home

GOP Says No To Obama's Yes

By Big Tent Democrat, Section Other Politics
Posted on Wed Dec 01, 2010 at 11:00:21 AM EST
Tags: (all tags)
Share This: Digg! StumbleUpon del.icio.us reddit reddit

Here is how Markos puts it -- GOP Continues to make fool of Obama:

This is how the GOP responds to Obama's good-faith cave-in to their agenda.

Officials say Senate Republicans intend to block action on virtually all Democratic-backed legislation unrelated to tax cuts and government spending in the current post election session of Congress.

They wrote a letter. The President has become a punchline.

Speaking for me only

< The Bear Bryants Of Political Bargaining | Good Leaks, Bad Leaks >

  • The Online Magazine with Liberal coverage of crime-related political and injustice news

  • Contribute To TalkLeft


    • Display: Sort:
    GOP Says No To Obama's Yes | 93 comments (93 topical)

    Readers Must Login or Create an Account to Comment

    On some things Obama will gladly (5.00 / 2) (#4)
    by MO Blue on Wed Dec 01, 2010 at 11:27:05 AM EST
    enact Republican legislation like the freeze on government workers salaries so that the Democratic Party can take credit for cutting wages. On other things Obama wants it to appear that the Republicans are forcing him to enact legislation like tax cuts to wealthy individuals and corporations. Bottom line IMO Obama and the Republicans will get the legislation that they want and the general public will get screwed.  

    This capitulation-masquerading-as (5.00 / 4) (#5)
    by Anne on Wed Dec 01, 2010 at 11:35:28 AM EST
    -bargaining has been going on for quite some time - way too long, really - but it has been, in my opinion, exacerbated by Obama's almost total lack of leadership ability.  Instead of starting from the premise that they have the right policy, and devising ways to get it, they start from the premise that they "have to" find common ground, or "have to" do everything on a bipartisan basis - and all Republicans have to do is stand firmly in place and wait for Dems to come to them.

    I seriously do not understand, and can think of no reason, why this isn't glaringly obvious to them.  Do they have some sort of learning disability?  Is there no one in the caucus who understands what ought to be basic, elementary concepts?

    I know I am becoming a broken record on this subject, but I don't want Democrats to sell out to Republicans for the sole purpose of proving they can "work together."  I want Democrats to advocate for Democratic policies and I want them to go balls-to-the-wall to get it.

    I feel like I am watching what was supposed to be - maybe only in our dreams - a really strong football team going up against what is supposed to be the weaker team, and the "weak" team is playing like they're all on performance-enhancing drugs, smacking the strong team up and down the field - at will.  It's like the head coach's game plan was, "we're all in this together, so if someone from the other team is pushing us back when we have the ball, that's okay.  And when they have the ball, let's not be so focused on stopping them, okay?"

    As someone with an ownership interest, how long do you put up with this head coach before you fire him?

    Guess we have at least two more seasons of losing ahead of us.  Splendid.

    I think it's a combination of Obama (none / 0) (#9)
    by observed on Wed Dec 01, 2010 at 11:52:52 AM EST
    having very little affinity for the Democratic agenda, and also being desperately focused on the 2012 election.
    I think we have seen that when Obama does care about an issue---whether based on political calculation or belief---he can go to the mat, in a milquetoast way.
    Unfortunately, he doesn't seem to care in the least about the actual details of any economic policy question, which I think has been has most consistent failing from the very beginning.
    I bet Obama actually believes the Reagan tax policies were a good idea.


    Parent
    saw that (none / 0) (#1)
    by Capt Howdy on Wed Dec 01, 2010 at 11:05:36 AM EST
    I was wondering if "government spending" might include the Defense Appropriations Bill including DADT but when I went to the link the very next sentence specifically said that was one of the things they intend to block.

    then I saw LIEberman this morning saying he thought they had 60 votes to pass it.

    silly me.  I still think it might happen.

    I have a bad feeling about (5.00 / 1) (#3)
    by Militarytracy on Wed Dec 01, 2010 at 11:23:33 AM EST
    how the next two years are going to go.  I've completely given up on DADT now.  Whatever dealings that Bair and Jarrett had in the Shorebank scandal, the Republicans are now going to pound this President to a pulp with it all as they investigate from the House.  Is this why Obama continues to be their fool?  Hoping they aren't going to hammer him into oblivion?  They still will, they can't wait.

