Op ed politics
by Mike Kimel
The two luckiest people in American politics today are Barack Obama and Mitt Romney. Each is running against a politician whose accomplishments while an elected head of the executive branch are a disappointment even to most of his own supporters. If they were running against anyone else, they’d probably both go down in defeat, but considering who each of them is running against, it’s hard to imagine how either of them could lose.
Meanwhile the Election Show ( or is it show election? ) has a budget that will break all records. Massively increased expenditures correlated with all time lows in customer (aka voter) satisfaction… Hmm reminds me of the health care system. Or the education system. Or the military industrial complex system. Yet another coincidence!
Vote Libertarian!
Vote Libertarian!
Vote Libertarian!
For President, I mean. For Congress vote Democrat. The lesser of two weevils.
For President, I mean. For Congress vote Democrat. The lesser of two weevils.
For President, I mean. For Congress vote Democrat. The lesser of two weevils.
Geez, this duplication is annoying!
Geez, this duplication is annoying!
Geez, this duplication is annoying!
Obama, with his immigration stunt, just solidified the entire political right for Romney.
When will he fire Axelrod? Gibbs? Jarrett? Holder?
Why fire anybody? He’s stuck with them and they’ve stuck with him so far. Besides, nobody but very strange Republican persons hold it against the undocumented kids. Not their fault, after all. Loosen up, y’all. And remember–Mario Rubio is Cuban. Not the right kind of immigrant, ya see. There is a right kind of undoc’d immigrant, as Jeb Bush reminds his Republican colleages. NancyO
Kimel
I don’t think it’s luck. It’s market research. Their manufacturer is just testing to see what we will buy.
Nancy,
I think STR is right. When I was in college, I went to a speech by Cesar Chavez. Other than being virulently anti-Armenian (the governor was Deukmejian at the time, and I guess a lot of farm owners in the central valley were Armenian) he was very much against illegal immigration as it would depress wages for the UFW. If there’s an organization whose members are less likely to vote Republican than the UFW, it is hard to find. So yes, STR’s point that this solidified the entire political right for Romney is correct.
coberly,
No. This time I disagree with you strongly. Most Republicans seem, at best, luke warm toward Romney. Most Democrats aren’t all that pleased with Obama either.
(Interestingly, its partly for the same reason. If Romney loses this election, in fifty years the only thing anyone will remember about him is Romneycare. If Obama loses this election, in fifty years the only thing anyone will remember about him is Obamacare. Republicans dislike Romneycare and Democrats don’t like Obamacare, though for all practical purposes, Romneycare = Obamacare.)
Stuttering? I find if I click more than once while my answer is loading, it duplicates.
Mike:
Disagree. What will be most remembered is Obama was black, not a citizen of the US, and because of his race he could not govern effectively. This fact will be paramount in much of America’s minds as there is still a case for class distinction in this country to grant a level of respect for those who are not black but still poor. They will feel comfortable in their belief that a knowledgeable black man could not govern and was put in his place.
Your tie of Dems not likeing the ACA is not true if we review page 9 of the March 2012 Kaiser Report http://www.kff.org/kaiserpolls/upload/8285-F.pdf . 66% of Dems favored it and a growing portion of seniors are favoring it. Independents favoring it are still in the 40 percentile with many undecided.
Obamacare is not Romneycare and it is Libermancare as Congress crafted the Manager’s Amendment along similar lines. This occurred after the senator from Aetna “Liberman” and the Blue Dogs torpedoed One Payer and Medicare for all. We, you, got the best which could be had given the makeup of the Senate.
What is a fact is the smoke and mirrors being portrayed by the ACA’s opponents (the Norquist and ALEC pledges in particular) to obscure the many positives of the ACA which is also shown in the Kaiser Report. A list of Obama’s other accomplishments over his last 4 years can be found here: http://beardog321.blogspot.com/2011/11/list-of-president-obamas.html What taints the list is the accomplishments differ from the original intent of the legislation due to special interests such as ALEC and Norquist who in particular wish for other outcomes.
The worst we can say about Obama is he does not stand up and speak his true mind and even then if the sea still came to shore after his words were spoken, we would know the true man and not the just the politician.
Mike:
Maybe this is a part of the problem; but, Fast and Furious and the constant demand for illegal drugs in the US has torn Mexico apart. These two issues have caused far greater problems than illegal immigration.
Mike
not sure what you are disagreeing with here. I don’t think there is any difference between Romney and Obama except the labeling.
I don’t think that Obama intends to dismantle social security, medicare, and medicaid or to revoke most governmental regulation. That pretty clearly distinguishes him from Romney.
JackD,
When I read GW’s Economic Blueprint released in Feb 2001, it confirmed what I already knew – the debt was going to explode and economic growth was going to be lackluster despite GW’s pledge to pay down the debt and implement policies to make growth faster. Did GW intend to pay down the debt and make growth faster as he pledged? Yes, yes he did. But intent is irrelevant if you don’t have the first clue what you’re doing. To be more Yodaish: “Do or do not, there is no try.”
The question is not whether Obama’s intent on a given issue is different from Romney’s intent on that issue. The question is, which of them is more likely to push those issues in the direction that you don’t want them to go. Given your questions, that rephrase as: “Is Obama more or less likely than Romney to dimsantly SS, medicare, medicaid, or gov’t regulations.”
