We could call this the "Clinton Re-Election Strategy"

Posted:
in PoliticalOutsider edited January 2014
Pelosi's Loss Could Be Obama's Gain



Quote:

In Washington these days, President Obama is rumored to be hoping Republicans capture the House of Representatives in the midterm election in November. There's no evidence for this speculation, so far as I know, but it's hardly far-fetched. If Mr. Obama wants to avert a fiscal crisis and win re-election in 2012, he needs House Speaker Nancy Pelosi to be removed from her powerful post. A GOP takeover may be the only way.



Given the deficit-and-debt mess that Mr. Obama has on his hands, a Republican House would be a godsend. A Republican Senate would help, too. A Republican majority, should it materialize, could be counted on to pass significant cuts in domestic spending next year?cuts that Mrs. Pelosi and her allies in the House Democratic hierarchy would never countenance.



Quote:

Over the past 50 years, it should be no surprise which president has the best record for holding down discretionary spending. It was President Reagan. But who was second best? President Clinton, a Democrat. His record of frugality was better than Presidents Nixon, Ford and both Bushes. Mr. Clinton couldn't have done it if Republicans hadn't won the House and Senate in the 1994 election. They insisted on substantial cuts, he went along and then whistled his way to an easy re-election in 1996.



You might argue that the 1994 is what got Clinton re-elected. Irony is lovely isn't.





Quote:

Mr. Obama's re-election to a second term is heavily dependent on his ability to deal effectively with the fiscal mess.



I'd say unless the Clinton "miracle" happens again, Obama is Carter redux.





Quote:

But if Republicans win the House, everything changes. Mrs. Pelosi's influence as minority leader would be minimal?that is, assuming she's not ousted by Democrats upset over losing the majority.



Mr. Obama would be in a position to make his long-awaited pivot to the center. With Republicans in charge, he'd have to be bipartisan.



Instead of just pretending to be.





Quote:

He'd surely have to accede to serious cuts in spending?even as he complains they are harsh and mean-spirited. Mr. Obama could play a double game, appeasing Democrats by criticizing the cuts and getting credit with everyone else by acquiescing to them.



Mr. Clinton did this brilliantly in 1996. He fought with Republicans over the budget, winning some battles, losing others, as he lurched to the center. He twice vetoed Republican welfare reform bills, then signed a similar measure. He was hailed as the president who overhauled the unpopular welfare system.



In recent months, the president has met repeatedly with Mr. Clinton. We can only guess what they talked about. But given Mr. Clinton's own experience, I suspect he suggested to Mr. Obama that Republicans could be the answer to his political prayers. In 1994, Republicans freed the president from the clutches of liberal Democratic leaders in Congress. In 2010, they can do it again.



«13

Comments

  • camp davidcamp david Posts: 692member
    Quote:
    Originally Posted by MJ1970 View Post


    I'd say unless the Clinton "miracle" happens again, Obama is Carter redux....



    At least Clinton knew something about free market mechanics and economics; Obama is completely clueless in this regard... Moreover, the comparison between Jimmie Carter and Barack Obama is not precise either. Even if Republicans pick up the House in the fall elections, Obama is still to be held for blame. None of his ideas have worked to re-stimulate economy (until he tries tax cuts recession will continue) and his lack of response to Gulf Oil Spill invites national mockery as it far worse than government response to Katrina....
  • mj1970mj1970 Posts: 9,002member
    Quote:
    Originally Posted by Camp David View Post


    At least Clinton knew something about free market mechanics and economics;



    That I'm not so sure about, but willing to listen to evidence of it.





    Quote:
    Originally Posted by Camp David View Post


    Obama is completely clueless in this regard...



    Of this there appears to be ample evidence, so I agree.





    Quote:
    Originally Posted by Camp David View Post


    Moreover, the comparison between Jimmie Carter and Barack Obama is not precise either.



    Agreed.



    I was thinking more in terms of perception, 1-termer, being in place while the economy tanks...further.



    Actually, the more I learn about some of the deregulation that occurred in the early 80's and credited to Reagan, the more I learn that a lot of it was actually started in the Carter administration.





    Quote:
    Originally Posted by Camp David View Post


    Even if Republicans pick up the House in the fall elections, Obama is still to be held for blame.



    Yes, but the American public appears to have the memory and attention span of a gnat. So we'll see.





    Quote:
    Originally Posted by Camp David View Post


    None of his ideas have worked to re-stimulate economy (until he tries tax cuts recession will continue)



    I know that. Worse, his policies have actually hurt, but most people may forget it.





    Quote:
    Originally Posted by Camp David View Post


    and his lack of response to Gulf Oil Spill invites national mockery as it far worse than government response to Katrina....



