I've been wondering about Obama's latest capitulation to the GOP, and it got me to wondering something.

Was Obama a dark horse candidate all along? An articulate replacement for Bush that would do Goldman Sach's bidding?

or...

Did something happen with his meeting with the GOP? Did they threaten to impeach him if he didn't play ball?

I saw this article and was quite surprised because I hadn't heard anything about this until it was already done. Was this practice?

Just throwing this out there. What say you?

I am no fan of Obama, but on what grounds could they possibly impeach him?

Judge Porteous OTOH was impeached unanimously by both the House and Senate, the proceeding were hardly a secret and they began over two years ago.

I think you might need another hit off that bong you have been smoking.

Don't you think it's just possible that Obama, being the political animal that he is, simply realized that the compromise on taxes was the best thing for the economy, at least in the short term, and was his best chance of staying in office in 2012?

Our political system is designed in such a way as practically everything that comes about between the administrative branch of government, and the legislative branches, and within each branch, is done through compromise. "Caving" is just a pejorative word used when someone didn't get everything their way. Only when all parties involved see a common threat, say like an enemy to defend against, do they all get together and push and pull the ship of state in the same direction.

"I am no fan of Obama, but on what grounds could they possibly impeach him?"

I don't know. The GOP didn't have much on Clinton, but they managed to impeach him. I wonder if wikileaks plays into this, and they know something we don't.

"Judge Porteous OTOH was impeached unanimously by both the House and Senate, the proceeding were hardly a secret and they began over two years ago."

It was surprising to me, because I hadn't heard word one about this, and I'm a bit of a news junkie.

"Don't you think it's just possible that Obama, being the political animal that he is, simply realized that the compromise on taxes was the best thing for the economy"

Given that he's admitted that he knows shit about economics, and he has people like Summers and Geitner informing him in such matters, that  might be the case. But somehow, I kinda doubt it.

"and was his best chance of staying in office in 2012?"

If this goes through, it guarantees a primary challenge. So, he may think that, but I gotta think he's smarter than that.

The House Dems have thrown a wrench into the works by refusing to pass the package. As it looks right now, it looks like the tax cuts are just set to expire. Come next year the GOP in the House will likely pass a similar package, at which point, the Dems can cry fowl over deficits.

With a massive number of Dems in the Senate up for re-election come 2012, if they cave in and pass the GOP tax bill, the base will stay home and they'll be out of the Senate. If they filibuster it, then nobody gets a tax cut.

Meanwhile, if the Dems are smart, they can play the class war card with extensions of unemployment, something the GOP I'm guessing wants to stay far away from when they're the majority in the House.

My hope is that the Dems have orchestrated all this to try to get the GOP to be more willing to compromise. But then again, I am the eternal optimist, lol.

and the GOP was unsuccessful in their attemp to impeach Clinton.

The proceedings against Judge Porteous started over two years ago with bipartisan support, a quick Google search will provide all the info you care to know on the subject. I can't help that you haven't heard about it before now, I will ask congress to keep you in the loop from now on. lol

Obama isn't the only one who doesn't know shit about economics as your many posts on the subject have proved, and your "eternal optimism" aside, even you can't be delusional enough to believe your own words in re to the Dems planning this.

...but he never would have lied under oath if he didn't have to be under oath in the first place. I'm not fan of Clinton, but he was the victim of a witch hunt. And the GOP hasn't been silent about their wish to start a new one.

Thanks for your vote of confidence in regards to economics GaG, but regardless of what I think, I'm pretty sure a guy who's been saying for 2 years that tax cuts on wealthy people is harmful to the economy wouldn't change his mind overnight unless someone forced his hand, or if he's trying to force someone else's hand.

Obama has outsmarted the GOP before. All I'm suggesting is that he may be doing it again.

it still took over two years and tens of millions of wasted tax dollars to finally "get something" on Clinton, a fucking blow job. lol

Of course his hand was forced. Obama is a politician first and an idealogue second. Political survival will always come first to him. He has almost certainly just realized that "sticking to his guns" would be political suicide. The mid term elections did not go unnoticed by Obama, but perhaps they did go unnoticed by you. The public has rejected Pelosi?Reid? Obama liberalism, and Obama wants it known that he is no longer part of that "trifecta of terror". lol


and just when did Obama do this alleged "outsmarting" of the GOP?