If I had to put money on it, I’d say Romney is more likely to slash and burn regulations. Obama on the other hand is probably going to put a bigger dent into SS, medicare and medicaid than Romney could.
Bear in mind that if Romney wins, he’s liable to bring a GOP congress with him. Should that occur the dent will amount to a crater. If Obama wins, we are likely to continue with divided government although it’s possible the Democrats could retake the house. In any event, the liklihood of Obama doing more damage than Romney to SS, medicare, and medicaid, is between slim and none. I have no idea why you think otherwise.
Hit refresh to see if the comment remains
JackD,
GW wanted to “fix” ss and he had a Republican Congress behind him. But Obama, with a Democrat congress behind him, was the one with the clever idea to use a payroll tax cut as “stimulus.” Obama can do things as a Dem that GW and Romney, as Reps, cannot. Only Nixon can go to China… but once Nixon goes to China, anyone can. See what happened after a Democrat (LBJ) cut marginal tax rates in 1964?
“The liklihood of Obama doing more damage than Romney to SS, medicare, and medicaid, is between slim and none.”
JackD, you haven’t been paying attention!! If you had, you’d know that Obama is not just willing but EAGER to cut Social Security and has been from Day 1. You’d have looked at the people he appointed to the Simpson-Bowles Commission, and to the numerous things he’s specifically said.
Mike Kimel is right, Obama’s a worse danger in this department.
That “Democratic” congress was, instead a blue dog Democrat/Republican congress. Romney has signed on to the Ryan budget. With a Republican congress, he’ll do a lot of damage though you may be right that a lot of it will be in erasing regulations, given the Democratic filibuster potential. Then too, the Republican house can refuse to fund programs and departments it doesn’t like.
What Obama has been eager to do is raise revenue. He concluded, erroneously, that giving Republicans cuts to SS would get their agreement on tax increases. The appointments to Simpson-Bowles were made with that plan in mind. Fortunately, the plan failed and SS was left intact. Going forward, assuming Obama is reelected, the composition of congress will determine whether or not renewed efforts at a deal are repetitive or creative.
Haven’t payroll tax cuts been used as a stimulus for a while? Didn’t folks on this very message board criticize GW Bush for not using targeted payroll tax cuts as a stimulus in the 2001-ish recession? Granted, payroll tax cuts then as now were seen as temporary, and I’d like to see SS shored with said payroll revenues. But I feel like we’re talking out of both sides of our mouths.
Solidifying the right behind Romney is a bad thing? Help me understand, please. The poliitcal right was already solidified against Obama. That, by default, means they are for Romney. How has Obama made his own position worse by giving the right another reason to do what it was already going to do? If Obama gave them a reason to vote against, him, he was just doing his job, which is to offer policies that are in keeping with our national principles and, with luck, that the rest of the country can support.
You may want Obama to fire his staff, but that doesn’t mean it’s the right move for Obama.
No, felipe–No previous cuts in payroll tax have been used as a stimulus or for any other purpose. The President’s payroll cut was Sperling’s idea and is based on a “transfer program” theory of SS. Really rotten idea about which I could rant all day. People who specialize in SS policy are not happy with the President. To put it mildly.
The reason they are mad is that it is very hard to restore taxes to former levels these days. Grover and the gang will say it’s a tax increase. More to the point, it’s the only “stimulus” they’ve got and it’s providing the only juice to pump up demand they can manage. Unemployment is still high and so….Whaddaya bet we’ve just witnessed Obama going half-way to China. Progressives do not trust this President as far as they could throw him regarding SS/Medicare. Once SS’s dedicicated revenue stream is reduced or threatened, it becomes welfare and we know what happens next. The President and his people seem either to be unaware of this possibility, indifferent to it, or to be bringing it on intentionally. If the latter, there goes the New Deal and with it, what remains of the Democratic Party. NancyO
kharris
i have to agree with your first paragraph anyway.
but if Obama would fire his staff it would be a good step in the right direction for the rest of us.
felipe
i can’t remember those “people on this message board” either. but if there were any, you might try to remember there are more than one of us.
i suspect… just guessing… that you are confused between “payroll tax” and “tax,” which is one reason why i try to get people to understand that the payroll tax is not a tax. just in the wild hope that they might actually think about it.
JackD,
Being either a very poor negotiator or a political naif, or both (or worse) is not an acceptable excuse for Obama. He is obviously a very intelligent person. His political instincts seem to have failed him during the past several years. He certainly knew how to jump out ahead of other Democrats, especially when it was only promises that had to be delivered. Playing hard ball with the scum that occupies the Congress is a whole other circumstance. Lie, cheat and steal is the name of the game these days. Twisting an arm seems to have fallen out of favor. obama seems not to be a wrestler.
Lord only knows what that will bring us if Mitt Romney is elected. Obama may not have been prepared for prime time and bruising political fighting, but Mitt is a lying, self centered prig. That’s probably worse in the long run. And worse still if the Republican bought and paid for House retains its majority.
Grover and the gang will say it’s a tax increase.”
Is it possible to prosecute an individual for encouraging elected officials to be derilict in the performance of their duties as spelled out in their oath of office? While many ignorant or very wealthy Americans may agree with Grover, is he not encouraging and demanding our elected officials to be destructive to the government to which they have been elected. In his own words he has stated that he wants to “drown the government.” He is a destructive force in our society.