home

How To Run Against Romney

Kevin Drum cites this NYTimes article:

President Obama and his campaign aides are facing a conundrum as they decide how to tarnish the man they see as their likely opponent in the battle ahead. Do they go the flip-flopper route? Or do they go the out-of-touch, protector-of-Wall-Street route?

After a very intelligent description of how the GOP race is likely to unfold (shorter: It's over and Romney is well positioned to remain an acceptable "anti-Obama"), Kevin then writes "if [Obama] has to choose, my guess is that he should forget about the flip-flopping and simply do everything he can to force Romney into the wingnut conservative camp." I prefer the NYTimes' formulation - "out-of-touch, protector-of-Wall-Street." I would add that I would tar Romney with the foibles of the entire GOP, which he has endorsed, more or less, in the primary campaign (think "ending Medicare as we know it.")

But most of this will be using Romney as a foil to define Obama as a champion of working Americans and against the excesses of the 1%. Since August, President Obama has been excellent in this regard in my view. As I commented yesterday, since August, Obama and his team have engaged in excellent politics. Yesterday's recess appointment of Richard Cordray to head the CFPB is another case in point-- a wonderful fight to pick with Republicans. Part of the timing I think is to goad Romney into denouncing the CFPB in a prominent way- to highlight the 1% vs. 99% argument.

In any event, I think the Obama reelection campaign is off to a good start. Sure, better policies would be preferable. But nothing good is going to happen in terms of policy for a while, given GOP control of the Congress.

Speaking for me only

< Signatures Delivered for CO Marijuana Legalization Initiative | Benjamin Arellano-Felix's "Favorable" 25 Year Deal >
  • The Online Magazine with Liberal coverage of crime-related political and injustice news

  • Contribute To TalkLeft


  • Display: Sort:
    I would think that (5.00 / 9) (#17)
    by Edger on Thu Jan 05, 2012 at 09:24:03 AM EST
    Obama attacking Romney as an out-of-touch, protector-of-Wall-Street would be true, but also would be seen as glaringly hypocritical and would backfire badly.

    Me too (5.00 / 3) (#19)
    by Militarytracy on Thu Jan 05, 2012 at 09:40:53 AM EST
    I think Romney would end up toasting his muffins with that via all that pac money and their great commercials reminding how much of a friend Obama is of Wall Street.  Not the route I would be going.

    Stay on this recess appointment/Cordray new cojones path, that is the road back to the White House.  Well placed acts of decency toward the people, that will KILL Romney unless he wants to say that what Obama is doing is proper.  That still weakens Romney though with his crazy hate filled base, and probably makes him look inconsistent with the rest of what he is stumping.

    Parent

    Yep (5.00 / 5) (#22)
    by Edger on Thu Jan 05, 2012 at 09:45:10 AM EST
    Obama can't run on his record. All he has is hopiness and promises again.

    Parent
    The majority of the world (2.00 / 2) (#61)
    by AngryBlackGuy on Thu Jan 05, 2012 at 11:18:39 AM EST
    Does not view Obama as a protector of Wall Street on par with Romney in the way that many here do.

    I could say a whole lot more but really that is the point in a nutshell.

    Parent

    First of all (5.00 / 3) (#77)
    by Militarytracy on Thu Jan 05, 2012 at 11:36:49 AM EST
    The majority of the world is not who votes Obama back into office.  It is so hard to read you sometimes dude.  It's like I don't even want to show up to read the comment you left because it's just dumb talk :)  You get so far out there, I swear I see you on the horizon riding that flying unicorn that farts flowers and perfume :)

    The people who will vote Obama back in are Americans, we are Americans and there is lots of PROOF, EVIDENCE, FACTS, that Obama is on par with Romney on Wall Street because many of the choices Obama made to benefit the street hurt so many of us.  Obama risks it being known through Romney's pac commercials that via Wall Street he harmed more middle class Americans and poor than Romney ever did.

    Parent

    Tell me, just how is it... (none / 0) (#160)
    by Romberry on Fri Jan 06, 2012 at 03:46:27 AM EST
    ...that you were appointed to tell us what "the majority of the world thinks, and just who is it that appointed you? And oh yeah...how about some substantiation for your claim on what "the majority of the world" thinks.

    Parent
    still waiting for substantiation.... (none / 0) (#169)
    by Buckeye on Fri Jan 06, 2012 at 12:07:55 PM EST
    Obama's Recent Treachery (none / 0) (#172)
    by norris morris on Sat Jan 07, 2012 at 01:09:50 PM EST
    Are we asked to forget and never mention the recent signing of the law that just about does away with Due Process and makes the Patriot Act look like a love letter?

    This assault on freedom has been buried by the left wing, the democrats, media,blogs, but it must be mentioned without the hypocrisy seen by Obama supporters.

     Guantanamo cannot ever be closed,and anyone [including Americans] can be held without charges indefinitely.  This isn't merely conservative...it leads the way for any future President to exercise supreme power in the executive branch and allows for totalitarian acts against democracy.

    Doesn't anyone care about this?  I'm a lifelong Demcrat and am appalled by Obama's behavior. Now that he's desperate to get elected, he's making populist sounds and doing a few feeble things. This guy will be a lame duck or conservative or  anything else he has to be.  He absolutely cannot be counted on.

    The lack of candoer about Obama from our so called left or progressive side is very troubling.
    Obama is clearly just another Pol force fed by his awful group of "advisors".

    Parent

    Perception is reality... (5.00 / 4) (#30)
    by kdog on Thu Jan 05, 2012 at 10:12:14 AM EST
    I agree of course, Banskters and Wall St. Grifters are hedged unless a third party/independent shocks the world.

    But most people don't pay such close attention...painting Romney as trust-fund baby
    1%er is a winning strategy.  

    And it's not dishonest, just less than honest aka not the whole story.  Ya don't have to be of the 1% to work in a protection racket capacity for the 1%, as Obama and Clinton and Reagan have shown us.

    Parent

    Well.... (5.00 / 1) (#34)
    by Edger on Thu Jan 05, 2012 at 10:14:19 AM EST
    I don't know. I tend to want to give people credit for being smarter than that, but maybe I'm not being very smart? ;-)

    Parent
    Giving the people the benefit... (5.00 / 1) (#45)
    by kdog on Thu Jan 05, 2012 at 10:42:14 AM EST
    of the doubt, most probably realize the same but are stuck in the two-party lesser evil box, or just vote on other issues because the "serious" candidates are so similar on economic policy...seeing no ballot box remedy.

    Parent
    seeing no ballot box remedy? (none / 0) (#49)
    by Edger on Thu Jan 05, 2012 at 10:52:37 AM EST
    They do put on a pretty good bread and circuses kabuki show, don't they?

    Hence OWS, which hopefully as warmer spring weather gets here will morph into hundreds of thousands in the streets (and surrounding the DNC)?

    So far, the media's election blitz has proven remarkably successful.  The audience for the very first Republican debate of 2011 almost doubled the audience for the first Republican debate of the 2008 campaign.  And as this round of debates has gained steam, it has nearly doubled its own initial numbers.  Meanwhile, the media version of the election campaign is visibly becoming a too-big-to-fail juggernaut.  In the process, it seems that we, the citizens, the viewers, have been given an election life sentence.  Our job is to sit and watch while the action happens elsewhere.

    It's true that, on November 6, 2012, Americans will enter voting booths and choose a candidate for president, and that makes this an "election." But thinking of it that way won't get you far.  It's also true, that, on January 20, 2013, a newly elected president will step into the Oval Office.  What any of this has to do with democracy, as opposed to spectacle, influence, corruption, the power of the incredibly wealthy to pay for and craft messages, and the power of media owners to enhance their profits is certainly an open question. Think, at least, how literally the old phrase "money talks" is being updated every time you hear the candidates, or see their ads, or get a robocall from one of them, or receive a geo-targeted mobile ad of theirs on your iPhone or Android.

    It's clear enough -- or should be by now -- that the electoral process has been occupied by the 1%; which means that what you hear in this "campaign" is largely refracted versions of their praise, their condemnation, their slurs, their views, their needs, their fears, and their wishes.  They are making money off, and electing a president via, you.  Which means that you -- that all of us -- are occupied, too.

    So stop calling this an "election."  Whatever it is, we need a new name for it.

