Last night, on "60 Minutes," Steve Kroft confronted Obama with the stark fact: "Right now, there's nobody on either side of the aisle that is exactly running on your record." And the NYT has an article "A Likely Debate Highlight: Democrats’ Distance From Obama":
In the seven years since Mr. Obama entered the White House on a wave of excitement, Democrats have developed a complicated relationship with their standard-bearer. And that is especially true for those running for their party’s nomination.Shouldn't there be a voice saying Obama's been good, we need more of the same? Whether you believe we need more of the same or not, don't you think that should be one of the options for voters and one of the positions taken in the debate? I think there are plenty of Americans who'd like a way to say that Obama has been a success. How sad — for some, at least — to see our President abandoned, run away from! Or at least, isn't it ridiculous, every 4 or 8 years, to hear a new set of imperfect individuals claiming that they've got something different and it's going to be better than the reality we just experienced?
Mr. Obama’s legacy and how much a Democratic successor should embrace it will hover over the debate... Mrs. Clinton and Mr. Sanders promise different approaches from Mr. Obama’s, as much in style as in substance.....
When was the last President who got support from his party's follow-on candidate? John McCain ran away from George W. Bush, and Al Gore distanced himself from Bill Clinton. You have to go back to 1988 to find a candidate who reinforced his party's President.
I'd like to see Joe Biden enter the race with the focused message that Obama has been good, and I am offering America not change, but continuity. Otherwise, it's a grim 15 months we face, with a President getting torn down from all sides. I'm not saying I want a continuation of Obama, only that I want one voice in the debate arguing for the continuation. We need that and we deserve to hear that, not merely, within the President's party, Hillary and Bernie fighting to get better distance between themselves and our President.
Run, Joe!
Posts
140 comments:
"How sad — for some, at least — to see our President abandoned, run away from!"
Seems wholly appropriate in this president's case.
Biden is the hand-picked successor to Obama. I agree, he should state as much so that Americans have a clear and unambiguous chance to reject the last two Administrations.
To feel sorry for a candidate is pathetic, but, I guess unavoidable, for reasons that rhhardin has made clear over the years.
I hope Joe does run on the Obama record; a record of failure and well documented for anyone willing to look.
And then while the ME slouches toward Armageddon, Joe's numbers will tank.
If Joe had a different skin color, he might have a chance.
It gets real interesting when the FBI director resigns in December because DOJ won't indict Hillary.
So the Dems' choice will be crook, idiot or commie.
Oh, my. I just realized that Otherwise, it's a grim 15 months we face, with a President getting torn down from all sides is pure clickbait, so I deleted my comment.
"This is true only if you believe that Obama doesn't deserve to be torn down from all sides..."
No. You are wrong. He is the President and will be for another 15 months. We rely on him and we, as a nation, invested him with our confidence. He will be replaced, and we need to think intelligently about who should replace him, but he will be doing many things in our name and an utterly torn-down person is not in our interest.
What would Obama do with a third term? Nationalize the oil industry? Nationalize college tuition? Open all borders, close all prisons, close all American military bases in foreign lands? Do a Chavez Venezuela?
He's got more than a year left.
I have seen too many Presidents carrying out the end of their work in an atmosphere of hatred: LBJ, Nixon, Carter, Clinton, Bush, Obama.
Oh, no, you are wrong, Professor. He will not be doing these things in our name, but in his own name, in his own wealth-creating, atheistic, America-hating name and interest.
An utterly torn-down President is in our national interest at this point. We cannot rely on him, so we would be foolish to think we should.
"We rely on him and we, as a nation, invested him with our confidence."
Unfortunately, more so than with any other president in the past 50 years (including Carter), he has failed us. And there is every indication that he is going to give us more of the same in the next 15 months, so leadership of both parties SHOULD be opposing him at (probably) every turn. He has earned our disgust.
This is a bizarre notion. I like Joe Biden, but I do not understand the appeal of a "continuity" candidate, unless things are going swimmingly and there is a huge contingent in the country that would want four more years. Yes, like in 1988.
