http://www.usnews.com/articles/opinion/mzuckerman/2010/01/21/mort-zuckerman-the-incredible-deflation-of-barack-obama.html
Good article that sums it up pretty pretty good.
Why do you suppose that Obama and his inner circle ( plus Nancy and Harry ) have thusfar completely ignored any of this? And let's note for the record that articles like this are not just the product of Fox News, these articles are being generated by virtually every news organization which used to never be the case.
Is it possible that Obama never actually intended to be a President who preserved, protected, etc... the United States. Is it possible that his intention was always to convert the United States into a semi Islamic State or at minimum, a State that could easily be taken over my such. Is it possible that he could care less about being re-elected for he felt that he could ram all the necessary change through so quickly and quietly that his goal would be met before anyone who matters could stop him? Is it possible that the radicals that make up the inner circle was no accident.
Yes, conspiracy thinking. Yes, hard to believe this could be possible. Yes, my words would be thrown in the trash without thought by most. But, what if?
But, what if?... I’ll offer my opinions pwilley.
"Why do you suppose that Obama and his inner circle ( plus Nancy and Harry ) have thus far completely ignored any of this?" To me...sheer arrogance.
"Is it possible that his intention was always to convert the United States into a semi Islamic State or at minimum, a State that could easily be taken over by such?"
I am not sure about the Islamic State part of this question, although I do have my opinion, but I'll not express at this time. However, to make us appear less of a threat, the dismantling some of our defenses around the world does indeed make us appear as less of a threat. But this was part of his foreign policy going in. Again, IMO: We no longer wanted to appear as a super power, but as a world player.
Additionally: "Is it possible that he could care less about being re-elected?"
I believe the last thing in Mr. Obama’s mind is that he would be in the office for less than 8 years. I obviously will not suppose to 'know his mind', but with the exception of Bush 41, over the past 20 years, the office has been an 8 year posting.
As for: "he could ram all the necessary change through so quickly and quietly that his goal would be met before anyone who matters could stop him?"
After all, with the super majority in place, I believe he felt no one could stop him. But he miscalculated as he expected Nancy and Harry to be able to deliver. They are not even able to deliver their own party.
Finally: "Is it possible that the radicals that make up the inner circle was no accident.?"
It was no accident. But a strong leader surrounds themselves with people who can make them successful. People that do not necessarily share the same views, but have reputations for "getting things done". IMO, Mr. Obama has surrounded himself with people of a like mind based on ideology rather than who could get things accomplished. To me, Mr. Obama surrounded himself with the elitist that helped place him into office rather than those he could leverage to become successful. He surrounded himself with whom he was told to surround himself. Again, IMO his appointments were not completely of his choosing, but dictated to him by the elitist of his party. After all, what experience did he bring to the table in choosing his staff?
Yes pwilley, this may be bordering on conspiracy theory, but there is never anything wrong with posing the question of: "what if?". At least it is suppose to make us THINK. But I’m sure both of us will take several "pot shots" for posing the questions and expressing our opinions.
...because DLC Dems are legendarily arrogant.
The sad part about this is that it was the Blue Dogs that turned the health care bill into a fucktarded frankenstein zombie of a bill that everyone hates. And the lesson learned from the Mass election, at least if you listen to Blue Dogs like Evan Bayh, is that the Dems need to lean more towards the blue dogs.
riiight.
the Dems have right now.
In fact, neither party has much in the "up-and-coming" category.
President Obama is still in solid shape with his party and, in my opinion, will still win re-election easily in 2012. But after that, the Dems would be smart to lean more on a guy like Bayh.
In the meantime, President Obama needs to focus on the big issues at hand -- Afghanistan and jobs. He has damaged his first year with too much focus on pleasing his own party (stimulus package) and trying to make history by revolutionizing health care coverage.
If he sticks to the most pressing issues -- the two listed above -- he has a much better chance and trying to get some bipartisan agreement.
Evan Bahy is considered "up and coming"? Isn't that something said about someone relatively new? He has been in office for over 10 years (1999). With his dad Birch’s influence and connections, I’m quite sure he will one day be on the list of candidates for the Democratic nomination but like his dad, I have my doubts that he will get the nod. But it is good to see that someone that is 54 years old can still be considered a "young bright star".
because I remember him as the young governor of Indiana. But in today's political world, 54 is still young. Shoot, Hillary will be 68 in 2016 and she'll probably still make another run. McCain was in his 70s. Newt is talking about running and he is no kid.
Bayh clearly has too much common sense and is too realistic to please the left wing of the Democrats. Just like Giuliani was too socially liberal to please the far right on the Republican side.
I guess I made the comment because Bayh is one of the few Dems that I like. Would I vote for him? That would depend on who his opponent was, not the letter next to his name.
