25 Jan 10
http://news.yahoo.com/s/ap/20100125/ap_on_bi_ge/us_obama_jobs
Someone in the White House, maybe Axelrod or Emanuel or maybe the President himself, has reacted to the Masspocalypse.
The President understands that the only way to reverse the tide at this point is by sucking up to the "middle class," as it were. So, the message is being altered from "Gee, let's give lots of free stuff to poor people and eventually we'll raise taxes" to "let's slash taxes for the middle class and let's not even discuss how we're gonna pay for it."
Reckless policy? Sure.
But a pretty smooth tact being taken by the White House; one that just might work.
26 Jan 10
Originally posted by sh76http://www.nytimes.com/2010/01/26/us/politics/26budget.html
http://news.yahoo.com/s/ap/20100125/ap_on_bi_ge/us_obama_jobs
Someone in the White House, maybe Axelrod or Emanuel or maybe the President himself, has reacted to the Masspocalypse.
The President understands that the only way to reverse the tide at this point is by sucking up to the "middle class," as it were. So, the message is being altered from "Gee, le ...[text shortened]...
But a pretty smooth tact being taken by the White House; one that just might work.
Obama Seeks Freeze on Many Domestic Programs
BTW, did your ever-so-entertaining "spin" by Obama involving Coakley ever materialize? I'm just wondering because I never saw a retraction from you.
26 Jan 10
Originally posted by sh76So in your opinion, what should the President be doing sh76?
http://news.yahoo.com/s/ap/20100125/ap_on_bi_ge/us_obama_jobs
Someone in the White House, maybe Axelrod or Emanuel or maybe the President himself, has reacted to the Masspocalypse.
The President understands that the only way to reverse the tide at this point is by sucking up to the "middle class," as it were. So, the message is being altered from "Gee, le ...[text shortened]...
But a pretty smooth tact being taken by the White House; one that just might work.
26 Jan 10
Originally posted by USArmyParatrooperNo, the White House seems to have gotten the message that it's time to try something new. Certainly, the President (or Axelrod or Emanuel or whomever is running the show) is showing a job maturity beyond his years (in office).
http://www.nytimes.com/2010/01/26/us/politics/26budget.html
[b]Obama Seeks Freeze on Many Domestic Programs
BTW, did your ever-so-entertaining "spin" by Obama involving Coakley ever materialize? I'm just wondering because I never saw a retraction from you.[/b]
I am impressed by the fact that the WH (unless I've missed it) has resisted the urge to throw Coakley under the bus (though elements of the media certainly have). As I said in my OP, to recover from a pasting like this, you suck up to the middle class and propose tax cuts, which is exactly what the President is doing.
FWIW, I think that tax cuts right now would be reckless and stupid. But, Obama may not have a choice but to at least promise some now (even if they never pass, maybe the public won't be paying attention when that occurs- the public has a short attention span) if he wants to avoid a November drubbing.
Regarding a retraction, I don't think a retraction is necessary when an implied anticipation of something does not come to pass. I believe a retraction is for when you make an assertion of fact that turns out to have been incorrect.
26 Jan 10
Originally posted by whodeyPolitically or really?
So in your opinion, what should the President be doing sh76?
Politically, he should do exactly what he did: Keep promising tax cuts t the middle class and promise jobs jobs jobs.
For the good of the country, he should work on balancing the federal budget. But that's not going to help the Dems win, come November.
26 Jan 10
Originally posted by sh76I agree (on the tax cuts). Sacrificing our long term stability for short term financial and political gain is reckless. It would be better to maintain the current level of taxation, and re-institute the pay-go policy. World confidence will help stabilize the US economy, and cultivate real economic growth that is sustainable.
No, the White House seems to have gotten the message that it's time to try something new. Certainly, the President (or Axelrod or Emanuel or whomever is running the show) is showing a job maturity beyond his years (in office).
I am impressed by the fact that the WH (unless I've missed it) has resisted the urge to throw Coakley under the bus (though elements ...[text shortened]... retraction is for when you make an assertion of fact that turns out to have been incorrect.
26 Jan 10
Originally posted by sh76wouldnt this be a spin?
No, the White House seems to have gotten the message that it's time to try something new. Certainly, the President (or Axelrod or Emanuel or whomever is running the show) is showing a job maturity beyond his years (in office).