Did Nixon run in 1960 as a continuation of Eisenhower? Times during the peacetime expansion were quite good, no?
The next fifteen months are gonna be hell. Obama will do what he can to tear the country down without seeming responsible for it. He's unfettered at this point, and he's a little crazy, and we know one thing: he cares about himself and hates America. Kinda like Putin.
Biden, Sanders, and HRC? How far we have fallen as a nation...
Why is it a good thing to propagate a falsehood? If his remaining agenda is not good for the country, it is most certainly in the public interest "to tear him down".
Otherwise, it's a grim 15 months we face
Grim is in the eye of the beholder, especially if the alternative is watching this president enact more of his preferred policies.
an utterly torn-down person is not in our interest.
I disagree. He has always just been mailing-it-in. He cries for a partisan compromise, but never negotiates. He prefers to spend time on the golf course. He has torn himself down.
MadasHell
Five hours golfing in San Diego on Sunday. Historic.
I have seen too many Presidents carrying out the end of their work in an atmosphere of hatred: LBJ, Nixon, Carter, Clinton, Bush, Obama.
So why should this spectacularly bad President get a pass?
Oh, right.
But Joe is not a Muslim.
Just kidding. All Joe will need is Valerie Jarrett to make the complicated moves.
But while we are losing a U.S. President we probably are gaining a World Government Ceasar. Master Community organizers don't die, they just organize the World next.
I disagree pretty strenuously that Carter faced a climate of hatred, as opposed to criticism. I don't recall anyone him calling him a baby-killer, or Hitler, or calling for his impeachment, or anything of that sort.
Also, I think Bush (in 1988) and Gore (in 1996) did about the same in terms of claiming versus distancing themselves from the predecessor's record. Remember, Bush called for a "kinder, gentler nation."
What makes you think Biden would defend the Obama record? He will distance himself from Obama just as Humphrey distanced himself from LBJ. Not as forcefully as Bernie does, but distance nevertheless.
Because the fraction of people who want four more years of Obama policies is tiny, and all the candidates know that. Trying to please those people while running for office is a fool's quest.
I Know. To soften the blow to the Stockholm Syndrome sufferers, we put The Obama smile on the new $20 bill. Jackson may have beaten the Brotish at the Battle of New Orleans, but Obama has the Battle of Benghazi to his credit. He did arrange for his friends to win it.
Change is a better marketing hook than same
Agree with mtrobertslaw and madashell. It's an unfortunate situation, but we can't deny reality.
Now I will say that the way that the disagreement is expressed is important, and it would be far better of the focus of the campaign would be on positive changes and not just attacking. Also, part of the problem is the perpetual campaign atmosphere.
Ms. Althouse, if you still have confidence in Obama, you're either being disingenuous or need to get a job in the private sector.
I realize that public employees have a vested interest in democrat policies, but surely there are limits!
Sure democrats will be running on Obama's record. They have been defending it up till now. I exclude Bernie from that somewhat as he has accurately been stating that the economy is actually pretty bleak.
"No. You are wrong. He is the President and will be for another 15 months. We rely on him and we, as a nation, invested him with our confidence. He will be replaced, and we need to think intelligently about who should replace him, but he will be doing many things in our name and an utterly torn-down person is not in our interest."
He's tearing down himself by enacting policies that are worthy of ridicule. If he doesn't want to be attacked come up with better policies.
Althouse, are you serious?
I have seen too many Presidents carrying out the end of their work in an atmosphere of hatred: LBJ, Nixon, Carter, Clinton, Bush, Obama.
Has the Woodstock Generation finally gained a modicum of wisdom? Has the tie-dyed bell-bottomed never-land adolescence faded into sobriety and moral clarity? Somehow, I doubt it. Somehow, I can't picture Althouse or any of her academic fellows getting all mea culpa over the Chimpy McBush-Hitler calumnies that were au courant on virtually every campus and fashionable venue eight years ago (and still hot today).
Somehow, it seems like special pleading on behalf of the hipster messiah.
Althouse: "I'm not saying I want a continuation of Obama, only that I want one voice in the debate arguing for the continuation. We need that and we deserve to hear that..."