Having been raised in Indiana, I grew up with his dad being the perennial senator. I have nothing against Evan. IMO, although I was not a resident at the time, he was a good Governor. He has always gotten my dad's vote, who once swore he'd never in his life vote for Birch...lol But Evan’s record in the state as it’s Governor was impressive. To me he is a throwback to the JFK type of a Democrat.
anyone under 80 is a bright young star. Anyone under 50 is still in their "youth"
Sen. Byrd and the late Sen. Kennedy are the first two that come to mind. And some of the current big names are no longer spring chickens themselves -- VP Biden, Chris Dodd, John Kerry, Joe Lieberman (I know, he is technically an Independent but he ran for VP on your ticket). And some of these guys have no intentions of getting out -- at least until the votes boot them out.
Let's face it. Both sides have lots of age. If you wanna have a career that can take you into your late 70s or even 80s, become a US Senator!!! In either Party
In fact he elevated the angry liberal populist rant to another level. Didn't you watch him yesterday and today? The bad news is the market doesn't like Obama, and definitely didn't like his bank rant the past 2 days. The good news is what he proposed won't pass. In fact, what he proposed has nothing to do with the creation of the toxic assets, or to stop a future bubble.
If only Obama would just STFU, and let the ecomony heal itself without suggesting or imposing ridiculous policy. Yes, I agree Obama should focus on the economy (jobs), but not at the expense of another stimulus, or creating only govt jobs.
P.S. I can't believe I'm saying this, but the only voice of reason from the left this week was Barney Frank. He is even skeptical of what Obama is proposing.
name, President Obama said the problem, has been his admiinistration has not communicated the values of the American people. Blah! blah! I mean the guy has been front and center of the American people so much, people have started to tune him out. Does Obama realize, the more he talks, the more we think he is not doing his job. Obama is like a bad employee, whom you keep telling, stop talking and get to work and they still don't get it.
Your absolutely right, Obama has not learned anything. Whatever happened to his "great" listening skills?
because he's a Democrat in name only.
The Blue Dogs could save the Dems. The far liberal wing it by defintion out of touch with most of the nation. That is why they are the far liberal wing. If more people agreed with them, they would have control. Instead, the majority is made up of conservative and moderate.
(The same could be said of the far conservative. They are far conservative because they are not the majority. If they were the majority, THEY would not be far right.)
If you lose the center, you lose the election. The Blue Dogs are the center.
If Obama & Co. ignores them, they will end up with a government with the backing of 20% of the population.
Personally, I hope they ignore until 2012.
I see Obama in 2 years as very Nixonian. Sitting in the White House, complaining that no one likes him.
a real republican and a fake republican, they will pick the real republican every time.
The blue dogs are worthless pieces of shit that only know how to fuck things up and loose elections. They're the only ones I hate more than Republicans.
It has to do with openly and arrogantly spitting in the faces of the American People.
Bill Clinton ran as a progressive. He governed like a moderate Republican. And in the process he fucked people over, plain and simple.
Just like the blue dogs are fucking people over with this health care bill.
The moderates in the Democratic Party are not spitting in the face of Americans Willy. They are the ones who are listening. It is Mr. O that has not but maybe now he will. They all thought the HealthCare Bill would be passed simply because they had the majority but they did not take into account that they might not even be able to obtain full party support. That is usually a good example of poor leadership and you can decide on whom you wish to place that blame.
If Obama wants to get anything passed, he needs the middle. Otherwise, he will have the 20% to the fringe.
You may not like them, but if all you have is the far left, pack up and go home.
The old style Dems like Fiorelo had to build coalitions. MLK was successful because he worked with people.
If you don't like members of your party who are moderate, you will expel the members you need.
And the "pieces of shit" language. How bitter! How ugly!
Obama doesn't need them. At least he doesn't need them directing things. Making policy. Turning a good idea into a shitty idea that turns the public against you. That's not helping.
In his day, Johnson had to worry about uniting the liberals with the Dixies. And he did it. He got things like Civil Rights done. Some of them didn't want to have anything to do with it, but Johnson wristed arms and got things done.
Obama on the other hand goes to these fucking blue dogs and say "how would you like MY arm? Feel free to tell me what to do! After all, I'm ONLY the President."
c'mon, that's bullshit. The public isn't behind them, the party base isn't behind them, they come up with shitty horrible ideas that kills promising legislation, and the only thing they succeed at is loosing elections on a staggering scale.
Obama's problem is that he's not telling these jackasses to shove their shitty ideas where the sun don't shine. Obama's problem is that he's too nice. He needs to find his inner asshole.
In his book, Obama wrote something to the effect that he is a blank screen and people project what they want to see about him on that screen.
