Obama: Doubling Down on Incompetence

[One Bad Pig]

No, that was my original point. Given that the make-up of the 2012 election was more representative of American demographics than the 2014 election, it's very hard to turn this into a "referendum election." Maybe it's a referendum from the over-60 white male demographic, though . . .

Oh, it's a referendum all right. I'm pretty sure everyone who was eligible to vote could have done so given the opportunity. Those who supported Republican policies were motivated to show up at the polls. Those who supported Obama, not so much.

[rogue06]

Umm, dude, somehow missed who's still in the White House?



Y'all do it to yourselves. Srsly.

I'm assuming that you do understand that Obama wasn't up for election this year. I say this because someone I work with actually said "well at least Obama won." She also thought that Obama would be re-elected in two years despite patient efforts to explain that he wasn't eligible.

[Sam]

And the exact reverse was true in 2006 when the Republicans tried to distance themselves from an increasingly unpopular president while the Democrats ran against Bush and his policies and tried to portray their opponents as rubber stamps for Bush.

And what did you expect from the Republicans when Obama made it crystal clear that he did not need to or want to talk to them. He said it was useless because they were too extreme while simultaneously offering to open up talks with America's enemies (obviously because they were more reasonable than the Republicans).

About the only time he did talk to them it was to deliver a sneering lecture about how he won and elections have consequences. Obama and the Democrats in the House and Senate refused to consider a single Republican proposal during the first two years. And after the Republican landslide in 2010 Obama had to ask his aides if they knew how to contact the incoming Republican leadership because he never talked to them before. Bob Woodward detailed a lot of this in his book.

And yet after this you act like you expected the Republicans to come in on bended knee begging for an opportunity to help Obama push through his agenda. In fact many in the press complained about just that. They were outraged that they weren't bending over backwards to help "fix" Obamacare -- legislation that not a single one of them supported and campaigned on a promise of working to repeal it.

McConnell's strategy was, from the start, a unified front of "No."

The idea that Obama hasn't tried, desperately at times, to work with Republicans is an echo-chamber myth.

[Sam]

Oh, it's a referendum all right. I'm pretty sure everyone who was eligible to vote could have done so given the opportunity. Those who supported Republican policies were motivated to show up at the polls. Those who supported Obama, not so much.

That's essentially saying that every election is a "referendum election." Sort of loses its meaning. It's notable that majorities of the public still support policies that the GOP is dead-set against (keeping Obamacare, increasing minimum wage, path-to-citizenship immigration reform, etc.)

If it's a referendum election, you have a very confused electorate.

[One Bad Pig]

That's essentially saying that every election is a "referendum election." Sort of loses its meaning.

Every (fair) election IS a referendum.

It's notable that majorities of the public still support policies that the GOP is dead-set against (keeping Obamacare, increasing minimum wage, path-to-citizenship immigration reform, etc.)

If it's a referendum election, you have a very confused electorate.

No, just an electorate that doesn't support Obama's policies as much as you think it does. Polls (and polloganda) are one thing; elections are another.

[Sam]

Every (fair) election IS a referendum.

No, just an electorate that doesn't support Obama's policies as much as you think it does. Polls (and polloganda) are one thing; elections are another.

Can we assume that if the referendum isn't to our liking that it was unfair?

It's -much- more reliable to get an understanding of what people want through -asking them- than through inferring the same thing through a particular election. You've got a president who is only the second president since WWII to be elected with over 51% of the popular vote twice yet whose party has been "shellacked" in both midterm elections. Trying to draw a referendum or mandate from the lowest turnout election of the four is an exercise in bias confirmation.

[rogue06]

That's just a bizarre rewriting of history. Obama tried to get Republicans onboard with the stimulus, with the auto bailout — he spent months trying to court moderate Republicans like Snowe on the ACA, he had a public group discussion with Republicans on the ACA, he spent more months in talks with Senate and House Republicans on the Grand Bargain, nearly sealing a deal with Bohener. McConnell's strategy was, from the start, a unified front of "No."

The idea that Obama hasn't tried, desperately at times, to work with Republicans is an echo-chamber myth.

So Bob Woodward is now part of the Republican "echo chamber" He must be part of that "vast right wing conspiracy"

I suggest you read "The Price of Politics" where he documents how Obama haughtily told Eric Cantor "Look at the polls. The polls are pretty good for me right now. Elections have consequences. And Eric, I won." when Cantor offered to negotiate on the stimulus package. Chief of Staff Rahm Emanuel in his usual cordial manner put it another way: "We have the votes. F-word them."

That was how "Obama tried to get Republicans onboard with the stimulus" spending "months trying to court moderate Republicans." He sneered at their offers and slapped them down.

During the "debt crisis" a few years ago John Boehner was very public about constantly being called to the White House not to negotiate but to be lectured to. Even the Democrats were complaining of Obama's ham-fisted attempts to boss everyone around with one of their senior staffers saying that he "simply didn't understand how Congress works and didn't know how to negotiate."

Woodward reports that both Pelosi and Reid got so fed up with Obama's handling of the situation that they cut their own deal with Boehner saying that Obama had been "voted off the island in his own house."

When hyper partisans like Pelosi and Reid get disillusioned with you and start working with the Republicans behind your back that speaks volumes.

But Obama did negotiate one thing only to screw it up. Woodward details how after originally agreeing to focus on spending cuts Obama had actually got Boehner to agree to a major concession -- to an increase of $800 billion in tax increases. But then after coming to an accord, Obama turned around and demanded an additional $400 billion -- something he had to be aware that Boehner couldn't pull off -- and pretty much took spending cuts off the table.