    -- How to Turn Election Year Into Election Life: Their Bread, Our Circus



    Parent
    Bad idea (2.00 / 1) (#89)
    by MKS on Thu Jan 05, 2012 at 11:57:37 AM EST
    You really, really want to duplicate 1968.

    You and Rove--same idea, apparently....

    The Occupy Movement changed the terms of the debate without being anti-Obama.  That is the model of how to push policy leftwards.  You want to ruin that--and the Occupy movement....

    And, there had been talk of how "Undecided" would have a strong showing in the Democratic Iowa caucuses.....Did not happen.  Not even close.

    Your nihilism is quite compatible with the Rove forces this cycle.    

    Parent

    "Y'er with us or y'er ag'in us." (5.00 / 1) (#157)
    by Mr Natural on Thu Jan 05, 2012 at 11:20:49 PM EST
    Love the way you channel the worst of George Dubya's provincialism.  You and your bivalent no middle ground fallacy of the excluded middle world.  Every post a cheap attempt at herding.

    Parent
    Nonsense (none / 0) (#159)
    by MKS on Thu Jan 05, 2012 at 11:59:35 PM EST
    The idea was to avoid the circular firing squad on the Left.  As I have said, supportng Progressive issues can work as shown by the Occupy Movement.

    Parent
    Who Signs the Checks... (5.00 / 1) (#60)
    by ScottW714 on Thu Jan 05, 2012 at 11:15:49 AM EST
    Obama thinks he needs a billion dollars and that ain't coming from mom & pops.  WS isn't going to like their horse playing those kinds of games.  I would think he can touch on it, but he can't make it the campaigns theme without some backlash.

    I don't think much strategy is needed, this is popularity contest, and Obama has the charisma. Romney can't relate to anyone but his most ordinate supporters.  Romney will slide right to get the hardcore votes as the election goes on.  So long as Obama keeps up with his inspiring speeches, he will win.

    Parent

    Obama's (and Romney's) paymasters (5.00 / 1) (#64)
    by kdog on Thu Jan 05, 2012 at 11:22:41 AM EST
    know the drill Scott...I don't think they mind being villified during the campaign, as long as they get what they pay for from whoever wins.

    Parent
    Villified, Sure... (none / 0) (#99)
    by ScottW714 on Thu Jan 05, 2012 at 12:24:12 PM EST
    ...but not the root of the campaign.  I know the wink/wink drill going on with the occupiers, but they don't want Obama standing at the exchange making grandiose speeches about 1%ers.

    I just don't see this angle being anything more then a line or two in the stump speeches.

    Speaking of 1%ers, saw on the news this morning, it you take home $34k (after taxes), you are a 1% in regards to the entire world.

    Parent

    Waiting on my W2's... (5.00 / 1) (#103)
    by kdog on Thu Jan 05, 2012 at 12:43:16 PM EST
    I may qualify! ;)  

    But obviously cost of living was not factored into that.  34 grand here is like 34 hundo in poorer countries.

     

    Parent

    Obama doesn't think he needs billions (none / 0) (#62)
    by AngryBlackGuy on Thu Jan 05, 2012 at 11:20:48 AM EST
    he does need billions.

    Look at how the super pacs killed Newt.  There is that and more coming out of Team Romney in the general election.

    I hate the rules too, but you cannot win without a gargantuan amount of money.  It is not possible.

    I think Obama will do better about receiving his contributions from more individuals, but demanding that he accept nothing from corporations is demanding that he lose to prove a point made moot by the supreme court.

    Parent

    Actually (5.00 / 2) (#66)
    by Ga6thDem on Thu Jan 05, 2012 at 11:24:03 AM EST
    you're making a good point that it's really not worthwhile worrying about who wins the presidency. If money is the problem then we need to focus on getting good reps in the house who can write legislation and will vote on legislation that will overturn Citizen United.

    Parent
    Who wins is very important (5.00 / 2) (#131)
    by cal1942 on Thu Jan 05, 2012 at 02:44:41 PM EST
    When we vote for a President we don't vote for one person we vote for a party.  That may come as a shock to the "I vote for the man' crowd but it's true.

    President make appointments to run and work in executive departments.  A President's choices, beyond the high profile White House staff and Cabinet positions, have a significant effect on the operation of federal agencies.

    Those choices come from the "talent" pool of his/her party.

    I don't want the GOP "talent" pool subverting the mission of federal agencies as they've always done in the past - 'heckuva job Brownie' ring a bell?

    Remember, Republicans always tell us that government doesn't work and every time they take over the government they prove it.

    Parent

    Fortunately, there are billionaires (none / 0) (#90)
    by MKS on Thu Jan 05, 2012 at 11:59:32 AM EST
    with good hearts.......How many is open to debate.  But hopefully enough to make up the difference until a remedy for Citizens United can be found.

    Parent
    See Montana Supreme Court (5.00 / 2) (#123)
    by jbindc on Thu Jan 05, 2012 at 02:22:21 PM EST
    Here

    Rejecting a landmark U.S. Supreme Court decision giving corporations the right to make independent campaign expenditures, the Montana Supreme Court has ruled that banning such spending is justified given Montana's long history of businesses corrupting the state's political process.

    Rejecting a landmark U.S. Supreme Court decision giving corporations the right to make independent campaign expenditures, the Montana Supreme Court has ruled that banning such spending is justified given Montana's long history of businesses corrupting the state's political process.

    The state high court ruled on Dec. 30 that the U.S. Supreme Court's decision last year in Citizens United v. Federal Election Commission did not apply to Montana's Corrupt Practices Law, which prohibits corporations from using general funds to make political contributions.



    Parent
    Actually... Deux (none / 0) (#118)
    by ScottW714 on Thu Jan 05, 2012 at 01:27:57 PM EST
    The Citizens decision wasn't legislated and proves appointees are pretty GD important.  Money is the problem, at least for now, because of the clown 'elected' in 2000.

    Parent
    Obama Thinks He's Reagan (none / 0) (#173)
    by norris morris on Sat Jan 07, 2012 at 01:23:23 PM EST
    Or sure admires and emulates him. A lot. What he says is not what he does. His millions$ must basically stem from Wall Street whom he loves complete ala Geithner.  Us litle people are not going to cough up. Many of us are broke and many of us know him to be just another pol. Bush tax cuts et al.

    Obama's recent act about permanent detention without charges is chilling and under-reported, but this guy must have big payouts and offer big promises to Wall Street.

    There is no difference between Obama and Romney except Romney has actual experience in running things. Both are however terrible choices in these terrible times.

    Parent

    He will win that way. (none / 0) (#74)
    by Edger on Thu Jan 05, 2012 at 11:33:37 AM EST
    Of that I have no doubt.

    One of them will win, and everyone else will lose.

    Funny thing is, if he had been pursuing populist policies, particularly domestic, and standing between the bankers and the people for the past three years, he could win by a landslide this year without the need for billions of dollars of corporate donations.

    He could have led the discontent that became OWS right out of the gate after his inauguration, when he still had the popularity, and surrounded Congress with thousands of people, as Conyers has suggested he do.

    Instead he sold out, and consequently needs billions to brainwash people with.

    Parent

    It would be interesting to see... (5.00 / 2) (#82)
    by kdog on Thu Jan 05, 2012 at 11:42:08 AM EST
    a candidate run on not raising money...and if it could work.

    You could make a spectacle out of not accepting bribes...everytime the opponent was holding one of those 20 grand a plate shindigs, the "I don't want your money" candidate could park his or herself outside and call the media...creative free or cheap alternatives to high-priced consultants and commercials and all the other bullsh*t they waste a billion dollars on.

    Parent

    Martin Luther King....... (none / 0) (#84)
    by Edger on Thu Jan 05, 2012 at 11:44:49 AM EST
    ...............?

    Parent
    Love to see a candidate in any campaign (none / 0) (#113)
    by christinep on Thu Jan 05, 2012 at 01:08:59 PM EST
    Going on TV ( etc.) to say that he/she won't accept big corporate $$$.  Major problem per the rules of the day: How does one raise sufficient $$$ needed to purchase air/media time or space to convey that message again & again!

    In the reality of today's campaigns, I'll be interested in seeing the percentage & absolue numbers of small $$$ donors to President Obama's campaign.  Based upon the efforts in that area (as well ad attention to appearances) I'm guessing that the numbers of small donors might be much higher than some others would guess.

    Parent

    Political Theater stunts... (5.00 / 2) (#119)
    by kdog on Thu Jan 05, 2012 at 01:34:26 PM EST
    like I said, what media outfit isn't gonna show up when Obama calls to say he's crashing Mitt's fundraiser?  