    Parent
    if Obama lets McCain get away (5.00 / 3) (#6)
    by Capt Howdy on Wed Dec 01, 2010 at 11:35:46 AM EST
    with this.  if after years of saying when the military leaders say they are ready he is ready he lets him get away with saying he wants a new study that gives him the results he wanted.  if when the joint chiefs, the sec def, the entire military and everyone says they should do this and he lets one old fart stop it, Im done.  

    Im done.  

    I will not vote for Obama again.  I may not vote for a rival but I will not vote for him.
    it would be an unforgivable gutless spineless indefensible betrayal afaiac.


    Parent

    I saw it coming-- (none / 0) (#22)
    by the capstan on Wed Dec 01, 2010 at 12:34:18 PM EST
    even left TL because of it.  Would have been nice to have been wrong; but I wasn't.  I didn't 'pull the D. lever' then, and I won't next time.

    Parent
    btw and ftr (none / 0) (#23)
    by Capt Howdy on Wed Dec 01, 2010 at 12:35:41 PM EST
    that was not a joke or a rant.  it was the gods truth.
    I am serious as a heart attack.  

    and I know I am not alone.  now, granted Obama will not lose or win based on the gay vote.  but its getting pretty damn crowded under the bus.

    at this point my question would be what reason does anyone have to vote for him.  

    ok ok.  the court.  how many people do you think base their votes on that?

    Parent

    What I think we have to worry about (5.00 / 2) (#29)
    by Anne on Wed Dec 01, 2010 at 01:03:26 PM EST
    with the Court is Obama thinking he has to offer someone "acceptable" to the GOP if he is re-elected with either a weaker Democratic majority in the Senate, or a slim Republican majority.

    As for DADT, I never, ever believed Obama was all that comfortable with the gays, just as I never believed he really trusts women to make their own reproductive health choices.

    I think he was hoping for a resounding rejection of an open military, whereupon he could shrug his shoulders and say that even though he really, really wanted to end the policy, and tried really, really hard, he had no other choice but to defer to the experts.

    In addition to being another failure of leadership, I think it would also further expose his essential conservative self.

    Parent

    probably (5.00 / 1) (#31)
    by Capt Howdy on Wed Dec 01, 2010 at 01:06:23 PM EST
    I think he was hoping for a resounding rejection of an open military, whereupon he could shrug his shoulders and say that even though he really, really wanted to end the policy, and tried really, really hard, he had no other choice but to defer to the experts.

    he and McCain both.

    Parent

    Wasn't the selection of Rick (3.00 / 1) (#79)
    by BackFromOhio on Wed Dec 01, 2010 at 06:36:22 PM EST
    Warren a dead giveaway?

    Parent
    oh yeah (none / 0) (#30)
    by Capt Howdy on Wed Dec 01, 2010 at 01:05:05 PM EST
    one thing on the courts.  if we can get Ginsberg to retire this term the next president in all likelihood will not even get an appointment unless it is one of the gargoyles.  

    Parent
    Gargoyles? (none / 0) (#68)
    by MKS on Wed Dec 01, 2010 at 05:21:27 PM EST
    hehe....

    Parent
    The President has become a punchline. (none / 0) (#2)
    by Capt Howdy on Wed Dec 01, 2010 at 11:16:02 AM EST
    and, unlike Bush, not even a funny one

    Parent
    One was a bumbler (none / 0) (#8)
    by waldenpond on Wed Dec 01, 2010 at 11:52:37 AM EST
    the other?  I don't know.  I am convinced he's nothing but a mainline conservative but who wants to be seen as having such a serious degree of wimpitude.  It's gotten to a degree that he's coming across as a pathetic caricature and it's kinda feeling a little uncomfortable.

    Parent
    We can only hope that he doesn't (5.00 / 1) (#14)
    by Anne on Wed Dec 01, 2010 at 12:03:25 PM EST
    decide to prove how strong he is by sending us into another war...

    Parent
    unofficially more than ever (5.00 / 1) (#28)
    by waldenpond on Wed Dec 01, 2010 at 12:46:15 PM EST
    Obama has us in militarily in more countries than Bush ever did.  Wah on terra doncha know.

    Parent
    yep (none / 0) (#25)
    by Capt Howdy on Wed Dec 01, 2010 at 12:39:17 PM EST
    he could team up with his buddy McCain and start saying things like its time to consider regime change in NK.


    Parent
    very uncomfortable (none / 0) (#10)
    by Capt Howdy on Wed Dec 01, 2010 at 11:55:29 AM EST
    that thing yesterday was painful.
    and pathetic.