Why? Because this seems to be the very definition of "pablum."
It also strikes me that the fact we haven't had candidates running on their party's president's record indicates we've had a string of poor presidents. You don't fix that situation by advocating that people reconsider running on the record of a poor president. The fix is to elect better presidents, and demand better from our current one.
Joe too will run from the president's record because the president's record is shit.
Princess Leia: Help me, Obi-Wan Kenobi; you're my only hope.
Not tear him down? I'd salt the earth everywhere he's stood if I could.
Remember, the victories the Dems have had were accomplished by screaming, slandering, lying about and insulting every Republican so endlessly and constantly that the public is exhausted at the idea of having to keep hearing it another 4 years. We shouldn't emulate the lies or slanders, but to go easy on him when the Dems will do no such favors in return is to guarantee that exhausted Americans will elect Democrats just for some peace and quiet from the media. An utterly terrible idea.
Besides, to not tear him down would empower him. For Ann, that's the point, because she believes he represents us. How she can still believe that after the last 7 years is baffling to me. He represents no one but himself and his cronies, and empowering him will only benefit them.
Why isn't the blogpost title in quotes? I thought it was that Croft guy who said it, and not you.
Obama's plan has been to make America irrelevant in the international community, especially in the Middle East - and he's largely succeeded.
I think it's incumbent on us to make him as irrelevant as we can at home. I mean, why would we need a strong President? Obama doesn't want America to be a strong nation.
We rely on him and we, as a nation, invested him with our confidence. He will be replaced, and we need to think intelligently about who should replace him, but he will be doing many things in our name and an utterly torn-down person is not in our interest.
I rely on him for nothing. He serves only his own deluded interests. He's been totally coddled and protected for almost 7 years and what has been achieved? Whatever he does at this point he does in his own name. You would think a law professor would at least be somewhat concerned about how this President operates and the continued damage he will inflict on the country over the coming months.
I have to say though, this is the most creative reason I've seen for pushing Biden to run. Other than this it's clearly an "anyone but Hillary" move.
I have seen too many Presidents carrying out the end of their work in an atmosphere of hatred
Too many? Whats the sweet spot here.
And Obama was just a personality cult. How do you run as the continuation of a personality cult? "Its not Illegal if Joe Does it- BIDEN 2016!"
he will be doing many things in our name and an utterly torn-down person is not in our interest.
He will be doing things but not in my name. I fear the worst in the next year. We have an egomaniac with no scruples in the White House. The left hates Nixon but he refused to allow Rogers to challenge the 1960 election because of the risks of such turmoil for the country. As a result, he allowed Kennedy and Johnson to steal the 1960 election in Texas and Chicago.
Carter was not hated as you allege in his last year. He had shown himself capable of learning and had reversed a number of his policies. He hired Volker to stop inflation. He recognized the ill will of the Soviets and tried to punish them for invading Afghanistan. He tried to rescue the hostages in Iran.
Do you seriously believe Obama is capable of learning ?
"If we don't get Joe Biden, there won't be one candidate who's running on Barack Obama's record."
They probably didn't intend it that way, but that is funny as hell.
"What makes you think Biden would defend the Obama record?"
My appeal to Biden to join the race is conditional on his serving the function I think is needed. His message must be: I'm with Obama, I defend the Obama administration as Obama himself would, and I offer you a chance to vote your support for Obama.
"Why isn't the blogpost title in quotes? I thought it was that Croft guy who said it, and not you."
Huh? You want me to put it in quotes so you'll be able tell that it's NOT a quote??? Oh, I get it. You still think Kroft said it!
Michael K, Obama might be capable of learning. That's an untested, unproven conjecture.
Sure has a great smile, though, and a good singing voice.
And yeah, hatred for the POTUS reached peaks for W, Reagan, and Johnson. There is no comparison nowadays, and Carter was merely derided as what he was: an incompetent.
Ann Althouse said...
"This is true only if you believe that Obama doesn't deserve to be torn down from all sides..."