    What media outfit ain't gonna show up when Obama crashes the stock exchange to hand out dollar bills? "I don't want your money, but here you can have some of mine if it means so much to ya."

    Voila, free airtime. There are lots of ways to convey messages on the cheap or free, the only limit is one's imagination.

    Parent

    Good ideas, of course (none / 0) (#124)
    by christinep on Thu Jan 05, 2012 at 02:24:22 PM EST
    And, I really think those free-air time theaters work...once or twice...and in more localized campaigns. Yet...yech, I have to say it: Look at what we re-learned & re-this & that in Iowa with Newt...the day in-day out, prime time hour in-hour out of persistent, "brainwashing" negative ads take the nasty toll they intend to take.  We don't necessarily have to buy in completely; but, we do have to deal with it.

    Parent
    I hear ya... (5.00 / 1) (#134)
    by kdog on Thu Jan 05, 2012 at 02:54:12 PM EST
    who knows if it would work in the face of millions of dollars worth of Madison Ave. negative ads...the candidate would need to be nationally known already, or be an incumbent.  And be damn clever and charming.

    But I am of a strong opinion that the American people would eat it up...I think people are tired of negative ads and needing a billion to be pres.  Though their votes might not always back that up.

    Parent

    Your advice was (none / 0) (#91)
    by MKS on Thu Jan 05, 2012 at 12:01:48 PM EST
    for Obama to run ro re-election on putting Dick Cheney into jail.....

    I have no problem with putting Dick Cheney on trial for War Crimes, and have probably spent much more time tracking his nefarious deeds than you, but the idea that that would win an election shows how much you miss the mark.

    Parent

    "billions to brainwash" (none / 0) (#158)
    by Mr Natural on Thu Jan 05, 2012 at 11:25:07 PM EST
     - not a penny to the truth.

    Parent
    Yes, A Sellout (none / 0) (#174)
    by norris morris on Sat Jan 07, 2012 at 01:25:07 PM EST
    Thanks for your excellent post.

    Parent
    The pacs that will be churning out the commercials (5.00 / 1) (#79)
    by Militarytracy on Thu Jan 05, 2012 at 11:41:19 AM EST
    will clarify all of this for everyone my dude friend in the general.  You watch, they will give Glenn Beck style instruction on who has done what.  And then Romney will key on specific issues, how he would have tweaked things, been a real free marketer that would not have made the mistakes that Obama did that are now choking us and killing us.  It will be the equivalent of Romney saying he would never have voted for the AUMF, but that craptacular Clinton did :)  Prove that Romney wouldn't have made almost all the same choices given what was at stake.

    Parent
    Oh Yeah...And Romney (5.00 / 1) (#83)
    by Militarytracy on Thu Jan 05, 2012 at 11:43:09 AM EST
    Romney wouldn't have made those mistakes because he understands The Street, Obama doesn't and it is killing our country.

    Parent
    I don't think it'll be a big problem... (none / 0) (#144)
    by Addison on Thu Jan 05, 2012 at 04:39:13 PM EST
    The Republicans have been against every regulation -- past, present and future -- of Wall Street. They certainly had a broad window of opportunity to turn Obama's longstanding chumminess with Goldman Sachs and other such firms against him. But in denouncing regulation and actually embracing deregulation they blew it. They can whine about Wall Street and Obama, but it'll ring hollow. It'd really only be if a challenger from the left popped up that Obama would be truly vulnerable on that count.

    It's sort of like how GOP candidates get to be warmongering draft dodgers, the meme of strong Republican defense is so strong, and Democratic foreign policy goals often to poorly-communicated, that their personal incongruities seemingly evaporate as long as their opponent isn't preternaturally gifted at attacks. Romney isn't, he and his team are still stuck on the "Chicago style" stuff.

    Parent

    But I think you are missing the point (5.00 / 1) (#147)
    by Buckeye on Thu Jan 05, 2012 at 04:50:55 PM EST
    the debate is over what tactics Obama will use against Romney that will work.  Obama is neutered on this issue.  I doubt Romney will run that type of attack on Obama.  Romney is going to say Obama is f'ing up the economy with excessive regulation, taxes, debt, poor leadership, etc.  If Obama tries to paint Romney as a defender of the top 1%, Romney can counter that Obama pumped trillions into Wall Street and coddled bankers his entire first term.  That negates the attack.

    Parent
    Sorry to play devils advocate again (5.00 / 8) (#18)
    by Buckeye on Thu Jan 05, 2012 at 09:37:19 AM EST
    but I think Obama as the defender of the 99% and Romney is a defender of the 1% is going to be a tough sell.  Romney can simply look at Obama and say "well, you know how much public money I gave wall street?  Zero.  How many trillions did you let them loot the tresury?  In fact, you, Geitner, and the rest of your admin sat on your hands watching Wall Street pay themselves record bonuses while taking taxpayer money."  Romney can also mention that if he is such a monster and hates the poor, etc., then why did Obama nationalize his health care plan?  I think the flip flopper would also be weak.  Obama flipped on a lot of his views as well and independents will find the attack dull.

    I agree with the strategy of pinning Romney to the radicals of the republican party.  It would not be hard, just repeat what Romney wrote in his books and campaigned on during the primary.  Ending medicare, dream act opposition, a supporter of Brewer's lawsuit, etc.

    So is Romney going to say what he would have done (5.00 / 1) (#23)
    by ruffian on Thu Jan 05, 2012 at 09:47:58 AM EST
    differently? Dying to hear.

    I think Ron Paul could make that argument against Obama - it is certainly the best argument, and I wholeheartedly agree with it. But an establishment GOPer saying they would not have done the same things to help Wall St will not be very believable, to me anyway.

    Parent

    it's not just that (5.00 / 2) (#25)
    by CST on Thu Jan 05, 2012 at 09:51:30 AM EST
    it's also that he won't say it.  Romney is not going to run against Wall Street because that's not his platform.  He's running partly on his "private sector" experience.  He has aligned himself pretty firmly with Wall Street.  He's not going to pick that fight.

    Parent
    The thing (5.00 / 4) (#28)
    by Ga6thDem on Thu Jan 05, 2012 at 10:02:28 AM EST
    is it doesn't matter what Romney would have done. No one is going to care about that. It only matters what Obama has done and what Romney has actually done.

    Parent
    But they will have to say what they will do (none / 0) (#32)
    by ruffian on Thu Jan 05, 2012 at 10:13:29 AM EST
    in the future. No way Romney is going to come out with some anti-Wall St. agenda. Which will make all his talk about what Obama did in the past pretty hollow.

    Parent
    Obama (5.00 / 2) (#36)
    by Ga6thDem on Thu Jan 05, 2012 at 10:19:54 AM EST
    pretending to be for the 99% after all the policies he's pursued is pretty laughable. Romney and Obama should both be arguing who'd be better for the 1% and it'd be more honest to boot than either one of them pretending to care about the middle class in this country. Obama has a serious credibility problem and you could say the same thing about Romney too.

    Parent
    Yup, no argument there! (none / 0) (#37)
    by ruffian on Thu Jan 05, 2012 at 10:21:39 AM EST
    But it is already working (none / 0) (#94)
    by MKS on Thu Jan 05, 2012 at 12:07:52 PM EST
    Obama had done well with his championing of the 99%.  

    You project your own views onto others....Most do not agree with you.  The Right says he is a Socialist.  The Middle and most of the Left see him as now pursuing the goals of the 99%.

    Parent

    With who? (none / 0) (#102)
    by Ga6thDem on Thu Jan 05, 2012 at 12:41:14 PM EST
    According to the polls the nation is still divided and Obama is still tied with the GOP in a general election match up. If it was working I would think that he would be going up over 50% at least.

    Parent
    Polling better now than in September (none / 0) (#105)
    by MKS on Thu Jan 05, 2012 at 12:45:04 PM EST
    slight correction (none / 0) (#107)
    by The Addams Family on Thu Jan 05, 2012 at 12:45:42 PM EST
    The Middle and most of the Left see him as now pursuing the goals of the 99%.

    the middle & most of the Left now hear him saying that he is pursuing the goals of the 99 percent

    true, in an election year that is good enough for many, but there are also voters who use their eyes as well as their ears

    Parent

    To echo BTD, with Congress being run (none / 0) (#108)
    by MKS on Thu Jan 05, 2012 at 12:46:54 PM EST
    by Republicans, his options are limited.....

