D

Michale, it's ok to have different opinions about things. We can have different opinions and still all be Americans. That's the beauty of Democracy.

Of course it's OK to have different opinions about things..

But ALL things??

Sorry, David..

Have to disagree with you.. Anyone who thinks that terrorists are OK and are justified is someone I simply do not think of as an American..

Not saying that anyone here has that opinion. But I am sure there ARE some out there who DO have that opinion..

Somethings ARE black and white, David...

Some positions ARE inherently wrong and inherently evil.

No moral ambiguity whatsoever...

Michale.....

What's wrong with that?

Nothing's wrong with it. It's just exactly the opposite of bipartisanship. It says if you disagree with us, we are going to classify you as a terrorist.

It's ridiculous.

It's like if the Democrats said, You either agree with us on healthcare or you're for death panels.

Oh wait ... that was someone else who said that :)

Michale, it's ok to have different opinions about things. We can have different opinions and still all be Americans. That's the beauty of Democracy.

-David

You simply prove my point for me...

In the aftermath of 9/11, NO ONE was thinking about this Party or that Party at all..

We were all ONE Party...

Americans....

THAT is bi-partisanship..

The simple fact that Democrats can't see that now, simply proves that they know nothing about bi-partisanship...

"You're either with us or against us in the war on terror." - George W. Bush

Actually, Bush said, "You are either with us or you are with the terrorists."

What's wrong with that???

It's like Roosevelt saying, "You are either with us or you are with the Japanese."

I honestly don't understand why ANYONE would have a problem with such a sentiment???

(Did I mention we're going to whine about it a lot?)

And this is different than the way Democrats are now, exactly how??? :D

Michale.....

One party getting their way on everything because they declared a "war"?

Well, at least you're honest, Michale.

"You're either with us or against us in the war on terror." - George W. Bush

Remember this approach to bi-partisanship? It still seems to be the Republican definition. Put our people in. Put our proposals in. Do what we want. Or you're against us.

(Oh, and by the way, we're going to whine about it a lot through the media networks we own. Also, even if you do what we want, we're going to whine about it. A lot.)

(Did I mention we're going to whine about it a lot?)

Commence whining!!!
-David

What attempts? There was one so-called attempt, which wasn't even half-assed but a full-blown dog-and-pony show going in. So I don't know where this notion of Obama's "attempts at bipartisanship" even come from. He's never once acted in a bipartisan manner and never had any intention of doing so, either, evidenced by his having loaded his White House up with Clinton people, in preparation for a wholly partisan enforcement of HCR, whether Republicans or the American people liked it or not. And that's precisely what America got: health care "reform" (try saying that with a straight face) that the public had said "no" to from the day Pelosi/Reid went to work on it, with the world's most transparent dog-and-pony show wedged into the middle of it when it they needed a way to jump-start legislation again, after Massachusetts had sent Brown in to stop it.

We could go back and forth all day about who is most partisan and who started it and blah blah blah.

True... But at least we agree that both Democrats and Republicans are guilty of faux bi-partisanship

But at the end of the day, Obama's attempts at bipartisanship have not helped him any.

That's because the attempts were half-assed and not sincere...

To me, bi-partisanship is what we witnessed in the immediate aftermath of 9/11...

Forsaking ALL political agendas and coming together for the good of the country..

Obama hasn't tried anything in the same solar system as that kind of bi-partisanship..

As for Democrats?? Feggediboutit....

p.s. Nice quote. Sounds like Mel Brooks :)

I have heard it so many times in so many different ways.. I don't know who the original author is..

"Some mother*$#%ckers are always trying to ice skate uphill" - Wesley Snipes, Blade

How true... :D

Michale.....

We could go back and forth all day about who is most partisan and who started it and blah blah blah.

But at the end of the day, Obama's attempts at bipartisanship have not helped him any.

Getting rid of the public option to please Republicans like Scott Brown did not help anybody. Well, anyone except Republicans looking to take back Congress.

Compromise has lead to worse legislation and decreased popularity.

I have no beef with Republicans saying "no" to everything and campaigning on this.

The problem I see is that for far too long, Democrats have kept trying to win them over when they very clearly stated: we are going to do everything in our power to block everything you are doing.

It was a lose-lose for the Democrats. They never won much of anyone over. And they look like idiots for trying.

So I'm hoping the Democrats will, instead of trying to please everyone, make a case for what they want to do and then act on it. And if they lose, they've at least tried to do the right thing.

Cheers
-David

p.s. Nice quote. Sounds like Mel Brooks :)

I mean, seriously, do they have history books on your planet, or what?

Of course they do! But it's the history of MY planet, not yours!! :D

The last Republican Speaker famously said he wouldn't even consider what a minority of his OWN PARTY thought about legislation, much less the Democrats -- if he had a House majority, he would ram things through as is. He couldn't even be "bi-"anything even WITHIN HIS OWN PARTY.

Of course the GOP is not bi-partisan. No one is claiming otherwise...

I simply point out that neither are the Democrats. Neither is Obama.