    Parent
    Unfortunately, I have to agree with the (none / 0) (#11)
    by observed on Wed Dec 01, 2010 at 11:57:35 AM EST
    Republicans that the biggest potential dangers of having a pathetic, weak, buffoon as President lie in the area of foreign policy. Who knows what North Korea will try, for example?

    Parent
    The most startling thing (none / 0) (#78)
    by BackFromOhio on Wed Dec 01, 2010 at 06:33:45 PM EST
    I've heard all week came from J.L. Hughley, when he said that the President is not governing along the same lines on which he campaigned in 2008. Christine O'Donnell, who was being interviewed with Hughley by George Stephanopolous, said that Hillary Clinton should run against Obama in 2012 and O'Donnell would vote for her.  

    Parent
    Christine O'Donnell has been saying that (none / 0) (#82)
    by MKS on Wed Dec 01, 2010 at 08:11:38 PM EST
    for a long time.....Even during her run for the Senate, she thought she could get Hillary voters.....

    Hughley is saying what most liberals are saying....

    Get used to it; triangulation, Obama sytle.

    Parent

    Lieberman still says he has 60? (none / 0) (#67)
    by MKS on Wed Dec 01, 2010 at 05:18:41 PM EST
    Wow.  That'd be good.

    I at least want a vote....It may not pass (don't count chickens) but I want Brown and Collins and others to be on the hot seat and have to vote one way or the other.....

    Parent

    he said that this morning (5.00 / 0) (#69)
    by Capt Howdy on Wed Dec 01, 2010 at 05:21:49 PM EST
    on Joe.  its probably on the msnbc site.

    Parent
    Gates (none / 0) (#70)
    by Capt Howdy on Wed Dec 01, 2010 at 05:25:46 PM EST
    gave them some very good cover when he said yesterday that if they do not do this the courts almost certainly will and that would be far more disruptive.

    Parent
    I'll go out on a limb (none / 0) (#76)
    by MKS on Wed Dec 01, 2010 at 05:53:42 PM EST
    and say that DADT passes.....based on your enthusiasm.....You were right, after all, about Harry winning when all the polls said no....

    All objective criteria says it won't happen, but the time may be right.

    Parent

    well (none / 0) (#89)
    by Capt Howdy on Thu Dec 02, 2010 at 08:19:40 AM EST
    to be clear I said I still think it MIGHT happen.

    I am not holding my breath and its not the same as being sure Angle would lose.

    Parent

    amen (none / 0) (#75)
    by CST on Wed Dec 01, 2010 at 05:41:03 PM EST
    there are still some Republicans in the senate that can't afford to vote against this.

    Scott Brown will almost certainly lose re-election anyway (his election was a "perfect storm" that is pretty unlikely to happen again - people who point to that as evidence of anything don't understand the specific dynamic in his favor at the time of his election - has to do with the timing of the "cadillac tax" on hcr, and Dems having a 60 seat majority at the time), but if he has any hope of staying, he's gonna have to show some social-liberal cred.  If he votes no on DADT - that's it for him.

    The ladies from Maine.... it's more complicated, Maine is a more conservative state, but I think when push comes to shove they have to play ball as well.

    Not sure about the others.

    Parent

    We have Dems who are a problem too (none / 0) (#77)
    by MKS on Wed Dec 01, 2010 at 05:55:50 PM EST
    Lincoln and Pryor from Arkansas.  Webb may have come around....Ben Nelson???

    Parent
    BTD a question (none / 0) (#7)
    by Capt Howdy on Wed Dec 01, 2010 at 11:51:25 AM EST
    hopefully not OT.  given the way this is going and assuming it continues the same way do you still believe Obama can win reelection?  even against someone like Palin?

    Well (none / 0) (#16)
    by Big Tent Democrat on Wed Dec 01, 2010 at 12:04:06 PM EST
    Yes I do.

    He remains a lock against Palin.

    And he can still run against the crazy GOP.

    Frankly, I think the more interesting exercise is mapping out how a Republican could beat him. Think of the demographics and the states in play.

    Remember Cali, NY, Illinois, Massachusetts, etc. are locks for any Dem, and Texas, the rest of the South, Utah, Idaho, the Dakotas, Nebraska etc. are GOP locks and will remain as such.

    Obama can do no worse, I think than Kerry in 2004 under any circumstance. Which means he is close to winning no matter what.

    So the question becomes, as always, who wins Florida, Ohio and Pennsylvania.
       