    Parent
    republicans do not run congress (5.00 / 1) (#111)
    by Buckeye on Thu Jan 05, 2012 at 01:03:47 PM EST
    the republicans run the house.  the dems run the senate.

    Parent
    Congress was not (5.00 / 2) (#120)
    by The Addams Family on Thu Jan 05, 2012 at 01:41:41 PM EST
    "run by Republicans" in 2009 & 2010, when Obama & his team made some crucial decisions that were the wrong ones, imo, & whose effects are still being felt by the "99 percent," as they will be for a long time to come

    it is this record that some voters will compare to what Obama is saying now, in an election year

    & the voters i am talking about are (mostly) not the ones (on what passes for the Left) who are comparing Obama's record to what Obama was saying on the campaign trail in 2007 & 2008 - i think most of those voters will vote for Obama again, despite their disappointment

    i am talking about a critical-thinking-capable segment of that portion of the 99 percent who are not ideologues & not "fans" of Obama or any other politician - one can hope that those voters will weigh the options & find Obama's corruption & duplicity less odious & less ingrained than Romney's

    but making that judgment will be a far cry from accepting the notion that Obama is actually pursuing policies that benefit the 99 percent - he mostly hasn't done that, in part because of his poor judgment regarding the depth & ferocity of the Republican opposition

    Parent

    Limited, yes. But not... (none / 0) (#161)
    by Romberry on Fri Jan 06, 2012 at 03:56:28 AM EST
    ...nonexistent. And in the first three years of his presidency, Obama refused to use the options that were available to him, And in many instances, those were some very powerful, potentially game changing options.

    One can argue over motivations for this behavior, but what matters is the effect. And the effect was that time after time, we were screwed and Obama effectively moved to the right.

    Parent

    Romney could say he would not (none / 0) (#33)
    by Buckeye on Thu Jan 05, 2012 at 10:13:30 AM EST
    have nationalized his health care plan in the teeth of one of the worst job markets in a century.  He could say he would not have wasted $800 billion on a stimulus plan he always knew would fail.  He could say he would never have bailed out Wall Street from their bad bets.  He would argue he would have shown some leadership on debt and hit Obama on the fact that we added $4T of debt and had our credit downgraded for the first time in history on his watch, etc.

    You and I don't believe any of this but Romney will have plenty of things to say.  

    More important though IMO is what happens to the economy?  If it improves, Obama wins.  If it doesn't, Obama is going to have to make people so terrified of Romney that they give Obama another term (they believe things will get much much worse for them if Obama is replaced with Romney).  I do not believe the first will happen.  The second I think is tough but doable (the "end Medicare as we know it" is powerful in elections - the biggest reason why the ACA was so unpopular was that people though it cut $500B out of Medicare).

    Parent

    The problem is (5.00 / 1) (#35)
    by CST on Thu Jan 05, 2012 at 10:17:44 AM EST
    Mitt Romney's own website currently says he was a strong supporter of TARP.

    He's not going to run against the Wall Street bailout.  Put that up against his article about letting Detroit fail and you have a serious problem.

    Parent

    This is not the argument (none / 0) (#65)
    by AngryBlackGuy on Thu Jan 05, 2012 at 11:23:51 AM EST
    Obama would make at all.  He can point to his repeated attempts to raise taxes on the wealthy, the hard fought concession he made on the Bush tax cuts (he gave in but people remember what side he was on) and dozens of other issues.

    The view of his actions are being warped here.  There is a stack of anti-wall street accomplishments he can point to which form a very good narrative.

    I think Obama has been substantially improved this year. BTD draws the line at August but I think he's been showing well all year.  My sense is that he's going to be able to run on his last 1.5 years and look very much like a 99% crusader.

    Parent

    In his health care bill (none / 0) (#85)
    by Buckeye on Thu Jan 05, 2012 at 11:45:00 AM EST
    people believe he took $500B out of medicare.  His admin pumped trillions into Wall Street. The Treasury department has been nothing but a subsidiary of Wall Street since Geitner has been there.  He continued the Bush tax policies when his party had super majorities in the house and senate.  He passed a regulatory reform bill that was so content free Goldman Sachs endorsed it.

    We both want Obama to win but peddle that shale somewhere else.

    Parent

    Roney's tax records when/if released (none / 0) (#121)
    by christinep on Thu Jan 05, 2012 at 01:43:47 PM EST
    Should play nicely into his image as Mr. 1 Percenter.  The image of personal Big Money--ala the Bush 1 grocery store scenario--has been built gradually by an astute WH political arm & by the candidate's cooments, acts.   For example: Romney's remarks yesterday calling the NLRB appointments a naming of "union stooges" is noticed and has negative consequence in states such as Michigan, Ohio. Pennsylvania (to add to his earlier comment criticizing auto company bailouts.)

    'Awaiting his comments  about  the Cordray appointment...MT spotted that...oh where, oh where will he go...with Scott Brown or with the rest of his Repubs?

    Parent

    Romney was for TARP. He's neutered on the issue. (none / 0) (#145)
    by Addison on Thu Jan 05, 2012 at 04:40:04 PM EST
    But that is not the point. (none / 0) (#146)
    by Buckeye on Thu Jan 05, 2012 at 04:47:03 PM EST
    So is Obama.  If Obama says Romney only cares about the top 1%, Romney could remind voters how much Obama pumped into Wall Street.  We are debating what tactics Obama can use against Romney.  I think with Obama's record, he is neutered as well.  Romney is not going to run his campaign saying Obama is only for the top 1%.  If Obama tries to do that to Romney he is neutered.

    Parent
    Do you really think Americans are that dumb? (5.00 / 4) (#20)
    by trillian on Thu Jan 05, 2012 at 09:42:17 AM EST
    When the biggest defender of Wall St for the past four years attacks his opponent for being tied to Wall St, I would think that most people would see right through it.....but what do I know.  

    Is that a trick question? (5.00 / 4) (#21)
    by ruffian on Thu Jan 05, 2012 at 09:43:32 AM EST
    reminds me of (none / 0) (#26)
    by CST on Thu Jan 05, 2012 at 09:51:56 AM EST
    this goody.

    Parent
    So the concensus seems to be.... (none / 0) (#75)
    by trillian on Thu Jan 05, 2012 at 11:33:53 AM EST
    ....that Obama's strategy is counting on the voting public being dumb as a sack of hammers?

    Parent
    You project the view of the Left onto (5.00 / 1) (#93)
    by MKS on Thu Jan 05, 2012 at 12:05:23 PM EST
    everyone else.

    Sure, many on the on Left, and really not that many but some, may have that view.  But most do not.

    So, his defense of the 99% will work.  It has already worked.

     

    Parent

    So only Lefties notice that he defends Wall St? (5.00 / 2) (#149)
    by trillian on Thu Jan 05, 2012 at 05:10:27 PM EST
    rotfl.  Sure.

    Parent
    The problem I see with Obama casting (5.00 / 4) (#24)
    by Anne on Thu Jan 05, 2012 at 09:49:03 AM EST
    himself as the champion of working Americans is the huge number of Americans who aren't working, and the numbers who have gone back to work making less than they were before, thanks to unemployment-created wage-and-benefit depression - which doesn't show any indications of reversing itself.  

    Unemployment is not going to be ignored in this campaign - and I think that Obama, as the one in charge (and doesn't he have to cast himself as the one in charge, as opposed to the helpless victim of Congressional obstruction he's tended to fall back on?  I mean, who wants someone in charge who claims to be helpless?) doesn't have much in his defensive game plan, does he?

    The much bigger problem, as I see it, is that Obama's policies don't scream "Champion of the 99%" as much as they do "Man, I love me some Wall Street bankers!"   Will Romney and Obama end up arguing over which one's policies will be more, um, compassionate as the old, the poor and the sick are readied for the onslaught of austerity that I don't see any indication isn't coming one way or the other?

    I have no doubt that Obama will campaign as something the last three years have proven him not to be, and I guess we'll have to see if it works, or if Romney can somehow engineer the rhetoric to make this an I-know-you-are-but-what-am-I campaign that is going to drive most of us right around the bend.

    Really dreading the kabuki that all of this has become.


    This election is going to be painful (5.00 / 1) (#29)
    by Buckeye on Thu Jan 05, 2012 at 10:06:01 AM EST
    On one side - Romney.  A born rich venture capital vampire who made hundreds of millions acquiring companies and sucking the life from them trying to convince people he cares about the poor and get America back to full employment.