No. You are wrong. He is the President and will be for another 15 months. We rely on him and we, as a nation, invested him with our confidence. He will be replaced, and we need to think intelligently about who should replace him, but he will be doing many things in our name and an utterly torn-down person is not in our interest.
At first I thought you were being ironic, and then I saw you were serious.
" but he will be doing many things in our name and an utterly torn-down person is not in our interest."
Too late. And you have to admit he rather enthusiastically brought it on himself.
Not so much a president than an icon of lefts shabby worn out principals.
He could have done so much and he chose to masturbate in public.
"I Still Havent Made up My Mind About Keystone Either- BIDEN 2016!"
"Letting You Keep Your Doctor As Much as Ever- BIDEN 2016!"
"I Wont Have an Economic Plan Until 6 Days Before the Election- BIDEN 2016!"
"Sending You Creepy, Overly Familiar Emails- BIDEN 2016!"
jr565 said...
Sure democrats will be running on Obama's record. They have been defending it up till now.
Exactly. I'm not seeing how Hillary is not the continuation candidate you're describing, Ann. She served at a very high level in the administration for the first four years, and when she left it was not on antagonistic terms (so far as I recall).
Much of Obama's record is also her record, and she will be obligated to defend it. And policy-wise, she does not really diverge from Obama in any major way.
Obama believes that after him, nothing matters. But he wants to have a good time while he's still alive.
I have seen too many Presidents carrying out the end of their work in an atmosphere of hatred: LBJ, Nixon, Carter, Clinton, Bush, Obama.
Obama has made it clear the only enemies he has are Israel and conservatives.
We should be kind to him...why?
We WARNED everybody what he'd be like.
This deserves a non-stop chorus "We told you so"
...followed by "Fuck you Obama".
The whole premise of this doesn't make sense anyway. Having a continuation candidate in the race would make it more likely that people will feel the need to voice criticisms of Obama. If instead, as is the case right now, people from all sides of the spectrum are tending to agree that Obama's presidency has been a failure, then it's like we've stipulated that this isn't something we need to argue about.
Much of Obama's record is also her record, and she will be obligated to defend it. And policy-wise, she does not really diverge from Obama in any major way.
Hell, the President whose record she is obliterating is her husband's. While also running on nostalgia for him.
Even when they were vying for the nomination in 2008, I don't remember Hillary and Obama having a lot of disagreement on policy. Hillary's main argument was that she was better suited to handle the 3 a.m. phone call.
Otherwise, it's a grim 15 months we face, with a President getting torn down from all sides.
A President who decided to fuck the legislature if they won't do what he wants? We should feel BAD for him?
He's lucky to not be ducking people throwing objects at him.
Even when they were vying for the nomination in 2008, I don't remember Hillary and Obama having a lot of disagreement on policy. Hillary's main argument was that she was better suited to handle the 3 a.m. phone call.
And she might be.
Just as a gaping chest wound is better suited for your survival than a massive hole in your head.
"I think there are plenty of Americans who'd like a way to say that Obama has been a success."
Their are plenty of "journalists" who have a way to say that Obama has been a success.
Obama ran on "Change," yet there was no change. Is that a record to run on?
"What would Obama do with a third term? Nationalize the oil industry? Nationalize college tuition? Open all borders, close all prisons, close all American military bases in foreign lands? Do a Chavez Venezuela?
"He's got more than a year left."
What an absurd hypothetical!
He--tragically--has done nothing to suggest he would be interested in doing any of these things. He has been a loyal and steadfast caretaker for the property of the financial elites who own America and who hired him to be their majordomo.
Oh, Robert Cook, there was plenty of change under Obama. America lost its place in the Middle East; it gave up its support for Israel; it made unemployment == funemployment; it made race relations worse, not better; it let terrorists loose in exchange for deserters; it made welfare a good thing to be desired, not a step toward a better life.
Whole lotta change. Don't despair. It can get worse.
Whether you believe we need more of the same or not, don't you think that should be one of the options for voters and one of the positions taken in the debate?
No.
I think there are plenty of Americans who'd like a way to say that Obama has been a success.