    I consider this situation to be primarily BP's responsibility. I actually think Obama stepping in will only screw things up more. Katrina, being a natural disaster is a bit different. Of course it's different in a number of ways, like a) the people there had ample warning, b) the state and local authorities fucked that one up, but it is easy to blame Bush.
  • camp davidcamp david Posts: 692member
    Quote:
    Originally Posted by MJ1970 View Post


    I consider this situation to be primarily BP's responsibility.



    While the oil spill is BP's issue to address, there are legion remedies the federal government could and should have assisted in delivering, and Obama has failed in all of them! The response to this oil spill has been far worse than federal response to Katrina and the people know it... Just one issue ... LA Governor's request on day of spill to Corps of Engineers for permission for immediate construction of offshore sand berms took almost a month to approve through federal government and these required asinine environmental studies! Can you imagine such insanity?



    While the issue is BP's responsibility, the federal government had a key role it has failed on delivering to the people in the Gulf... but the parties in the West Wing of the White House continue!
  • mj1970mj1970 Posts: 9,002member
    Quote:
    Originally Posted by Camp David View Post


    Just one issue ... LA Governor's request on day of spill to Corps of Engineers for permission for immediate construction of offshore sand berms took almost a month to approve through federal government and these required asinine environmental studies! Can you imagine such insanity?



    So that's a fair point. Where the government does have specific control, jurisdiction and authority but has failed to act, then I agree with you.
  • sdw2001sdw2001 Posts: 16,332member
    Quote:
    Originally Posted by Camp David View Post


    At least Clinton knew something about free market mechanics and economics; Obama is completely clueless in this regard...





    I disagree. He understands. But his goals for the country are just totally different. He doesn't want us to be #1 economically and militarily. He's said so. He WANTS high gas prices. He WANTS redistribution. The man is a super-progressive. That's really all it is.



    Quote:





    Moreover, the comparison between Jimmie Carter and Barack Obama is not precise either. Even if Republicans pick up the House in the fall elections, Obama is still to be held for blame. None of his ideas have worked to re-stimulate economy (until he tries tax cuts recession will continue) and his lack of response to Gulf Oil Spill invites national mockery as it far worse than government response to Katrina....



    We'll see. I would say Carter is nowhere near as bad. I think he wanted many of the same things Americans did. He just didn't know how to accomplish them, and was feckless on top of it.
  • brbr Posts: 8,313member
    If we had listened to Carter and gotten off the oil when he wanted us to, we wouldn't have the spill to deal with now. Carter put solar panels on the White House. Reagen took them off. Enough said.
  • camp davidcamp david Posts: 692member
    Quote:
    Originally Posted by BR View Post


    If we had listened to Carter and gotten off the oil when he wanted us to, we wouldn't have the spill to deal with now. Carter put solar panels on the White House. Reagen took them off. Enough said.



    No... not "enough said"... not by a long shot! Installing cosmetic solar panels on White House was at best a PR stunt! Do you really want the White House Situation Room entirely dependent on the potential of a sunny day? Said another way, do you want the Executive Office shut down if weather delivers clouds? Moreover, a single trip on Air Force One neutralizes any electrical savings realized with solar panels anyway! You want the Chief Executive to also give up his protected limo and use a hybrid Go Car too?



    The fact is that our transportation is still predicated upon petroleum and there is no way we can "gotten off the oil" as you suggest, either during Carter's administration or now, for our transportation needs! While we can use alternative energy sources for home heating (coal, nuclear, and yes some solar) the fact is transportation rests with petroleum and will do so for the foreseeable future!!!
  • mj1970mj1970 Posts: 9,002member
    Actually, the reasoning appears to have been much simpler. They were removed in order to do some roof repairs. They were not added back because, apparently, it wasn't considered cost-effective.



    http://www.nytimes.com/1986/08/24/us...ng-system.html
  • nofeernofeer Posts: 2,422member
    I think Obama has a good chance to win another term



    main stream media love child he can do no wrong



    grow the number of govt dependents no one will vote against their check



    replacement voters with immigration overhaul



    don't underestimate the power of the Chicago machine training



    blame bush



    clintn did well with triangulation him and msm need villians



    they already created when needed



    people have the memory of a fly



    a lot of things can happen in a few months let alone years



    don't underestimate the power of



    MORE BREAD AND CIRCUS
  • brbr Posts: 8,313member
    Quote:
    Originally Posted by Camp David View Post


    there is no way we can "gotten off the oil" as you suggest, either during Carter's administration or now,



    Certainly not with that attitude.