    On the other - Obama.  The incumbent trying to obfuscate his record and convince people he will not do in his second term what he did in his first (line Wall Street's pockets, nationalize conservative health plans, ignore homeowners, unemployed, etc.) and will actually champion working people.

    Romney will blame everything wrong with the economy on Obama (unfair).  Obama will respond with ad hominem attacks against Romney trying to scare people from voting for him.

    Painful.

    Parent

    Kabuki is exactly right (none / 0) (#27)
    by ruffian on Thu Jan 05, 2012 at 09:53:22 AM EST
    It is all going to be about who can sell the narrative.

    Parent
    Re: Helplessness (none / 0) (#71)
    by BTAL on Thu Jan 05, 2012 at 11:30:37 AM EST
    The bumper sticker slogan:

    Blame
    We can believe in

    • It's congress' fault
    • We've become lazy
    • Earthquakes & Tsunamis
    • Europe/Greece/Euro

    Carter tried a similar argument with his Crisis of Confidence "malaise" speech.  

    Parent
    I knew Jimmy Carter (5.00 / 1) (#72)
    by Capt Howdy on Thu Jan 05, 2012 at 11:31:44 AM EST
    I voted for Jimmy Carter.

    Obama is no Jimmy Carter

    Parent

    I knew Jimmy Carter (none / 0) (#76)
    by BTAL on Thu Jan 05, 2012 at 11:35:12 AM EST
    I voted for Jimmy Carter

    I served under Jimmy Carter

    Obama trying the deflect any responsibility away from himself as the guy sitting in the big boy seat is as weak as Carter.

    Parent

    You forgot (none / 0) (#80)
    by Ga6thDem on Thu Jan 05, 2012 at 11:41:25 AM EST
    to mention both Bushes. Bush I blamed the "global recession" for his problems and Bush II blamed Bill Clinton for everything. I guess if little Bush got up and didn't have any clean underwear to wear that day, he would swear that Bill Clinton had stolen all his clean underwear!

    Parent
    Correct. Sitting POTUS' laying blame (none / 0) (#88)
    by BTAL on Thu Jan 05, 2012 at 11:49:36 AM EST
    is not new.

    Trying to use it as an election tactic/strategy is.

    Parent

    If Obama runs an election trying to tell (5.00 / 1) (#96)
    by Buckeye on Thu Jan 05, 2012 at 12:09:36 PM EST
    people they are suffering and he is the one to look out for them, after presiding over that suffering for 4 years, yeah he will lose.

    Obama would be the first President in the history of Democracy to preside over the worst deprivation in that country's history, and then use that deprivation as the basis for his reelection.

    Parent

    Actually (5.00 / 1) (#101)
    by Ga6thDem on Thu Jan 05, 2012 at 12:39:06 PM EST
    Obama is running a repeat of Bush's '04 reelection campaign. Is this is a good thing? Probably not considering how Bush's 2nd term went down but you go into an election with what you have not what you wish you had. And when you don't have anything, you just make it about the other guy.

    Parent
    Problem is in 2004, the right track wrong track (none / 0) (#170)
    by Buckeye on Fri Jan 06, 2012 at 12:18:58 PM EST
    was 40 points higher than today (majority believing we are heading in right direction, today majority think we are heading in right direction), consumer confidence was 30 points higher, we were at full employment, defecits were only $100B not $1T - $1.5T.  In spite of all that, if Kerry convinced 50K-75K Ohioans who voted for Bush to vote for him instead, he would have still won.  Obama is in much worse shape in this election than Bush was in 2004.

    Parent
    Oh, I know (none / 0) (#171)
    by Ga6thDem on Fri Jan 06, 2012 at 12:50:02 PM EST
    but the electorate never was really much in love with Bush considering that he couldn't even win the popular vote in 2000. Bush was able to eke out a win but using fear of terrorism and promising utopia to evangelicals. I really think that was the last hurrah for evangelical turnout.

    Parent
    This isn't hard (none / 0) (#106)
    by AngryBlackGuy on Thu Jan 05, 2012 at 12:45:33 PM EST
    One set of excuses is a lie and the other set is true. The fact that excuses were fraudulently used doesn't mean that other excuses are invalid.

    It is unfair to lump all excuses.

    Economists, before Obama took office, were estimating that it could take 7-10 years to undo the recession. Pointing to that logic later is less excuse giving than it is a reminder of an unfortunate truth.

    Parent

    yeah well (none / 0) (#98)
    by Capt Howdy on Thu Jan 05, 2012 at 12:22:57 PM EST
    to bad Jimmy didnt have his political team

    Parent
    The real kayo for Carter emanated from (none / 0) (#133)
    by christinep on Thu Jan 05, 2012 at 02:52:18 PM EST
    ...Iran.  So far, President Obama has set a strong, respectable foreign policy. Based on his adept handling of the world state-of-play as he entered the scene, I doubt that Obama will be stumble when it comes to Iran (even tho all the traps are now there & the assorted drummers on the right have started with the loud rhythms.)

    Further: In the area of domestic policy, Obama continually is seen to strike a balance between what he has inherited and the steps forward. The good news--knock wood--has been accumulating as to the economic state of the country. Still holding the breath...but, the gains are looking more solid.  My major concern: A reprise of European monetary crisis, with its unraveling effect. (Amid any such crisis, of course, would be the increasing chorus of Repubs enunciating how "we don't want to be like Euope, now, do we?" and more suggestions that the President would transform us into a failed socialiskt-like country. Repubs started chirping that one as a warm-up during the last EU crisis.)

    Parent

    but seriously (5.00 / 1) (#43)
    by Capt Howdy on Thu Jan 05, 2012 at 10:36:43 AM EST
    I dont think its going to be that hard.  I just saw no less a person than McCain say that the thought AZ,NV,NM,CO and even TX could all be in play because of the hispanic vote.  as I said yesterday I think the south could be in play because of the Mormon thing.

    Romneys only job in the "private sector" was raiding companies, closing them down and shipping jobs over seas.  there was a guy on tv last night talking about how when Bain took over his company everyone was fired then invited to reapply to get jobs with no benefits, much lower wages and longer hours.  no doubt there are hundreds of those guys out there.

    I just said in another thread that I am starting to think this election could be an Obama electoral landslide.  I am.

    and I would add (5.00 / 0) (#46)
    by Capt Howdy on Thu Jan 05, 2012 at 10:43:16 AM EST
    that thanks to the disastrous republican party I will predict right now that Obama will not only win - easily - we will keep the senate and take back the  house.

    write in down.  you heard it here first.

    Parent

    Didn't you also completely (none / 0) (#63)
    by BTAL on Thu Jan 05, 2012 at 11:22:33 AM EST
    miss the last mid-term shellacking, projecting the Dems would not lose the House?  

    Parent
    I can't (none / 0) (#69)
    by Ga6thDem on Thu Jan 05, 2012 at 11:26:56 AM EST
    speak for him but I saw the losses coming last November. My projection for this November right now is that it looks to be very close as long as Romney is the GOP nominee. If the GOP manages to nominate one of their nut cases, then Obama is going to get a landslide.

    Parent
    Yes you did (none / 0) (#73)
    by BTAL on Thu Jan 05, 2012 at 11:32:13 AM EST
    but CH didn't.

    Parent
    btw (none / 0) (#122)
    by Capt Howdy on Thu Jan 05, 2012 at 01:55:07 PM EST
    Im taking bets

    Parent
    No way, you have too good of a track (none / 0) (#141)
    by MKS on Thu Jan 05, 2012 at 03:50:56 PM EST
    record, haivng call Harry Reid as the winner when no one else did.

    Parent
    Agree. (none / 0) (#92)
    by Buckeye on Thu Jan 05, 2012 at 12:02:25 PM EST
    There are only 2 people that have any remote shot at beating Romney in the primary: Huntsman and Perry.  If Huntsman has a Santorum-like surge in New Hampshire and either wins or drastically outperforms expectations finishing second, that could breath life into his campaign and he could perhaps consolidate the repubs not inclined to vote for Romney.  If that does not happen (and I highly doubt it will), would repubs in South Carolina vote for Perry?  He has been building an org down there.  Bachmann is out so he could grab her piddly support.  Santorum has nothing, absolutely nothing, outside of Iowa.  Gingrich is falling off a cliff (unfortunately just figuratively).  Could Perry do in SCAR what he did not do in Iowa?  I strongly doubt it, but he has the money and org to go 50 states with Romney.