    Parent

    I think that someone like Romney (5.00 / 3) (#20)
    by inclusiveheart on Wed Dec 01, 2010 at 12:21:58 PM EST
    has a shot and that someone like Bloomberg has the potential to split the vote and put any old Republican into the White House as a result.

    I do not think that the GOP will allow Palin to run - they might if Obama was doing really, really well and they thought that they had no chance anyway, but if they see a chance, they'll run someone who can peel off the middle-of-the-road voters that Obama captured in '08.  That strategy in combination with Obama's own abuses of his base would be a fairly likely road map to victory for them, I think.

    Parent

    Ding! (5.00 / 2) (#21)
    by jbindc on Wed Dec 01, 2010 at 12:25:55 PM EST
    They will let Palin raise the money, but won't let her anywhere near the nomination.  They got indies and women to vote for them this time - they don't want to lose them.

    Parent
    Palin is the only Republican (none / 0) (#33)
    by KeysDan on Wed Dec 01, 2010 at 01:19:39 PM EST
    who has the spark to win the party's primary.  Romney, Huckabee, Barbour, and McCain are not only old hat, but also old Republican wingers trying hard to get in with the new tea party wingers.

    But it will be difficult to succeed with the primary voters: Romney has that MA health care albatross, Huckabee has nothing to offer other than facility with Biblical quotes, Barbour is a redux of Senator Beauregard Claghorn, and McCain is too busy telling everyone to get off the lawn.  No, I think Palin is the most likely candidate.

    Parent

    I absolutely (none / 0) (#34)
    by Capt Howdy on Wed Dec 01, 2010 at 01:22:22 PM EST
    agree.  and as I said.  I do not think that necessarily means a win for Obama.


    Parent
    also (none / 0) (#36)
    by Capt Howdy on Wed Dec 01, 2010 at 01:24:10 PM EST
    all this talk of "stopping" her. or "not allowing her to run".

    I want to see that tried.  I really do.

    first of all they would have to tie her up in a sack.  I dont think that will go over well with a large portion of the republican base.

    Parent

    Who said anything about (5.00 / 2) (#38)
    by jbindc on Wed Dec 01, 2010 at 01:25:41 PM EST
    Not letting her run?  I said they won't let her win.  You think the party can't have a predetermined outcome and make it happen?

    Parent
    Nah!!! (5.00 / 3) (#40)
    by TeresaInSnow2 on Wed Dec 01, 2010 at 01:29:27 PM EST
    That couldn't possibly happen! Never has, right?

    <snark>

    Parent

    there is absolutely (none / 0) (#41)
    by Capt Howdy on Wed Dec 01, 2010 at 01:31:36 PM EST
    nothing comparable to Hillarys experience here.

    nothing.

    not snark.


    Parent

    nothing at all (none / 0) (#60)
    by The Addams Family on Wed Dec 01, 2010 at 04:31:06 PM EST
    certainly not gender

    Parent
    once again (5.00 / 0) (#61)
    by Capt Howdy on Wed Dec 01, 2010 at 04:39:16 PM EST
    Hillarys main impediment in the fight against the establishment was her wish to avoid splitting the party.  Palin could care less.  she really doesnt give a damn about the party.  

    let them try to do to her what the did to Hillary.  you will see the pall of smoke rising over  washington all the way to atlanta.


    Parent

    heh (none / 0) (#63)
    by The Addams Family on Wed Dec 01, 2010 at 05:07:25 PM EST
    agree w/you abt Palin's concern for the GOP - her lack of concern is obvious - so point taken

    w/r/t Hillary's "wish to avoid splitting the party," interesting remark but do you mean her refusal to insist on an open floor vote at the convention?

    not sure what else you could mean b/c weren't the party insiders already split before the Iowa primary & isn't that how we got Obama, who was put up & backed by an anti-Clinton faction of the DNC?

    in other words, her "wish to avoid splitting the party" was irrelevant - she was not going to get the nomination no matter what & party insiders made that perfectly clear

    Parent

    imo (none / 0) (#64)
    by Capt Howdy on Wed Dec 01, 2010 at 05:11:13 PM EST
    she could have made a much stronger case for herself if that had not been her concern.


