|
|
Post by AztecWilliam on Oct 25, 2010 10:46:35 GMT -8
In the piece I am linking, Jay Cost offers a very interesting look at how two Democratic Presidents (Truman in '47-'48 and Clinton in '95-'96) reacted to big Republican victories in off-year elections. Those who are not familiar with those stories (especially Truman after the '46 election) will find this information useful. If the Republicans win big this year, which seems likely, how will Obama react? Will be be combative (like Truman) or more conciliatory (like Clinton)? We will find out next year which path Obama chooses. (My latest predictions: House- GOP picks up 48-55 seats. Senate-GOP picks up 5-7 seats.) www.weeklystandard.com/articles/would-he-rather-fight-switch_511749.html?page=1AzWm |
|
|
|
Post by Aztec89 on Oct 25, 2010 11:06:43 GMT -8
Obama is a very angry man. He will pout, he will be bitter, and he will blame the voters for "getting what they deserve". 4 & out. Chocolate coated Jimmy Carter. I guess you could call Obama the Peanut M&M.
|
|
|
|
Post by aztecwin on Oct 25, 2010 11:43:07 GMT -8
I think Obama is surprised at what is happening to him and his agenda. I may be wrong on this, but I don't think he or his present staff are smart enough to go along with a Republican Congress. I think we will do one or two Senate seats better than AztecWilliam predicts.
|
|
|
|
Post by AztecWilliam on Oct 25, 2010 11:44:56 GMT -8
Obama is a very angry man. He will pout, he will be bitter, and he will blame the voters for "getting what they deserve". 4 & out. Chocolate coated Jimmy Carter. I guess you could call Obama the Peanut M&M. Some will say that your rhetoric skates close to the edge of impropriety. Angry man? Well, he surely is a supremely egotistical man. When the GOP lost in '06, Bush made a point of saying "We got a thumpin'"or something to that effect. He didn't say "The voters threw a tantrum" which is what that "objective" journalist Peter Jennings said on ABC when the Republicans took over Congress in 1994. Will Obama emulate Bush or Jennings should the expected GOP wave hit in November? Obama was both unqualified and wildly over-confident when he took office. He may, or may not, grow up a bit after the election and concede that he does not have all the answers. AzWm |
|
|
|
Post by AlwaysAnAztec on Oct 25, 2010 12:19:50 GMT -8
Obama is a very angry man. He will pout, he will be bitter, and he will blame the voters for "getting what they deserve". 4 & out. Chocolate coated Jimmy Carter. I guess you could call Obama the Peanut M&M. Some will say that your rhetoric skates close to the edge of impropriety. Angry man? Well, he surely is a supremely egotistical man. When the GOP lost in '06, Bush made a point of saying "We got a thumpin'"or something to that effect. He didn't say "The voters threw a tantrum" which is what that "objective" journalist Peter Jennings said on ABC then the Republicans took over Congress in 1994. Will Obama emulate Bush or Jennings should the expected GOP wave hit in November? Obama was both unqualified and wildly over-confident when he took office. He may, or may not, grow up a bit after the election and concede that he does not have all the answers. AzWm Impropriety at the vary least. But why should I expect anything different.  |
|
|
|
Post by theMesa on Oct 25, 2010 12:31:35 GMT -8
Obama is now talking about a "gridlock" if the GOP makes huge inroads in Congress this November. To me, that threat indicates that he and his fellow Democrats will not consider sitting down with Republicans or Tea Party members to compromise on any of their future agenda's. Gridlock, to me, used to have a negative connotation, but now, maybe it's not so bad if future spending can be stalled.