    IMO, if either of those two things do not happen in New Hamp or SC, its over.  They won't, so its over.

    Parent

    The SC (none / 0) (#104)
    by Ga6thDem on Thu Jan 05, 2012 at 12:43:32 PM EST
    hail mary is what Edwards tried in '08 but, you know, there's always a first time for everything and maybe it might work this time for Perry. People talk about Romney having no base of support but I actually think Romney does have a base of support--it's the money people in the GOP. Who exactly does Perry have supporting him? It seems that everyone has abandoned him.

    Parent
    Romney has the GOP establishment and (none / 0) (#109)
    by Buckeye on Thu Jan 05, 2012 at 12:58:59 PM EST
    North Eastern moderate republicans who have a lot of scratch.  His base in the general will be every person that does not want Obama to be President.  We have to hope that number does not exceed 50%.  For those who say Romney has no base of support, they are wrong IMO.

    Parent
    He got the Harry Reid race right (none / 0) (#100)
    by MKS on Thu Jan 05, 2012 at 12:24:39 PM EST
    He was the only one who did as I recall....

    I did say the Democratic turnout operation was good in Nevada, but probably not good enough to overcome the 5% he was down in the public polls.

    You conservatives hang out at Real Clear Politics.  The Democrats are winning the Generic Congressional Vote--even with your pollster Rasmussen counting towards the average.  Take him out, and it is a strong Democratic lead.

    Parent

    "shellacking" (none / 0) (#116)
    by Capt Howdy on Thu Jan 05, 2012 at 01:23:32 PM EST
    yes.  the tea party won big.  and the voters have had a really good opportunity to see just what the got.

    that was then.  this is now.  its not me who is slow on the upchuck.

    Parent

    "Uptake?" (none / 0) (#142)
    by MKS on Thu Jan 05, 2012 at 03:52:44 PM EST
    Or did you really mean "upchuck?"

    Parent
    god bless my mom (5.00 / 0) (#153)
    by Capt Howdy on Thu Jan 05, 2012 at 05:32:10 PM EST
    the source of all my doofy old sayings including that one

    Parent
    He also predicted (none / 0) (#127)
    by jbindc on Thu Jan 05, 2012 at 02:30:42 PM EST
    That there was "no way" Romney would be the nominee.  He could still be right, but it's most unlikely.

    Parent
    I dont remember saying no way (none / 0) (#150)
    by Capt Howdy on Thu Jan 05, 2012 at 05:19:58 PM EST
    but I may have.  I still think it is not close to being a sure thing.

    Parent
    arent you going to take (none / 0) (#151)
    by Capt Howdy on Thu Jan 05, 2012 at 05:22:40 PM EST
    credit for predicting Romneys decisive victory in Iowa and my "incorrect" prediction that Santorum would win?

    Parent
    and while I am here (none / 0) (#152)
    by Capt Howdy on Thu Jan 05, 2012 at 05:31:09 PM EST
    a question for you to consider.  

    what do you think happens if Santorum comes from, what is it 5% now, to within 10 points of so of Romney and comes in second?

    I honestly have no idea if that will happen but some people are predicting that with the large Catholic population in NH Ricky could surprise again.

    what do you think happens then?  
    ps
    lets add that all the bible thumpers meeting in TX this weekend decide to get behind him.

    Parent

    btw (none / 0) (#156)
    by Capt Howdy on Thu Jan 05, 2012 at 05:53:24 PM EST
    my answer to that question is, at a minimum, Vice President Santorum

    Parent
    oh (none / 0) (#155)
    by Capt Howdy on Thu Jan 05, 2012 at 05:37:18 PM EST
    and there is a reason what Santorum did in Iowa is not the same as Huckabee or Robertson.

    two words.  Mitt Romney

    Parent

    Ground Hog Day (none / 0) (#110)
    by ScottW714 on Thu Jan 05, 2012 at 01:00:22 PM EST
    I will predict right now that Obama will not only win - easily - we will keep the senate and take back the  house.

    I agree, but so what, we will be exactly where we were four years previously and that didn't work out real well.

    Obama won't take Texas, but I bet the margin is smaller than 12 points.  After four years of being kicked around by republicans, I think the Hispanic votes will increase, and Romney will decrease the other white vote.

    Parent

    I have to believe the floor for repubs (none / 0) (#112)
    by Buckeye on Thu Jan 05, 2012 at 01:07:35 PM EST
    are the states McCain won in 2008.  Considering how terrible he and Palin were as candidates and everything that was going on in the 4th quarter of that year, any state he could win in that environment they will have to win again.  The question is, does Romney win any others?  I think NC, Indiana, Virginia, and Florida are definately there for him.  That gets him close but not enough.  This is going to be decided like all the rest IMO, battleground states.

    What Obama and congressional repubs have done will not matter nearly as much in those states as what Kasich, Walker, etc. have done.

    Parent

    What I'm (5.00 / 1) (#114)
    by Ga6thDem on Thu Jan 05, 2012 at 01:17:35 PM EST
    going to find interesting is what is going to happen in the congressional elections. What I can see right now is that the congressional candidates do not want to run with either Romney or Obama and do not want to be associated with a lot of these governors.

    Parent
    Yep, good point. (none / 0) (#117)
    by Buckeye on Thu Jan 05, 2012 at 01:27:50 PM EST
    Another reason why this election is going to be so painful.  Nobody will have coattails.

    Parent
    How has gerrymandering (none / 0) (#128)
    by jbindc on Thu Jan 05, 2012 at 02:31:55 PM EST
    Affected districts in Texas?

    Parent
    In Regards to the Republican Primaries ? (none / 0) (#136)
    by ScottW714 on Thu Jan 05, 2012 at 03:15:09 PM EST
    If they are anything like the Dem primaries rules I will need to attend night school every night until the election to understand it.

    Gerrymandering only makes waves before, no one, or at least me, pays attention once it's done.  I went from Delay's district, through a move, to Jackson Lee's, so with the pant loads I had/have representing me, I pay little attention.

    The big one was made when Delay was in office, before the last election, maybe 6/7 years ago.


    Parent

    Dunno about TExas but here in PA (none / 0) (#162)
    by smott on Fri Jan 06, 2012 at 08:13:47 AM EST
    It's rampant, esp in my area Western PA. Dem seats disappearing and so on.

    I think PA is on the edge of going red in 2012. Not if Santorum is on the ticket tho.

    Parent

    McCain (none / 0) (#47)
    by Ga6thDem on Thu Jan 05, 2012 at 10:45:36 AM EST
    carried Texas by 12 points in '08 so thinking that it is in play this year is pure fantasy. NM has always been a swing state so I don't know what the deal is about that. Obama carried CO and NV in '08 didn't he? The only thing that McCain is saying that might be considered newsworthy is AZ.

    The south isn't going to be in play at all I wouldn't think.

    Parent

    we will see (none / 0) (#51)
    by Capt Howdy on Thu Jan 05, 2012 at 10:54:32 AM EST
    That's spot on... (none / 0) (#166)
    by masslib on Fri Jan 06, 2012 at 09:25:05 AM EST
    He literally is the anti job creator.

    Parent
    How to run against Romney? (5.00 / 1) (#54)
    by Dadler on Thu Jan 05, 2012 at 11:04:58 AM EST
    Easy.  Just require him to actually think every few minutes, and the steam will start puffing out from his ears quickly, followed by the sound of clanking metal, ending in a complete engine breakdown.  The guy is a bot.

    If ever there was a need for a Rocky Anderson.... (5.00 / 1) (#68)
    by trillian on Thu Jan 05, 2012 at 11:25:35 AM EST
    ....or someone like him....the time is now. : /

    you do know he is running, right? (none / 0) (#97)
    by Capt Howdy on Thu Jan 05, 2012 at 12:21:30 PM EST
    he has even started his own party.  the Justice Party.

    good luck with that

    Parent

    Obama Should... (5.00 / 1) (#115)
    by ScottW714 on Thu Jan 05, 2012 at 01:22:55 PM EST
    ... champion Massachusetts Health Care as the basis of this own plan.  Right now seems like it would be much easier to align with Romney to alienate the GOP who doesn't trust the guy.  Imagine ad after ad of Obama thanking Romney for the Health Care framework...