You mean outside the ivory towers of academia and the few insane asylums that Democrats didn't shutter back in the 1970's (preferring that the insane die on the streets as homeless people)? I suppose you might find a couple dozen or so. I think Meade needs to take you on a few more trips where you'll meet real people trying to make ends meet when there are no jobs for them. Maybe he can take you to the Moonlite Bunny Ranch, where young co-eds work as prostitutes to pay off their student loans.
How sad — for some, at least — to see our President abandoned, run away from!
How inevitable!!! He's at best a second-rate intellect who was fooled by Larry Tribe and other Harvard Law professors into thinking he's first rate and that the rest of us are fools. His advisors are crappy (though leave it to Hillary to find worse!), and his policies benefit the handful at the expense of the elderly and the working class. Who wouldn't run from that?
Otherwise, it's a grim 15 months we face, with a President getting torn down from all sides. I'm not saying I want a continuation of Obama, only that I want one voice in the debate arguing for the continuation.
And you think Biden is willing to fall on that sword?
He will be replaced, and we need to think intelligently about who should replace him, but he will be doing many things in our name and an utterly torn-down person is not in our interest.
In my book he tore himself down, ma'am. The elections of 2010 and especially 2014 were messages that he chose not to heed. He could be spending the next 15 months fixing the terrible flaws in Obamacare, and he could be spending the next 15 months rethinking his foreign policy and rebuilding our military. But he flits from one liberal wet dream to the next like a butterfly in a meadow flitting from flower to flower.
"My appeal to Biden to join the race is conditional on his serving the function I think is needed." Sorry - needing to defend the president is a big problem that Biden will need to deal with. It's a big problem for the other Democratic candidates, but they can keep their distance. No Democratic candidate is going to run on the administration's successes, because they are all of them very unpopular, and every Democratic candidate knows it a whole lot better than the base. "We passed ObamaCare - love it!"
Hilary is running away from Obama's record and her husbands record and her own past statements. So Biden and Obama are to the right of Hillary and Sanders. I'd take Biden over Hillary and Sanders so I'm all for him jumping in to the scrum.
"Obama, tragically, has shown no interest in becoming an American Hugo Chavez and doing for the US what Chavez has done for Venezuela." -Robert Cook
Yes -- tragically!
But...but...they really do love it. The electorate showed that they love it in 2012. The individual voter does not care what happens next or where he/she should go; hell, he/she doesn't even think there is any whatever after him/her. It's "show me the money". 2016 might go the same way.
Althouse wrote:
Althouse: "I'm not saying I want a continuation of Obama, only that I want one voice in the debate arguing for the continuation. We need that and we deserve to hear that..."
Obama ran as a change candidate. Hope and change. So, in furtherance of that, I want change from Obama's policies. How can Biden continue the hope and change mantra if he has to defend Obama's record?
Politics 101: remind people that they are dissatisfied...and nearlynall always agree with that. Then tell them that you will change things.
Next be sexy And seductive with a smile like Obama or a sexy walk like Fiorino. Poor Trump has to relie on a leadership style and his superior brains that offends a third of the voters.
"He--tragically--has done nothing to suggest he would be interested in doing any of these things. He has been a loyal and steadfast caretaker for the property of the financial elites who own America and who hired him to be their majordomo."
You think it's tragic that he hasn't done those things? That he has looked out for wall street buddies does make him a hypocrite. But we have this thing called private property in this country. it is SUPPOSED to be defended.
Bidens slogan "It could be worse. Let me get us there".
Blogger damikesc said...
Obama has made it clear the only enemies he has are Israel and conservatives.
We should be kind to him...why?
We WARNED everybody what he'd be like.
This deserves a non-stop chorus "We told you so"
...followed by "Fuck you Obama".
I give YOU 1 million up votes.....Obama has nothing but contempt for us...and we should feel bad for him????
I believe the take-away here is that markets work, even in politics. If no one is stepping up to run on Obama's record then it probably means there aren't a huge number of voters out there who would be attracted by that pitch.
The same was true of GOP candidates in 2008. Yes there were some number of people who would have voted for a candidate promising to continue the Bush administration, but nowhere near a majority. Most people were dissatisfied with Bush. So unless you really want to waste your time and effort and not have a chance of winning the election, why would you run on that message?