    We can put a man on the moon in a decade but we can't pour our resources into alternative energies? Give me a break.
  • camp davidcamp david Posts: 692member
    Quote:
    Originally Posted by BR View Post


    We can put a man on the moon in a decade but we can't pour our resources into alternative energies? Give me a break.



    Ah thus spoke the voice of the eco-warrior! Do you have any idea how many petroleum-fuelded internal combustion engines just in the United States? Not to mention the rest of the world? It would take far longer than your proverbial "decade" just to move to an alternative fueled vehicle if one even existed! Even the high-tech hybrids use petrol half-time. And if we do move to another form of fuel who is to say it will not be just as bad for the environment? And what to do with all those internal combustion engines in stock? We just throw those in the ocean overnight? We are just realizing now that the hybrid batteries being used are actually more damaging to environment through their mining and disposal.... so save the "man on the moon" rhetoric for where it belongs... to the space race not rational discourse on our energy utilization.
  • jimmacjimmac Posts: 11,898member
    Quote:
    Originally Posted by Camp David View Post


    Ah thus spoke the voice of the eco-warrior! Do you have any idea how many petroleum-fuelded internal combustion engines just in the United States? Not to mention the rest of the world? It would take far longer than your proverbial "decade" just to move to an alternative fueled vehicle if one even existed! Even the high-tech hybrids use petrol half-time. And if we do move to another form of fuel who is to say it will not be just as bad for the environment? And what to do with all those internal combustion engines in stock? We just throw those in the ocean overnight? We are just realizing now that the hybrid batteries being used are actually more damaging to environment through their mining and disposal.... so save the "man on the moon" rhetoric for where it belongs... to the space race not rational discourse on our energy utilization.



    Actually he's right. The oil companies are more of an obstruction to this kind of change than just phasing out cars.
  • mj1970mj1970 Posts: 9,002member
    Quote:
    Originally Posted by jimmac View Post


    Actually he's right. The oil companies are more of an obstruction to this kind of change than just phasing out cars.



    In what ways (specifically)?
  • jazzgurujazzguru Posts: 6,435member
    Quote:
    Originally Posted by jimmac View Post


    Actually he's right. The oil companies are more of an obstruction to this kind of change than just phasing out cars.



    Those oil companies that you call an obstruction have, in reality, fueled the greatest period of technological, medical, and scientific innovation and discovery the world has ever known over the past 50 years or so.
  • camp davidcamp david Posts: 692member
    Quote:
    Originally Posted by jazzguru View Post


    Those oil companies that you call an obstruction have, in reality, fueled the greatest period of technological, medical, and scientific innovation and discovery the world has ever known over the past 50 years or so.



    Shhhh... don't tell the eco-warriors that plastics come from oil!



  • sdw2001sdw2001 Posts: 16,332member
    Quote:
    Originally Posted by MJ1970 View Post


    In what ways (specifically)?



    <sits back>



    <opens bag of popcorn>
  • jimmacjimmac Posts: 11,898member
    Quote:
    Originally Posted by SDW2001 View Post


    <sits back>



    <opens bag of popcorn>



    It's ok you can eat your popcorn. I know how plastic's made.



    I just thought I'd check in on this little pocket universe to see the laughable logic therein.



    Thanks and good luck with your aspirations.
  • sdw2001sdw2001 Posts: 16,332member
    Quote:
    Originally Posted by jimmac View Post


    It's ok you can eat your popcorn. I know how plastic's made.



    I just thought I'd check in on this little pocket universe to see the laughable logic therein.



    Thanks and good luck with your aspirations.



    Answer his question.
  • frank777frank777 Posts: 5,714member
    You're going to need way more than one bag of popcorn.
  • jimmacjimmac Posts: 11,898member
    Quote:
    Originally Posted by SDW2001 View Post


    Answer his question.



    Ok.



    Now let's see :
    Quote:

    Those oil companies that you call an obstruction have, in reality, fueled the greatest period of technological, medical, and scientific innovation and discovery the world has ever known over the past 50 years or so.



    Now while a good portion of that is true if you have to admit to this then you also have to admit that Boomers have been the driving force behind this. Most if not all of those innovators have probably been boomers which is what I was trying to get through to trumptman a few months ago so how's this going to sit with him?



    Yes I'm afraid if you look at it this way you also have to admit what a piss poor world it would have been without the Boomers and their innovation in things like the oil companies.



    Sorry. Can't have one without the other.



    And also while the oil companies have been innovative they just don't want to leave the old world behind because it's much cheaper to keep using the ol' fossil fuels than retooling and going to something else which they'll have to do sooner or later. I'm betting on later when we run out of said fuel and you can't breath outside without a mask ( notice how I didn't get into Global Warming because I already know how you're in denial over that ).



    Just for you!



Sign In or Register to comment.