    I think the public is sick of the fighting, but that is where this end up and I predict, not that it's hard, voter turn-out will be dismal.

    I joke, I don't think Obama has to do much, his charisma and debationg skills far outweigh Romney's disconnect and general uncomfortableness on stage.

    Just how exactly does that work? (none / 0) (#154)
    by BTAL on Thu Jan 05, 2012 at 05:35:47 PM EST
    Thank you for the idea for MY program that everyone hates.  

    That'll take a nuanance parsing ear on steroids to be effective.

    Also, easily countered:  Mr. Obama "my" program is only in "my" state.  YOUR program effects EVERY American.  

    Romney has had to deal with this continually in the primaries.

    Parent

    The GOP does NOT control Congress (none / 0) (#1)
    by jbindc on Thu Jan 05, 2012 at 08:58:16 AM EST
    They control the House.  The Democrats control the Senate.

    Although, that is the argument the Obama folks will be making for re-election - he can't get anything done because of a Republican-controlled Congress.  Sad things is - most people will believe them.

    cmon now (none / 0) (#2)
    by CST on Thu Jan 05, 2012 at 08:59:53 AM EST
    it's also true.

    Whether we have the senate or not, the Republican-controlled house is making it impossible to get anything done.

    Parent

    Wah-Wah (5.00 / 1) (#3)
    by jbindc on Thu Jan 05, 2012 at 09:03:30 AM EST
    What was the excuse when the Dems controlled both houses?

    It's NOT true.  Unless you are making the argument that Harry Reid and the Senate Dem leadership are so weak, even though they are in the majority, that they cannot do anything.  If that's the argument you are making, then there really is no good argument as to why they should be re-elected and returned to power.

    It's truly a lame argument.

    Parent

    The House is a veto point (none / 0) (#7)
    by Big Tent Democrat on Thu Jan 05, 2012 at 09:07:02 AM EST
    At this point, it is hard to get basic stuff done, much less GOOD stuff.

    Effective legislating ended in December 2010.

    Certainly alot of opportunities were missed in the 2 years prior, and I think I laid out my arguments here as to what I think they should have done, both in terms of policies and tactics.

    But I am talking about what can be done now. Now nothing can be done through Congress.

    I do think more can be done on the mortgage crisis. The 30 billion left over from TARP that is unrestricted for use by Treasury  is still sitting there.

    Parent

    Interesting (none / 0) (#4)
    by Big Tent Democrat on Thu Jan 05, 2012 at 09:03:59 AM EST
    So what legislation would you like to see passed without the approval of the House?

    Parent
    I dunno (none / 0) (#6)
    by jbindc on Thu Jan 05, 2012 at 09:04:47 AM EST
    What legislation would you like to see without the approval of the Senate?

    Parent
    None (none / 0) (#8)
    by Big Tent Democrat on Thu Jan 05, 2012 at 09:07:47 AM EST
    You can't approve legislation without the Senate.

    That goes for the House too.

    Sort of my point about how nothing can get done now.

    Parent

    Yup, Obama has no legislative agenda for this (none / 0) (#12)
    by ruffian on Thu Jan 05, 2012 at 09:13:20 AM EST
    year. There is nothing to gain by getting into any drawn out battles with Boehner and Cantor. I think the actions in the fall put everyone on the record, and that is what they will have to run on. I think Obama came out with the stronger material for a populist message.

    Parent
    yes (none / 0) (#9)
    by CST on Thu Jan 05, 2012 at 09:08:43 AM EST
    you've established that things can't get through without Dem approval.

    That's true.  That's why nothing can happen right now.  Because nothing will have senate and house approval.

    You can't pass anything through just one house of congress.

    Parent

    So we all agree then (none / 0) (#13)
    by jbindc on Thu Jan 05, 2012 at 09:13:59 AM EST
    It is NOT a GOP controlled Congress, but rather a badly divided obstructionist Congress that will not let our champion of truth and justice get anything done.

    Parent
    Perception (5.00 / 1) (#135)
    by christinep on Thu Jan 05, 2012 at 03:07:55 PM EST
    The perception, jbindc, appears to be that the Repubs (Boehner, Cantor & all the boys) are responsible for the deadlock, do-nothingism, etc. Thats what I hear on the mainstream news, what I read in the papers, and what I hear in casual conversation with apolitical/mostly apolitical neighbors. Perception...that thing that IS reality in politics.

    Parent
    they are all just as bad as each other (none / 0) (#15)
    by CST on Thu Jan 05, 2012 at 09:17:23 AM EST
    is not an argument I even come close to buying.

    Bills can pass through a semi-divided senate.

    The Republican House is bat$hit, going scorched earth.

    No one is calling Obama anything like that but you.  We are just pointing out that there will be no legislation coming in the pipeline.

    Parent

    And this is new? (5.00 / 1) (#125)
    by jbindc on Thu Jan 05, 2012 at 02:28:05 PM EST
    The problem with that argument is that 1) nothing ever gets done in an election year - not news, and 2) What's his excuse for the last 3 years, especially when 2 of the 3 years he had a Democratically-controlled Congress?

    Whining about a divided Congress now is weak.  If a president is so weak that he is impotent, then what's the point of having him there?

    Parent

    to stop (5.00 / 1) (#129)
    by CST on Thu Jan 05, 2012 at 02:33:27 PM EST
    the crazy

    Parent
    Great campaign slogan (none / 0) (#130)
    by jbindc on Thu Jan 05, 2012 at 02:42:15 PM EST
    "Vote for me. I'll stop the crazy."

    Parent
    who said anything about campaign slogan (none / 0) (#132)
    by CST on Thu Jan 05, 2012 at 02:47:43 PM EST
    I'm just saying it's true.

    Parent
    As they should (none / 0) (#67)
    by AngryBlackGuy on Thu Jan 05, 2012 at 11:24:35 AM EST
    it is the truth.

    Parent
    Correction (none / 0) (#87)
    by ScottW714 on Thu Jan 05, 2012 at 11:45:39 AM EST
    The D's have a majority in the Senate, but they certainly don't control it.

    Parent
    Then (5.00 / 1) (#126)
    by jbindc on Thu Jan 05, 2012 at 02:28:37 PM EST
    That is their own fault.

    Parent
    Agreed 100% (none / 0) (#137)
    by ScottW714 on Thu Jan 05, 2012 at 03:17:33 PM EST
    I am no apologist, they let the R's walk all over them and then had the temerity to blame them for their failures.

    Parent
    Legislation starts in the House. (none / 0) (#165)
    by masslib on Fri Jan 06, 2012 at 09:23:48 AM EST
    The House controls the agenda.

    Parent
    I hope they don't go with the lame flip-flopping (none / 0) (#5)
    by ruffian on Thu Jan 05, 2012 at 09:04:22 AM EST
    attacks. That might be what hardline GOPers don't like about him but it bores me to tears. Plus, most of the rest of us applaud him for not really believing the right wing crapola.

    That reminded me of (5.00 / 1) (#10)
    by Big Tent Democrat on Thu Jan 05, 2012 at 09:08:53 AM EST
    Rahmbo's "brilliant" idea to run the 2006 campaign on "Corruption" and Abramoff instead of Iraq. Luckily, events overtook his stupidity.

    Parent
    Kind of hard to run on complicated GOP corruption (5.00 / 1) (#16)
    by ruffian on Thu Jan 05, 2012 at 09:18:28 AM EST
    schemes, however valid, after a Dem caught with actual money in a freezer.

    Parent
    Mr. 1% (none / 0) (#11)
    by CST on Thu Jan 05, 2012 at 09:09:19 AM EST
    is the way to go.

    Parent
    Yup - and it has the virtue of being simple (5.00 / 2) (#14)
    by ruffian on Thu Jan 05, 2012 at 09:14:29 AM EST
    For once the Dems got handed a simple message. Thank you, OWS.

    Parent
    I don't (none / 0) (#31)
    by Ga6thDem on Thu Jan 05, 2012 at 10:13:13 AM EST
    think that the campaigns are really going to matter that much this time. People are either going to walk into the voting booth in November and see Romney as an acceptable alternative and fire Obama or they aren't. Right now they want to fire Obama. His numbers are bad but of course that can all change.

    His numbers have improved (none / 0) (#164)
    by masslib on Fri Jan 06, 2012 at 09:22:52 AM EST
    with the economy.  All Obama needs is for the economy to hold where it is and he'll win.