    Parent
    certainly (none / 0) (#73)
    by The Addams Family on Wed Dec 01, 2010 at 05:31:48 PM EST
    she could have made a stronger case

    but i now believe it would not have mattered & i believe that is what she came to understand & accept

    Parent

    one other thing (none / 0) (#65)
    by Capt Howdy on Wed Dec 01, 2010 at 05:15:00 PM EST
    Hillary was a democratic woman.
    Palin is a republican woman.  very different.
    when have you EVER seen a republican woman trashed the way Hillary Nancy and Barbara are?
    different in her treatment from the media most particularly.  when it came to the MSM she had two strikes against her from the beginning.  she was a democrat and she was a clinton.  we all know they never believed Bill deserved to be president and she, in their minds, certainly did not deserve fair treatment.

    Parent
    i have seen Sarah Palin (none / 0) (#72)
    by The Addams Family on Wed Dec 01, 2010 at 05:30:46 PM EST
    obscenely - literally obscenely - trashed by sexist "liberal" men who took up the cudgel against Palin after Hillary Clinton had been beaten down

    to answer your question

    Parent

    being trashed (none / 0) (#87)
    by Capt Howdy on Thu Dec 02, 2010 at 08:16:42 AM EST
    by sexist "liberal" men and being trashed by the main stream media are two very different things.  
    with very different consequences.

    you have not and will not see her trashed Hillary style by the media.  they fear her as much as the republicans do.  when asking her what she reads qualifies as a "gotcha" I think the difference becomes clear.

    also she has shown a clear talent for going around the media entirely.  to avoid those troublesome gotcha questions.

    Parent

    sure, but (5.00 / 1) (#90)
    by The Addams Family on Thu Dec 02, 2010 at 12:30:54 PM EST
    you now seem to be shifting the ground of the argument

    you started by responding to this from jbindc:

    Not letting her run? I said they won't let her win. You think the party can't have a predetermined outcome and make it happen?

    imo, the damage done to Hillary in the 2008 primaries (apart from what may have been self-inflicted, like not contesting the red-state caucuses) was more because of sexism among Democratic Party insiders and factions within the base than because of sexism in the mainstream media, though obviously that too was a factor

    & - again imo - paradoxically, it's the very same hysterical sexism of "liberal" men that keeps Sarah Palin front & center as a possible candidate to be taken seriously - sure the GOP will make the most of her if she appears to scare liberal Dems sh!tless - but it's not the GOP that takes Palin seriously as a possible presidential nominee

    Parent

    I think you are kidding (none / 0) (#92)
    by Capt Howdy on Thu Dec 02, 2010 at 12:50:19 PM EST
    yourself if you do not think the GOP are taking her seriously.

    Parent
    we'll see (none / 0) (#93)
    by The Addams Family on Thu Dec 02, 2010 at 05:28:51 PM EST


    Parent
    I think Hillary's (none / 0) (#81)
    by BackFromOhio on Wed Dec 01, 2010 at 06:44:22 PM EST
    media rating has since made an about-face, however, and I think if she were to run again, many of her former harshest critics would applaud her.  

    Parent
    If what (none / 0) (#84)
    by Ga6thDem on Wed Dec 01, 2010 at 09:39:41 PM EST
    has been going on over at the big orange is any indication then you're probably right. I'm seeing a lot of people now regretting backing Obama in the primaries and wish they could go back and support Hillary. After all, Hillary at least recognizes evil even if has an orange tan when it comes calling.

    Parent
    Even Tweety can't (none / 0) (#94)
    by BackFromOhio on Fri Dec 03, 2010 at 07:38:00 PM EST
    say enough good things about her!

    Parent
    its (none / 0) (#39)
    by Capt Howdy on Wed Dec 01, 2010 at 01:28:04 PM EST
    all over these threads

    Parent
    Palin is about making money (none / 0) (#43)
    by inclusiveheart on Wed Dec 01, 2010 at 02:00:36 PM EST
    and having power.  I actually do not think that she wants to go back into public service.  She will keep herself relevant and continue to keep people guessing, but I see her as being more interested in being a king maker than in being the king.  Think of her as Dick Cheney in a skirt.

    Parent
    To stay relevant, Palin has to run (5.00 / 1) (#71)
    by MKS on Wed Dec 01, 2010 at 05:26:54 PM EST
    It does not matter if she loses....She just has to run....

    Her brand is keeping open the possiblity she will run....Otherwise, she is just Phyllis Schlafly who eats mooseburgers.....

    When she enters the race, it will be a three ring circus.....and Palin wins no matter what.....Maybe she can amp up her martyr credentials as people treat her badly....Maybe she wins Iowa and goes down in history....maybe she wins a couple of primaries.....Just one win will turn the world upside down....

    There is no way Palin turns down that drama....    