@Cookie, you're part way back from saying things I actually agree with.
Obama ran on "Change," yet there was no change. Is that a record to run on?
Of course there has been change! It used to be that if someone in the working class had a decent work ethic they could make ends meet when there were no jobs by doing day labor and odd jobs. Those jobs have been taken by "undocumented immigrants," and that won't end anytime soon. The coal industry has been decimated, and the poor in Appalachia are that much more destitute. (Not that you or Alhouse care about the poor in Appalachia -- they have "white privilege," don't you know.) Race relations are the worst they've been since the days of Jim Crow. The percentage of people who are out of work is the highest since Hoover's days. And if we counted inflation the way we did back in the 1970s, inflation in real goods is as bad as it was in Ford's day (though not as bad as in Carter's presidency).
And that's not even starting in on the changes in foreign policy.
So you're wrong.
He has been a loyal and steadfast caretaker for the property of the financial elites who own America and who hired him to be their majordomo.
But you're partly right. Not for nothing do we conservatives refer to Barack Obama as "President Goldman-Sachs."
"...there was plenty of change under Obama. America lost its place in the Middle East; it gave up its support for Israel; it made unemployment == funemployment; it made race relations worse, not better; it let terrorists loose in exchange for deserters; it made welfare a good thing to be desired, not a step toward a better life."
We were lost in the middle east from the day we invaded Iraq. We still support Israel as if it were an annex of the United States. I don't have a clue what you're talking about with your reference to "funemployment," but I suspect it's a phantasm of your own. Race relations are being made worse by the higher visibility of police violence against minorities. (The problem is that the police are becoming violent toward everyone; the minorities are just the bleeding edge, and we will soon realize we are a full-blown police state.)
In short...no change from what was before...just the inevitable worsening of existing conditions. This is the blossoming fruit of the immiseration inflicted on this country by the 1% of the 1%, and it began in earnest in 1980.
"Exactly. I'm not seeing how Hillary is not the continuation candidate you're describing, Ann. She served at a very high level in the administration for the first four years, and when she left it was not on antagonistic terms (so far as I recall).
Much of Obama's record is also her record, and she will be obligated to defend it. And policy-wise, she does not really diverge from Obama in any major way."
If there were a centrist democrat who instead of voting for continuation of Obama's policies wanted to go in the direction of Clintons' policies, I'd almost say I'd vote for him. They always talk about how the republicans have moved to the right. The degree to which the dems have moved to the left is almost unfathomable. Centrist candidates are persona non grata in the democratic party. And Clinton (Bill) would have no shot in hell of winning. I applaud the dems going full retard in pushing Sanders, and I hope they go further. The problem though is that to the left, Sanders is the new norm, and they have a lot of people.
Robert wrote:
We were lost in the middle east from the day we invaded Iraq. We still support Israel as if it were an annex of the United States. I don't have a clue what you're talking about with your reference to "funemployment," but I suspect it's a phantasm of your own. Race relations are being made worse by the higher visibility of police violence against minorities. (The problem is that the police are becoming violent toward everyone; the minorities are just the bleeding edge, and we will soon realize we are a full-blown police state.)
In short...no change from what was before...just the inevitable worsening of existing conditions. This is the blossoming fruit of the immiseration inflicted on this country by the 1% of the 1%, and it began in earnest in 1980.
PLEASE. This country is not for you. Please find a country that meets your criterion of what is a good country. And move there. Please stop trying to remake this country. You are turning it into a toilet.
" it's a grim 15 months we face, with a President getting torn down from all sides."
Oh, it's worse than that. At Chicagoboyz we are discussing whether we will see the first use of nuclear weapons since 1945.
I just wish us luck.
"Althouse, are you serious?"
No. Re-read the text.
Just stunning comments coming from our hostess. I'm no lawyer, but isn't it about 90% of what lawyers do is negotiations? Since when is it ever a good idea to poke your opponent in the eye and then try to negotiate with them? Do you even listen to him? This narcissists can't leave soon enough.