"Of course his hand was forced. Obama is a politician first and an idealogue second. Political survival will always come first to him. He has almost certainly just realized that "sticking to his guns" would be political suicide. The mid term elections did not go unnoticed by Obama, but perhaps they did go unnoticed by you. The public has rejected Pelosi?Reid? Obama liberalism,"

If politcial survival comes first for Obama, then he's certainly playing "hard to get", at least when it comes to the people who would actually vote for him. Logically, either he's a dark horse, or he's trying to create enough cover to let all the tax cuts expire.

Did you miss the most important aspect of this election? The blue dogs lost 26 of their 54 seats. Progressives lost 3. On top of that, 70% of the first time voters, the ones who put Obama in office, opted to stay home in November.

Why do you think they stayed home GaG? Do you think they were excited about tax cuts for the wealthy?

The Democrats lost in November because they failed to back a public health care option, a proposal that the public still wants by a 2:1 margin over the repeal of HCR.

If Democrats are given the choice between a Republican and a Democrat who behaves like a Republican, they will stay home. Why wouldn't they?  

In regards to your question, I provided a link.

Obama's base, the first time voters you reference stayed at home because "hope and change" was a farce. They still had to get up and go to work,"Daddy government" didn't pay all their bills for them. Candidate Obama ran headfirst into reality and all his campaign promises to the stupid and the naive evaporated into thin air.

That base is gone, not to be heard from again until they grow up and more than likely become more conservative as they wise up in their old age. lol Obama's only hope now is to move to the center and try to attract the independents and moderates. This tactic might actually work if the GOP continues to move further and further to the right because of Palin et al.

The dems are still going to vote for Obama, it's just that voter turnout for them is going to be reduced dramatically.

BTW you still haven't given me an example of how Obama "outsmarted the GOP" should I take your silence on the subject to mean that you misspoke?

First, I don't think he is an articulate replacement for Bush.  If he were, he would not need a teleprompter.  Even during the campaign, they tightly controlled the press's access.  The European press was really pissed that they didn't get much face time off the prompter on his campaign jaunt through Europe.  His gaffes are just as common and silly as Bush's.

Second, there is no reason to impeach him.  He just has lost the middle, and is smart enough to realize the reality.

There are many reasons why someone votes for a candidate.  Just because you vote for X doesn't mean you agree with everything X stands for.

The vast majority of his votes came from people who were concerned about the economy.  Prior to the market crash, he did not have that much traction on other issues like health care and cap and trade.

When he gave health care priority over the economy, he lost the middle.  He also lost a lot of liberals.  Some old-style libs are concerned about thing like the deficit.  Adding another trillion or so does not make them comfortable.

Now he has to deal with the consequences. And "caving" (or compromise) is one consequence.

"Obama's base, the first time voters you reference stayed at home because 'hope and change' was a farce."

Precisely. And if there was a single piece of legislation that defined Obama's first 2 years, it was HCR. The hope for change was for single payer healthcare, but the base would have been just fine with a public option. More than any other one thing, that's when hope and change "evaporated into thin air".

That base is still there, ready to be mobilized. It still is mobilized, but in a horribly unorganized way. That base is also largely the center, the independents, and the moderates.

Should Obama win his own primary, then the Dems will vote for him, but just like in 2000 and 2004, it won't be enough to give him the win. Without the youth vote Obama has a rat's chance in hell of winning re-election.

"BTW you still haven't given me an example of how Obama "outsmarted the GOP" should I take your silence on the subject to mean that you misspoke?"

Silence? Did you miss the link I posted?

To call this list "reaching" would be an understatement. Hell, they listed a recess appointment as a reason to impeach him!

The thought that a Harvard grad would do Goldman Sacks bidding isn't surprising.  I would be surprise if he didn't, given his background.  But the idea of the GOP successfully impeaching anyone is ridiculous.  A community college dropout should know better than that.

gaygambler you can't see how bulls and bullshit have a relationship to each other



http://markbiwwa.com/wp-content/uploads/2010/10/bullshit.jpg

I always said back in the 90's that Clinton should be impeached for the blood on his hands instead of the cum on a dress.

If you listened to what progressives actually had to say on this, I think you'd have a different opinion on the subject.

Obama is complicit in covering up the war crimes committed by the Bush administration. There's one reason to impeach him. He failed to close Gitmo, he's continued to send drones out in Afghanistan blowing up endless wedding parties, and he's even targeted American citizens for assassination without Due Process. All of which are far worse crimes than making right wing nut bags grumpy over recess appointments.