    Parent

    a mental image (none / 0) (#44)
    by Capt Howdy on Wed Dec 01, 2010 at 02:02:06 PM EST
    I could have done without.  I disagree.

    Parent
    Only time will tell and sorry (none / 0) (#45)
    by inclusiveheart on Wed Dec 01, 2010 at 02:06:15 PM EST
    about the image.  lol

    Parent
    Facility with Biblical quotes (none / 0) (#66)
    by MKS on Wed Dec 01, 2010 at 05:16:52 PM EST
    Ouch!  But he is good aside from that.  

    It looks to be Palin v. Romney v. Huckabee.....Gingrich and the others would drop out pertty early on I think.  I don't see any result aside from Romney winning against Palin and Huckabee as semi-finalists splitting the social conservative vote...

    But, if Huckabee decides he can't win, because of Palin, and really likes his Fox gig and decides to not run, then omigod! Palin could actually run away with it--as Huckabee has said.....

    Parent

    Watch Huckabee (none / 0) (#85)
    by christinep on Wed Dec 01, 2010 at 10:03:28 PM EST
    His statement, imo, is to bait or coax Romney to get into it with Palin earlier than planned...thereby letting them swing at each other with Huckabee entering at the appropriate time. I continue to believe that if Huckabee can sucker-punch Romney in this manner, then the suave Arkansan opens up in South Carolina.

    Parent
    maybe (none / 0) (#88)
    by Capt Howdy on Thu Dec 02, 2010 at 08:17:44 AM EST
    but Romney is not taking the bait.  check out his appearance on Leno last night.

    Parent
    Yep. After a lifetime in politics, Romney (none / 0) (#91)
    by christinep on Thu Dec 02, 2010 at 12:31:22 PM EST
    seems to be avoiding the early lunge.

    Parent
    I think you underestimate Palin. (5.00 / 1) (#35)
    by masslib on Wed Dec 01, 2010 at 01:24:10 PM EST
    She's the only pol out there right now to tap into the anger of the white working class, which is truly unreal.  Indeed, she has their full support, and if she can get through the GOP nom process, she'll go full on populist and take in a whole chunk more voters who feel Obama and his cohorts took care of the banksters and left them to fry.

    Parent
    Although, it is so obvious (5.00 / 2) (#46)
    by inclusiveheart on Wed Dec 01, 2010 at 02:09:00 PM EST
    that the Democrats are counting on and hoping for Palin as an opponent.  It wouldn't take a rocket scientist over on the GOP side to see that they have a really, really good shot at defeating Obama if they figure out a way to use Palin without actually running her.

    Parent
    Republicans in MA were giddy when (5.00 / 1) (#49)
    by masslib on Wed Dec 01, 2010 at 02:20:32 PM EST
    Deval Patrick became our candidate for Governor in MA, and look what happened.  Again, I think Democrats underestimate the anger out there.  Now if the economy improves in any significant way in the next two years this may be moot.  I frankly don't think it will, but if it does, that's one thing.  If it doesn't, I think Palin certainly has a good shot because she has captured and motivated a large part of the electorate.  I don't see how Romney is supposed to do this.  He's no populist.  I suppose you are right.  The Republican candidate, say Marco Rubio, could certainly use Palin to his advantage and have an easier time pulling off a national election than Palin.  However, BTD keeps talking Romney, I don't see the base of the Repub Party going anywhere near Romney in this climate, where what they need is a populist, not a GOP Obama.

    Parent
    I am not underestimating the anger. (5.00 / 2) (#53)
    by inclusiveheart on Wed Dec 01, 2010 at 02:48:19 PM EST
    What I am saying is that I don't think that the GOP strategy is going to be straight-forward.  I also do not think that Palin has the potential - even when people are really pissed off - to capture the winning number of votes - UNLESS - someone like Bloomberg mounts an independent run.

    I just know far too many mainstream Republicans who hate Palin and would choose Obama over her - or not vote at all.  I don't see her as being viable in a general election - and I would see her effect if they did decide to nominate her as an invitation to someone like Bloomberg.

    OTOH, the Republicans I know given the choice between Romney and Obama, would likely go home to their party now that they've seen Obama in action. Anyway, I think Palin plays a big role inside the party and is treated like a queen, but ultimately will not be the nominee.