    Parent
    Actually (none / 0) (#167)
    by Ga6thDem on Fri Jan 06, 2012 at 11:25:34 AM EST
    at the current numbers he'll lose reelection.

    Parent
    This is how you run against Romney (none / 0) (#38)
    by CST on Thu Jan 05, 2012 at 10:23:28 AM EST
    from his own website:

    "Romney has consistently held that the bank bailouts were unfortunate but necessary and the auto bailouts should never have happened and were an abuse of the TARP money"

    That pretty much says everything right there.

    Don't (none / 0) (#40)
    by Ga6thDem on Thu Jan 05, 2012 at 10:27:18 AM EST
    know that that really makes much of a difference outside of MI.

    Parent
    I think it's a pretty stark (none / 0) (#41)
    by CST on Thu Jan 05, 2012 at 10:29:14 AM EST
    juxtoposition anywhere.

    It's not just about the specific jobs.  It's about who you stand up for.

    Parent

    You know what (none / 0) (#42)
    by Ga6thDem on Thu Jan 05, 2012 at 10:36:09 AM EST
    though? I don't think people are going to care that much because Obama has had three going on four years to prove himself and he has done little to nothing for the middle class even to the point of being condescending about who "deserves" something and who does not. Now whether that ends up hurting him or not remains to be seen but it isn't '08 and this time Obama has a record and it's not a good one at all.

    Parent
    that is (none / 0) (#44)
    by Capt Howdy on Thu Jan 05, 2012 at 10:37:41 AM EST
    pure nonsense

    Parent
    What has (none / 0) (#48)
    by Ga6thDem on Thu Jan 05, 2012 at 10:48:50 AM EST
    he done for the middle class? The biggest thing has been the housing crisis and he has said that he won't do an HOLC or anything similiar because some people might get something they don't "deserve". The middle class has CONTINUED to take it on the chin under Obama. His economic advisors think that we need a larger decline in our already declining wages and should not be allowed to stay in our houses.

    Parent
    what th (none / 0) (#50)
    by Capt Howdy on Thu Jan 05, 2012 at 10:54:01 AM EST
    have you been asleep for the last three months?

    every poll is showing Obama if favored on everything from the economy to taxes and particularly on protecting the middle class.  I know that must be tough for you but google it.

    and we are about to see yet another absurd pointless high profile showdown with obama protecting the middle class tax cuts.

    Parent

    I'm talking (none / 0) (#52)
    by Ga6thDem on Thu Jan 05, 2012 at 11:00:40 AM EST
    about what Obama has actually said and done. His numbers on the economy are abysmal. Only 33% of the public approves of his handling of the economy.

    Parent
    elections are about choices (none / 0) (#53)
    by Capt Howdy on Thu Jan 05, 2012 at 11:03:06 AM EST
    check out his numbers COMPARED to the republicans.


    Parent
    He's polling (none / 0) (#56)
    by Ga6thDem on Thu Jan 05, 2012 at 11:10:51 AM EST
    even with the GOP right now.

    Parent
    on what (none / 0) (#58)
    by Capt Howdy on Thu Jan 05, 2012 at 11:11:34 AM EST
    in what poll

    Parent
    RCP (none / 0) (#59)
    by Ga6thDem on Thu Jan 05, 2012 at 11:15:33 AM EST
    rolling average has him neck and neck with Romney. Here's the generic GOP poll

    Parent
    of course that is not what I was talking about. (none / 0) (#70)
    by Capt Howdy on Thu Jan 05, 2012 at 11:30:09 AM EST
    and the fact is in this economy and after being hammered for months by all the republican nominees that is rather amazing if you ask me.

    this is what I was talking about from gallup
    there is plenty more to google but I will leave that to you.

    do you have more confidence in President Obama and the Democrats in Congress or the Republicans in Congress?"

    Obama/Democrats     Republicans     Both/Same
                %     %   

    12/27/11

    41     34     1     


    Parent

    Those (none / 0) (#78)
    by Ga6thDem on Thu Jan 05, 2012 at 11:39:36 AM EST
    numbers aren't good. They are horrible and they are saying both parties are bad on the economy. Maybe you think 41% is good but I sure don't and the fact that the GOP is only 7 pts behind??? It certainly does not point to a landslide for anybody next fall.

    Parent
    someone has to win n/t (none / 0) (#81)
    by CST on Thu Jan 05, 2012 at 11:41:45 AM EST
    That (none / 0) (#86)
    by Ga6thDem on Thu Jan 05, 2012 at 11:45:25 AM EST
    is why I'm sticking to my it's "going to be close" analysis so far. Those numbers Howdy pointed to don't show any confidence in either party really but I can understand that as no one is really offering any solutions to the problems.

    Parent
    Ga6th: generic polls in winter (none / 0) (#138)
    by christinep on Thu Jan 05, 2012 at 03:20:30 PM EST
    often give the advantage to the unknown challenger or the maybe challenger. It is the ol' "someday my prince will come" or "someone will come along & save the situation." Typically, also, the challenger gets the pile-on scrutiny once formally named. At that point, the usual pattern is for the burden to shift to the challenger...i.e., show us what you would do better. Surprisingly, people more often then not opt for what they know rather than what they don't know.

    I put caution on my own comments to the extent that, as Buckeye posits, it is possible for things to get worse economically or not be seen as moving. Right now, tho, the economic component seems to be gaining traction in a positive direction (per the majority of economic reports the past month or two.)

    Parent

    No (none / 0) (#143)
    by Ga6thDem on Thu Jan 05, 2012 at 03:54:15 PM EST
    I'm talking about "confidence to fix the economy" kind of thing. The polls are showing that voters really don't have any confidence in either party.

    Right now the majority of voters want to fire Obama but aren't sold on Romney.

    Parent

    IMO (none / 0) (#39)
    by Capt Howdy on Thu Jan 05, 2012 at 10:25:48 AM EST
    all the need to do is play the Romney laugh over over and over and over.  rinse and repeat.

    And, with some subtleness, (none / 0) (#55)
    by oculus on Thu Jan 05, 2012 at 11:06:13 AM EST
    remind everyone he was a leader in LDS and is a practicing member.  

    Parent
    heh (none / 0) (#57)
    by Capt Howdy on Thu Jan 05, 2012 at 11:11:01 AM EST
    Read comments on Craig Crawford blog today (none / 0) (#139)
    by christinep on Thu Jan 05, 2012 at 03:23:03 PM EST
    Hard-hitting summary about the "story" of Romney's stave role in Massachusetts.

    Parent
    "stake" I think. (none / 0) (#148)
    by oculus on Thu Jan 05, 2012 at 05:05:21 PM EST
    slightly OT (none / 0) (#95)
    by CST on Thu Jan 05, 2012 at 12:08:07 PM EST
    But Joseph Kennedy III just announced he's running for Barney's seat.

    I wouldn't be surprised if he did pretty well, especially since I haven't heard from anyone else yet and it sounds like he's got his $hit together.

    Joe III, he's one of the twins, right? (none / 0) (#140)
    by caseyOR on Thu Jan 05, 2012 at 03:43:50 PM EST
    One of Joe II's sons? Has he run for any office before this? Been active in local politics? How old are the twins, anyway? (not that age matters here.)

    All I really know about him I learned from his mother's book about the annulment battle she fought with Joe II and the Catholic Church.

    Anybody have any idea where he stands on today's big issues?

    Parent

    Frankly, I don't think it matters much (none / 0) (#163)
    by masslib on Fri Jan 06, 2012 at 09:21:23 AM EST
    how he runs.  All that matters is that unemployment is down.  If the economy continues to hold steady, game over.  Obama will be reelected.


    This is our opportunity (none / 0) (#168)
    by MyLeftMind on Fri Jan 06, 2012 at 11:39:02 AM EST
    to force Obama to actually support the 99%. With a clear message against both Obama and Romney, a challenger from the middle, not the left, might be able to get Obama to effect change between now and November.

    If we run/endorse a challenger who is:
    1)    Pro middle class
    2)    Anti-lobbying, pro transparency,
    3)    Anti-government waste, including foreign policy/military waste,
    4)    Pro gay rights, pro choice,

    he or she would suck the life out Obama's campaign and make him put his money where his mouth is.

    The only way to make Obama be the hero we thought he was before we elected him is to run a real middle class hero against him. Split the Democratic and Independent vote, and Obama might just step up to the plate to prove himself.