Feigning bi-partisanship simply to show the American people that the GOP will say "NO" to everything is not bi-partisanship. It's simply serving one's own political agenda.

"The key is sincerity. Once you can fake that, you got it made."
-old saying

Michale.....

It IS an election season after all.. History shows that BOTH parties are guilty of playing politics instead of doing the job they were hired for.

Once again I refer back to the CrapCare debate. The much-ballyhooed summit when Democrats and Republicans sat around a table and talked.. And talked and talked and talked..

Every time a Republican brought up a reasonable and rational concern about CrapCare, Obama scoffed at it and made some snide remark about the GOP just playing to the cameras..

Bi-partisanship is not something you can do one day and then point to it and say, "See!! I am all about bi-partisanship!!"

You either are about bi-partisanship or you are not.

Obama has never really been serious about bi-partisanship.

It sounds good in an election. That's the extent of Obama's commitment to bi-partisanship.

That's not to say that the GOP is all roses and perfection in this either. They are not..

But, my only point in THIS issue is that you can't have the death of bi-partisanship when there really wasn't any to begin with..

I know you may be banned there, but check out the HuffPost comments to this article, as there is a developing discussion of the protocol of "Mr. President Spock" and my assertion that Tuvok is much more appropriate, that I just know you'll enjoy.

That was good! :D

I think the Romulan comparison is a lot more accurate... Obama seems to have this Machiavellian streak about him that makes it impossible for me to trust him.

Michale.....

I know you may be banned there, but check out the HuffPost comments to this article, as there is a developing discussion of the protocol of "Mr. President Spock" and my assertion that Tuvok is much more appropriate, that I just know you'll enjoy.

You're welcome. Live long and prosper, and all of that.

-CW

Here's an inside-the-Beltway type (EJ Dionne, WashPost) largely agreeing with what I had to say here:

http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/article/2010/09/08/AR2010090805421.html?hpid=opinionsbox1

Just for everyone's edification...

-CW

I'm hoping this is a sign that the White House may have finally stopped triangulating. Especially since it's not done them any good.

If you're going to go down, go down fighting.

Welcome back, Mr. President!
-David

That's some serious historical revisionism you've got going on there. Here's one example -- in the stimulus, Obama gave Republicans 40% of the total value in tax cuts they'd been pushing for. Seems about right -- Dems won the election about 60/40, so he divvied up the stimulus 60/40. For this effort, he got one or two votes, and a lot of derision.

Or how about, from his speech:

"Just this year, these same Republicans voted against a bipartisan fiscal commission that they themselves had proposed. Once I decided I was for it, they were against it. (Laughter.) And when you ask them what programs they’d actually cut they don’t have an answer. That’s not fiscal responsibility. That’s not a serious plan to govern."

Or how about the small business tax cuts that are currently before the Senate, which Republicans have been begging for for years... but which they are now obstructing on sheer political reasons? They're willing to sacrifice business tax cuts now so Obama doesn't get a "political victory" even though it's their idea. You cannot be "bipartisan" when one party refuses to play ball. And there is indeed one party which is refusing to play ball -- ON THEIR OWN PROPOSALS -- for pure partisan reasons.

Even better, I'd like to see you name ONE example, other than perhaps No Child Left Behind, during the Bush years when the GOP controlled Congress that they did ANY thing with Democratic input. Just one. I'll save you some time -- there aren't any, don't bother looking for them.

The problem is, Republicans DEFINE "bipartisanship" as "the Republican way or the highway" and then they get all whiny when the Democrats act the same way they did when they were in the majority. Sheesh.

I mean, seriously, do they have history books on your planet, or what? The last Republican Speaker famously said he wouldn't even consider what a minority of his OWN PARTY thought about legislation, much less the Democrats -- if he had a House majority, he would ram things through as is. He couldn't even be "bi-"anything even WITHIN HIS OWN PARTY.

Double-sheesh.

-CW

Awww, hell.. Who am I kidding.. No I don't... :D

Let's face reality... Obama was never really serious about bi-partisanship... He gave a lot (a REAL lot) of lip-service to the idea, but when all was said and done, Obama's attitude was, "It's my way or the highway..."

Or, to use a REAL quote from Obama...

"We (Democrats) won the election!"

Yea... REAL bi-partisanship there....

Someone... ANYONE... tell me ANY GOP ideas that made it into final legislation...

What?? CrapCare??? Tort reform???

"Well, we'll look at those ideas and see if we can incorporate them.."

And so on and so on and so on...

Let's face facts....

"They (GOP) talk about me like I am a dog."
-President Obama

If you want to have a friend, you need to BE a friend...

Obama gave a LOT of lip service to wanting a friend in the GOP...

However, he put very VERY little effort into being a friend...

And NOW.... Now, he is all whiney that the GOP is not playing nice...

Another very old saying comes to mind...

"You reap what you sow..."

After all...

"Well, that's what elections are for..
-President Obama

Michale.....

I am looking forward to the press conference on Friday and I hope that we continue to see this side of President Obama.

...Stan

At this point, NOTHING would surprise me.