    Parent

    Marco Rubio may not wear (none / 0) (#58)
    by KeysDan on Wed Dec 01, 2010 at 04:19:34 PM EST
    well with time; he has a tendency toward scandal (e.g., credit card, court house). Palin, however,  has that political teflon quality and fires up her crowd as none of the other Republican contenders do.  Her campaign would be made for the teapot. Governor Palin also has the distinct advantage that her Republican opponents have all the charisma of a bowl of mashed potatoes.

    Moreover, the Republican establishment really has nothing to fear from her winning the presidency, as she will be a real good soldier and do what she is told, say what is written for her (on her hand or paper), and stand on the stage at the chalk-marked footprints  Just like Reagan and the two Bushes before her.  The Obama/Palin presidential debates would certainly be worth the price of admission.  

    Parent

    THIS (none / 0) (#59)
    by Capt Howdy on Wed Dec 01, 2010 at 04:23:44 PM EST
    is the key

    Moreover, the Republican establishment really has nothing to fear from her winning the presidency, as she will be a real good soldier and do what she is told, say what is written for her (on her hand or paper), and stand on the stage at the chalk-marked footprints  Just like Reagan and the two Bushes before her.  The Obama/Palin presidential debates would certainly be worth the price of admission.

    exactly and precisely.  she would be more of an empty suit and a puppet than the one we have now.

    Parent

    what (none / 0) (#37)
    by Capt Howdy on Wed Dec 01, 2010 at 01:25:09 PM EST
    they said

    Parent
    Do really think he can win 2 of those 3? (none / 0) (#17)
    by smott on Wed Dec 01, 2010 at 12:09:09 PM EST
    ....if unemployment remains high?

    Parent
    I dunno (none / 0) (#19)
    by Big Tent Democrat on Wed Dec 01, 2010 at 12:12:48 PM EST


    Parent
    I am starting to think (5.00 / 1) (#24)
    by Capt Howdy on Wed Dec 01, 2010 at 12:37:51 PM EST
    we are whistling past the graveyard with Palin.

    I really am.

    she has no experience?  didnt we decide last election that was irrelevant?

    Parent

    I would add to that (5.00 / 1) (#27)
    by Capt Howdy on Wed Dec 01, 2010 at 12:42:33 PM EST
    that if we had any other candidate.   any candidate who had done absolutely anything to make people fear him less or like him more I would agree they would be a shoe in against Palin.

    I am starting to believe that it is not Palin who is the only one Obama could beat it is Obama who is the only one Palin could beat.


    Parent

    Will McCain run again? (none / 0) (#18)
    by observed on Wed Dec 01, 2010 at 12:10:20 PM EST
    I'm sure he would like to.

    Parent
    With the new Ohio (none / 0) (#80)
    by BackFromOhio on Wed Dec 01, 2010 at 06:39:51 PM EST
    SoS a Republican and Sos there in charge of elections, no Dem will garner the majority of votes for president in that state in 2012 -- IMO.  

    Parent
    Obama is in trouble (none / 0) (#12)
    by Saul on Wed Dec 01, 2010 at 11:59:12 AM EST
    Talk about a lame duck. The Republicans got him again the ropes and they know it.  Saying no to Obama on everything except tax cuts will probably not hurt the Republicans in 2012. Unless the economy comes to life by 2012 he will be a one term president.

    I wish he would do a Palin. (none / 0) (#13)
    by observed on Wed Dec 01, 2010 at 12:02:09 PM EST
    The result couldn't possibly be worse than having him stick it out.

    Parent
    That might sort of what he is (5.00 / 2) (#47)
    by inclusiveheart on Wed Dec 01, 2010 at 02:09:51 PM EST
    doing.  I am not sure that he cares about winning a second term and I am pretty sure he doesn't care about the Democratic Party...

    Parent
    he most (5.00 / 1) (#48)
    by Capt Howdy on Wed Dec 01, 2010 at 02:12:14 PM EST
    definitely cares about his "place in history"

    Parent
    yup. (none / 0) (#51)
    by nycstray on Wed Dec 01, 2010 at 02:35:43 PM EST


    Parent
    Oh, he definately cares about winning a second (none / 0) (#50)
    by masslib on Wed Dec 01, 2010 at 02:21:56 PM EST
    term.  Indeed, every decision he makes seems to be a political decision(though personally I don't think very good ones), based on what will help him in 2012.  

    Parent
    I am sure the people around (5.00 / 1) (#52)
    by inclusiveheart on Wed Dec 01, 2010 at 02:41:11 PM EST
    him care, but I get the impression that he's somewhat ambivalent.

    Parent
    Okay (none / 0) (#32)
    by dead dancer on Wed Dec 01, 2010 at 01:06:43 PM EST
    Whith that subject line i could get really bad!