|
|
|
|
Post by Aztec89 on Oct 25, 2010 12:35:02 GMT -8
Obama is now talking about a "gridlock" if the GOP makes huge inroads in Congress this November. To me, that threat indicates that he and his fellow Democrats will not consider sitting down with Republicans or Tea Party members to compromise on any of their future agenda's. Gridlock, to me, used to have a negative connotation, but now, maybe it's not so bad if future spending can be stalled. True Dat. The check book will be frozen. Best thing that could happen. |
|
|
|
Post by uwaztec on Oct 25, 2010 12:42:32 GMT -8
Obama is now talking about a "gridlock" if the GOP makes huge inroads in Congress this November. To me, that threat indicates that he and his fellow Democrats will not consider sitting down with Republicans or Tea Party members to compromise on any of their future agenda's. Gridlock, to me, used to have a negative connotation, but now, maybe it's not so bad if future spending can be stalled. Some experts are saying that gridlock is our worst enemy right now. The World is changing extremely fast and we have to react with vision and purpose to adjust. When Mexico is making car parts as good as we can while paying workers $7 an hour... our only hope is in R & D and scientific / technological advancement. I don't see how we can compete with foreign cheap labor anymore. Hmmm... "compromise"... is that in the Tea party - current Republican configuration play book? |
|
|
|
Post by AlwaysAnAztec on Oct 25, 2010 15:24:01 GMT -8
Obama is now talking about a "gridlock" if the GOP makes huge inroads in Congress this November. To me, that threat indicates that he and his fellow Democrats will not consider sitting down with Republicans or Tea Party members to compromise on any of their future agenda's. Gridlock, to me, used to have a negative connotation, but now, maybe it's not so bad if future spending can be stalled. Some experts are saying that gridlock is our worst enemy right now. The World is changing extremely fast and we have to react with vision and purpose to adjust. When Mexico is making car parts as good as we can while paying workers $7 an hour... our only hope is in R & D and scientific / technological advancement. I don't see how we can compete with foreign cheap labor anymore. Hmmm... "compromise"... is that in the Tea party - current Republican configuration play book? They call it the "Party of No" for a reason. |
|
|
|
Post by AztecWilliam on Oct 25, 2010 15:55:00 GMT -8
The Party of No? Well, you are right about that, and the current Republicans represent quite a change from the helpful, cooperative tone taken by the Dems after Bush was elected and then re-elected. . . Uh, oh, who just typed those words? Couldn't have been me! You see, the Dems absolutely tried to block everything that Bush proposed during his eight years, including the six years when the Dems were in the minority.
Party of NO? Come on, now. The out party, whichever one it is, is not going to just roll over and adopt all the positions of the majority party. The Dems did not do that when Bush was prez, and neither have the Republicans. Nor should they. People belong to parties for a reason. They do not junk their beliefs just because the other guys win an election.
Actually, if Obama does some radical rethinking, there is reason to believe that we can see useful legislation being enacted into law. But for that, he is actually going to have to listen to the Republicans instead of the very minor show of bipartisanship that he engaged in in 2009. No one should think that Obama will suddenly become a born-again conservative; that would be foolish to expect. But he is going to have to he serous about finding common ground with the Republicans, at least on some of the important issues. That should be possible, but only if both sides are willing to check their "Over My Dead Body" cards at the door.
Obama is going to have to stand up to the radical leftists in Congress. And is going to have to junk his policy of Demon of the Month. (FDR quickly gave up demonizing business after Dec. 7, 1941 when he realized that he would need industry to help win the war. Is it too much to ask Obama to emulate the Great Democratic Deity on this issue?)
I think it will take a massive GOP tidal wave on the Nov. 2nd to convince Barack Obama to seek compromise. Something on the order of 60 or more House seats picked up by the GOP and 8 or more in the Senate. In that case maybe even Obama will get the idea that he is President and not Philosopher King.
AzWm
|
|
|
|
Post by AlwaysAnAztec on Oct 26, 2010 7:53:49 GMT -8
Bipartisanship works both ways.  The Republicans have done nothing but complain and stonewall since the President was elected. There has been NO attempt to work with the Democrats. |
|
|
|
Post by waztec on Oct 27, 2010 18:01:19 GMT -8
Obama is a very angry man. He will pout, he will be bitter, and he will blame the voters for "getting what they deserve". 4 & out. Chocolate coated Jimmy Carter. I guess you could call Obama the Peanut M&M. Templewest, based on his previous history, I would presume that Obama will at least try to accommodate the Republicans. Whether Republicans see it as accommodation remains to be seen. I won't hold my breath. Obama's stated inclination to accommodate Republicans is why I did not vote for him in the 2008 primaries. I wanted Clinton, a legislative majority and an all out battle with Republicans. Republicans are like the old Soviet Union in that they respond only to the assertive application of raw power. Obama's accommodation has caused Democrats to be less enthused in my opinion, because a great many Democrats do not trust Republicans. "Chocolate coated Jimmy Carter" ? So, you went to Temple in Philly huh? Is your style representative of the Owls approach to debate? |
|
|
|
Post by aztec70 on Oct 28, 2010 7:47:01 GMT -8
I hope he takes a page from Harry Truman and gives them Hell. I think he made a huge mistake by trying to get along with the GOP.
|
|
|
|
Post by aztecwin on Oct 28, 2010 10:51:27 GMT -8
I hope he takes a page from Harry Truman and gives them Hell. I think he made a huge mistake by trying to get along with the GOP. Actually, it is hard to tell what he will do. He is just not genuine in any measure and those around him have very little sense. I do not recall many if any instances of Obama trying to get along with the GOP. You remember his retort at a meeting with the GOP right after his coronation when GOP members had suggestions? We won! That was in his first three or four days. |
|