This manifested itself with several people I know who voted for him. They thought he was moderate and to the center. They never would have voted for him if they thought he was to the left. (Zuckerman is a good examples of this.)
Now, on the other hand, I did have some very liberal (left) friends who supported Obama because they thought he was left.
But that leaves 3 groups: Conservatives who were against him because he was clearly not conservative, far liberals who were for him, and the moderates. Without the moderates, he has the left.
If he tries to govern from the left, he loses the other groups which make up the vast majority. Go to poll like Gallup, and add the moderates and conservative together, and you will see what the liberals have left.
If he loses your hated Blue Dogs, he is isolated. The party base may not be behind the Blue Dogs, but without them they will be a minority party.
You can insult them and call them shit all day long. Try and get anything passed without the center. Please don't call them shit too much. They are getting offended already when they hear similar comments from others. Offending your allies, is not a good idea.
Finally, Johnson could twist arms because in those days things were behind closed doors. "Boy, you want a damn in your disrict."
Today that sort of twisting arms is open and makes people puke. Look at the deal Reid cut with Louisiana and Nebraska. Brilliant LBJ move. Today, when people see it, they are revolted.
Even the union deal just got people furious. Not a good idea.
that we should leave out the blue dogs. I said that Obama needs to find his inner asshole and get the blue dogs to do what he wants instead of having the blue dogs dictate policy.
arm twisting happens every single day on capital hill. every single day. lobbyists do it with precision. it's so bad that lobbyists have written legislation. and that's out in the open.
if Bush could twist arms to get his shitty ideas through, then Obama can twist arms to get his ideas through. He just needs to do it. So far he ain't, and that shows just how weak he is.
he would take a page from the Bill Clinton playbook in 1994. Granted, it's not the same environment, but if Obama wants to get anything done and get re-elected, he needs to move to the center. As with Clinton, Obama needs to distance himself from the likes of Pelosi and Reid. Both are too toxic.
Like the article you posted, blaming Bush and everybody else isn't cutting it anymore. He needs to own his presidency just as BreakerMorant mentioned in an earlier thread. Plus I just wish Obama would get off the TV. Democrats loss Mass, and Obama continues his liberal populist rant yesterday against the banks. The result was a nice pounding in the markets.
Well Obama has been pretty moderate, actually. Ask the pissed off liberals who voted for him. The rhetoric floating around about him from the right would suggest otherwise but no one can really point to any radical doings by this administration. What would really screw him up politically is an attempt to placate people like you who are going to vote for the other candidate no matter who it happens to be in '12. He certainly wouldn't win a second term doing that. Another thing right wingers love to throw around is the blaming Bush thing, but I haven't heard any of that. What I have heard is factual information regarding the effects of previous governance on this term. And even in doing that, he's been rather tame and probably even owning things that he shouldn't. Funny how the opposition always wants to forget and move on when it comes to the failures, but jump at the opportunity to mention any minuscule accomplishment that they can imagine.
As for brains, Obama has quite a bit of that, I'm sure we can all agree; some of us grudgingly. He'll deliver a nice drubbing to whatever bullshit candidate the Repubs put up against him in 2012.
He has been dragged to the center more than he wants to be. If there is any "moderate," that is because far left would NEVER sell, so he has to try to accomiodate the Blue Dogs.
And no, I don't agree he is smart. He ran a good campaign, but I don't know anything in his past that shows he is smart. He is the perfect affirmative action president NOT JUST BECAUSE OF RACE, so don't get upset. Ivy League loves "diversity" of any sort. Hawaii, Indocnesia, single-mother, Moslem father, and yes, African American. Had he been a one-legged, Jewish Lesbian, he would have been asked to be president of the university.
He has never released his grades from any school. He has never released one term paper that he wrote.
Oh, yeah. He was president of Harvard Law Review. Let's see, the wrote a fantastic Law Review article. Oooooops. Me bad. Didn't do that either.
And I long for 2012. If he hasn't gotten a lot done by then, he will look like a bitter flop, blaming everyone else. He will give teleprompter speeches in friendly forums in all 57 states, and avoid any real open forum like the swine flu.
Finally, if you haven't hear a word of "blame Bush," you are deaf. Even the loss of Mass, he says is due to anger over the last 8 years. Gosh, who could he be talking about. If you don't think that is a reference to Bush, you are just not being honest.
"Oh, yeah. He was president of Harvard Law Review. Let's see, the wrote a fantastic Law Review article. Oooooops. Me bad. Didn't do that either."
If you ask Micheal Medved's wife who served with him on the Harvard Law Review she will tell you he was never there to write any reviews. He was just a "figure head".
The tech bubble eventually burst.
The housing bubble eventually burst.
We know from physics that the more overinflated the bubble is, the bigger the burst.
The Obama bubble.....well, better take cover. This ones going to be messy.