    Parent
    He's definitely got flexible shoulders. (none / 0) (#42)
    by observed on Wed Dec 01, 2010 at 01:56:42 PM EST


    Parent
    Punchline or Punching Bag? (none / 0) (#15)
    by Coral on Wed Dec 01, 2010 at 12:03:38 PM EST


    not (5.00 / 1) (#26)
    by Capt Howdy on Wed Dec 01, 2010 at 12:40:21 PM EST
    mutually exclusive

    Parent
    Accuracy Please (none / 0) (#54)
    by DaveCal on Wed Dec 01, 2010 at 03:03:04 PM EST
    Can we at least describe accurately what the letter says?

    It does NOT say they will block everything other than tax cuts and government spending.  That is the liberal media Talking Point.  

    Instead, the letter is about timing.  It says the Republicans will not vote for cloture UNTIL the tax cuts and government funding issues are resolved first.

    Here's the relevent quote:

    "... we will not agree to invoke cloture on the motion to proceed to any legislative item until the Senate has acted to fund the government and we have prevented the tax increase that is currently awaiting all American taxpayers."  

    It even goes on to say specifically:

    "With little time left in this Congressional session, legislative scheduling should be focused on these critical priorities.  While there are other items that might ultimately be worthy of the Senate's attention, we cannot agree to prioritize any matters above the critical issues of funding the government and preventing a job-killing tax hike."

    Now, you can complain about that if you want to.  And some will probably whine that it's really code for something else.  But just report it accurately please.  The letter is very specific that it is about prioritizing and timing.  I find it hard to believe the so-called journalists (assuming they read the letter) can conclude that it threatens to block all action other than tax cuts and funding the government.  

    so (none / 0) (#55)
    by Capt Howdy on Wed Dec 01, 2010 at 03:08:27 PM EST
    you think the AP is liberal media? srsly?

    WASHINGTON (AP) -- Senate Republicans intend to block action on virtually all Democratic-backed legislation unrelated to tax cuts and government spending in the current postelection session of Congress, officials said Tuesday, adding that the leadership has quietly collected signatures on a letter pledging to carry out the strategy.

    link is to newsmax

    Parent

    Yes, actually I do, but.... (none / 0) (#56)
    by DaveCal on Wed Dec 01, 2010 at 04:05:10 PM EST
    it doesn't matter what I think about the media's objectivity.  You're making my point.  Most of the media, including the "AP" quote you cite, is inaccurate in its reporting on this issue.  

    Are you suggesting it's accurate?  

    Or are you just quibbling with my use of the phrase "liberal media"?

    I quoted the actual letter written by the Republicans.  Do you think either the original post or your alternate link are accurate descriptions of the letter?  

    Parent

    "actually I do" (none / 0) (#57)
    by Capt Howdy on Wed Dec 01, 2010 at 04:17:30 PM EST
    well
    that about does it for you I would say.

    Parent
    Typical (none / 0) (#62)
    by DaveCal on Wed Dec 01, 2010 at 04:46:32 PM EST
    Seems that I cannot comment without you (or one of a few others on here) whining or sniveling about something I say, ignoring the point of the post, and never having a substantive discussion.  

    That's okay.  I don't care if you agree or disagree about my views on the media generally.  

    I would hope, however, that you would agree that the reporting on this (both in the original post and in the link you provided) is inaccurate.  

    If you think it's accurate, well then, to quote you: "that about does it for you I would say."

    Parent

    Kyle has said START will take two (none / 0) (#74)
    by MKS on Wed Dec 01, 2010 at 05:33:41 PM EST
    weeks....

    So, the upshot is everythihg else is blocked.....one way or the other.....

    Republicans want to run out the clock on DADT....that is such a real dagger at their throats....

    If gays can serve openly in the military, the social conservative fabric unwinds.....

    Republicans are not stupid.....unlike too many Dems....

    They know they have to win by default on DADT now, or else they will lose the religious conservatives--who will melt away from organized political activity.....and will revert to more economic populist voting....Think Huckabee....

    Parent

    It will be something to see (none / 0) (#86)
    by christinep on Wed Dec 01, 2010 at 10:13:30 PM EST
    the Repubs try to forestall the Defense Authorization $$ Bill to which DADT repeal provision is attached! A bit tricky.

    Parent
    GOP Says No To Obama's Yes | 93 comments (93 topical)

    Readers Must Login or Create an Account to Comment