IMHO, Obama decided to deliberately sabotage it because having a political issue in the upcoming 2012 election was more valuable than fixing the crisis. That is pretty much a major theme in Woodward's "The Price of Politics" -- how Obama didn't really want a deal because of the election.

To be fair he put a lot of the blame on Boehner as well but clearly revealed rather than being the Republicans as the White House claimed and the media dutifully parroted it was the Obama Administration's idea to postpone national debt ceilings until after the election.

[Sam]

So Bob Woodward is no part of the Republican "echo chamber" He must be part of that "vast right wing conspiracy"

I suggest you read "The Price of Politics" where he documents how he told Eric Cantor "Look at the polls. The polls are pretty good for me right now. Elections have consequences. And Eric, I won." when Cantor offered to negotiate on the stimulus package. Chief of Staff Rahm Emanuel in his usual cordial manner put it another way: "We have the votes. F-word them."

That was how "Obama tried to get Republicans onboard with the stimulus" spending "months trying to court moderate Republicans." He sneered at their offers and slapped them down.

During the "debt crisis" a few years ago John Boehner was very public about constantly being called to the White House not to negotiate but to be lectured to. Even the Democrats were complaining of Obama's ham-fisted attempts to boss everyone around with one of their senior staffers saying that he "simply didn't understand how Congress works and didn't know how to negotiate."

Woodward reports that both Pelosi and Reid got so fed up with Obama's handling of the situation that they cut their own deal with Boehner saying that Obama had been "voted off the island in his own house."

When hyper partisans like Pelosi and Reid get disillusioned with you and start working with the Republicans behind your back that speaks volumes.

But Obama did negotiate one thing only to screw it up. Woodward details how after originally agreeing to focus on spending cuts Obama had actually got Boehner to agree to a major concession -- to an increase of $800 billion in tax increases. But then after coming to an accord, Obama turned around and demanded an additional $400 billion -- something he had to be aware that Boehner couldn't pull off -- and pretty much took spending cuts off the table.

IMHO, Obama decided to deliberately sabotage it because having a political issue in the upcoming 2012 election was more valuable than fixing the crisis. That is pretty much a major theme in Woodward's "The Price of Politics" -- how Obama didn't really want a deal because of the election.

To be fair he put a lot of the blame on Boehner as well but clearly revealed rather than being the Republicans as the White House claimed and the media dutifully parroted it was the Obama Administration's idea to postpone national debt ceilings until after the election.

Bob Woodward definitely went off the rails a bit; I remember mentioning on OldTWeb how Woodward made a claim about Obama not wanting to replace the sequester in 2012, even though Obama had very clearly stated the sequester needed to be replaced multiple times and that statement was indeed on the White House press briefing the day the sequester deal was announced.

The negotiations between Boehner and Obama have been pretty thoroughly documentedCantor admitted that he and Paul Ryan scuttled it!



And Obama never took spending cuts off the table! There were still something like $3 trillion on the spending cut side! This is fantastic historical fantasy but it's nothing close to accurate. Cantor freely admitted that he and Ryan scuttled the Grand Bargain, Obama immediately had said that the extra $400 billion was an offer but wasn't necessary for the Bargain, only to be forevermore rebuffed by Boehner, and Woodward would later make claims completely contradictory to historical evidence.

[rogue06]

Bob Woodward definitely went off the rails a bit

Funny how that only

[DesertBerean]

For me, it was the way the ACA was handled. It was clear even the President didn't understand the consequences of the act. Or perhaps he didn't think things through. Maybe he didn't care. I don't know. But he showed very badly on that.

[Sam]

Funny how that only

Sorry, man, but the bias of Bob Woodward has been well-chronicled the past few years. His conclusions are not at all correlative with even his own stenography. Woodward has a fairly clear animus against Obama, seemingly for his unwillingness or inability to be Washington DC's Green Lantern, and the facts show it. That he's claiming something about Obama's deal with Bohener and Cantor that Eric Cantor himself contradicts should be a bit of a signal to you that a bias has taken over Woodward's pen.

You have to deal with the evidence relating to the charges and the evidence in no way supports Woodward's claims about the death of the Grand Bargain.

George Will used to be a decent political commentator. Now he's ranting about climate change and how the science of how Ebola spreads isn't settled. Getting older makes people less competent sometimes.

[Cow Poke]

Because Republicans were trying to nationalize the 2014 elections and Democrats were trying to localize them.

Quick, somebody call the police!

Obviously, trying to run from a politician who is still much more popular with the coalition than Congress wasn't such a hot idea.

News Flash, Sam --- -Congress is NEVER popular. But that's your reason for his own party running from him?

[Cow Poke]

For me, it was the way the ACA was handled. It was clear even the President didn't understand the consequences of the act. Or perhaps he didn't think things through. Maybe he didn't care. I don't know. But he showed very badly on that.

He didn't give a flyin' flip, and his "I tried reaching out" is crap only people like Sam believe.

[seer]

Hee hee. Y'all just can't get over the fact he won two elections, can you?

Well yes, when 41% of the population do not know who the VP is, it is no wonder.

[Cow Poke]

Does anybody remember this from Obama's "Hope and Change"?

To reduce bills rushed through Congress and to the president before the public has the opportunity to review them, Obama "will not sign any non-emergency bill without giving the American public an opportunity to review and comment on the White House website for five days."

White House Changes the Terms of a Campaign Pledge About Posting Bills Online




About 1 minute into the video is the lie about putting bills on the internet for 5 days before he signs them so you can see what's in them.