I am impressed by the fact that the WH (unless I've missed it) has resisted the urge to throw Coakley under the bus (though elements ...[text shortened]... retraction is for when you make an assertion of fact that turns out to have been incorrect.
"Here's my assessment of not just the vote in Massachusetts, but the mood around the country: the same thing that swept Scott Brown into office swept me into office," the president said in an exclusive interview with ABC News' George Stephanopoulos. "People are angry and they are frustrated. Not just because of what's happened in the last year or two years, but what's happened over the last eight years."
This is clearly not the case.The people did not elect Brown because they were angry over the past 8 years.And I dont recall a whole lot of Anger as to the reason why Obama was elected.
26 Jan 10
4 edits
Originally posted by utherpendragon[/b]There was a thin icing of "hope" regarding Obama finally breaking the presidential color-barrier.
wouldnt this be a spin?
[b]"Here's my assessment of not just the vote in Massachusetts, but the mood around the country: the same thing that swept Scott Brown into office swept me into office," the president said in an exclusive interview with ABC News' George Stephanopoulos. "People are angry and they are frustrated. Not just because of wha t 8 years.And I dont recall a whole lot of Anger as to the reason why Obama was elected.
But the people also threw a whole bunch of Republicans out of office in both 2006 and 2008 and even gave the Dems 60 votes in the Senate. That was most likely anger-related.
This might have been the problem. The Obama administration interpretated these elections as being a mandate by the people in favor of the Democrats' agenda when it was mainly just a lot of anger about Bush and-or the economy. If he had realized the election had been mostly about "anger" - and anger that existed even before the economic crisis - Obama may've acted differently.
26 Jan 10
Originally posted by utherpendragonYes, that would most decidedly be a spin; and a pretty weak one, at that.
wouldnt this be a spin?
[b]"Here's my assessment of not just the vote in Massachusetts, but the mood around the country: the same thing that swept Scott Brown into office swept me into office," the president said in an exclusive interview with ABC News' George Stephanopoulos. "People are angry and they are frustrated. Not just because of wha ...[text shortened]... t 8 years.And I dont recall a whole lot of Anger as to the reason why Obama was elected.
26 Jan 10
Originally posted by sh76but an accurate one.
Yes, that would most decidedly be a spin; and a pretty weak one, at that.
The same anger behind the Brown election was behind the elections of 06 and 08. It's important to figure out what is behind it. It was never really about Bush's wars and it's not really the recent economic downturn (although both these things haven't helped the public's mood)
Obama (and everyone else in politics) need to figure out what it's really about.
I believe there's a very deep-seated sense among a lot of people that "the system" just isn't working anymore -- whether it's the economy, education, healthcare, or the military -- and they definitely don't think the government works anymore.
Obama needs to figure out how to deal with this.
26 Jan 10
Originally posted by MelanerpesSome interesting observations for sure!
but an accurate one.
The same anger behind the Brown election was behind the elections of 06 and 08. It's important to figure out what is behind it. It was never really about Bush's wars and it's not really the recent economic downturn (although both these things haven't helped the public's mood)
Obama (and everyone else in politics) need to figure ...[text shortened]... k the government works anymore.
Obama needs to figure out how to deal with this.
I'm not convinced it was anger that swept Obama or Brown into office.
I think in both cases the voters weren't satisfied with the current policies and opted for a change. The Dems took that as a mandate (as would the Repubs) and began in earnest on their agenda for change. The folks in Mass obviously didn't approve, which I find shocking considering that voters there typically favor more liberal policies and elect reps to reflect that.
26 Jan 10
Originally posted by utherpendragonOnly eight years? I love how he gives himself a mulligan for the entire year of his own presidency. Like it never happened at all.
"People are angry and they are frustrated. Not just because of what's happened in the last year or two years, but what's happened over the last eight years."
26 Jan 10
Originally posted by monster truckI think it is anger. Anger at an elitist attitude and corruption in both parties.
Some interesting observations for sure!
I'm not convinced it was anger that swept Obama or Brown into office.
I think in both cases the voters weren't satisfied with the current policies and opted for a change. The Dems took that as a mandate (as would the Repubs) and began in earnest on their agenda for change. The folks in Mass obviously didn't ...[text shortened]... ering that voters there typically favor more liberal policies and elect reps to reflect that.