Robert Cook, funemployment is a pretty old term.
"We were lost in the middle east from the day we invaded Iraq"
Are you speaking to the first time in 1990?
Some of you are being trolled.
Again.
don't you think that should be one of the options for voters and one of the positions taken in the debate? I think there are plenty of Americans who'd like a way to say that Obama has been a success.
IF there were plenty of Americans ho wanted that option, there would be a candidate giving that option.
How sad — for some, at least — to see our President abandoned, run away from! Or at least, isn't it ridiculous, every 4 or 8 years, to hear a new set of imperfect individuals claiming that they've got something different and it's going to be better than the reality we just experienced?
What we need to learn is they don't have the magic answers to make things work. So we need to choose someone smart, with the best experience for the job, and the foundation of the principles we want.
The really sad thing is to compare Obama the 2008 candidate to Obama the 2015 President. All the coming together, hope, no red America no blue America, stuff. He's such a disappointing person.
I wonder, if Trump wins in 2016, will Ann mind if no one runs on his record in 2020, or even 2024? I suspect not.
"All politics is local." Mrs. Althouse wants Biden to run because they're both from Delaware, the smegma of the USA.
""We were lost in the middle east from the day we invaded Iraq"
Are you speaking to the first time in 1990?"
Or TE Lawrence in 1918 ?
"I think there are plenty of Americans who'd like a way to say that Obama has been a success."
Sure, if only to exculpate themselves from voting for the worst President in US history. There is no possible depth a President could sink to that wouldn't engender that reaction from the people that "put their confidence in him."
And GHWB didnt run on Reagan's record. "Voodoo Economics", remember? I like the Bushes on a personal level, but I'll never forgive them for squandering Reagan's legacy. They truly created the GOPe.
To the nearly 100 million Americans not participating in the Obama labor pool: You deserve continuation! ~ Joe Biden and Ann Althouse
@Big Mike, see my previous response.
All the ills you reference are the result of decades of concerted effort by the financial elites--aided and abetted by their succession of hired flunkies in the White House--to remove all restraints from their financial rapine. The people you presumably support--the Republicans--are no less industrious in the loyal service to the financial elites than any Democrats. That's the thing many here don't see: whoever attains the White House, present conditions will prevail. The only "change" will be the worsening of trends that date back decades.
"'We were lost in the middle east from the day we invaded Iraq'
"Are you speaking to the first time in 1990?"
We did not invade Iraq in 1990.
I'll worry about whether other people get the platform they want to vote for after I get the platform I want to vote for.
"We did not invade Iraq in 1990."
Yes, Cookie. We did.
@Cookie, do you disagree with what I wrote about the working class?
Yes, Robert Cook, we did.
Robert Cook said...
"All the ills you reference are the result of decades of concerted effort by the financial elites--aided and abetted by their succession of hired flunkies in the White House--to remove all restraints from their financial rapine. The people you presumably support--the Republicans--are no less industrious in the loyal service to the financial elites than any Democrats. That's the thing many here don't see: whoever attains the White House, present conditions will prevail. The only "change" will be the worsening of trends that date back decades."
This is all true until you get to the end. If you haven't noticed the republican party is having a little feud with it's base. The next Bush in line is polling in single digits. The plutocrat's amnesty shill Rubio is their leading candidate hovering around 10%. We just kicked Boehner out. What have the democrats done? Bernie Sanders? If we are lucky we can throw the plutocrats out without resorting to French style revolution.
Eventually you will realize that no government, with the ability to compel by force, can resist becoming a tool of the plutocrats. If they nationalize everything like you say they end up becoming what Venezuela is now - a failed state. Even in Europe now they are having an "immigration" crisis because the wealthy there have decided they don't like the demographics.
Robert Cook said...
"'We were lost in the middle east from the day we invaded Iraq'
"Are you speaking to the first time in 1990?"
"We did not invade Iraq in 1990."
In order to hold the beliefs that US Military intervention is always bad, you have to be historically illiterate.
"The people you presumably support--the Republicans--are no less industrious in the loyal service to the financial elites than any Democrats. "
You have a point. That is where the Tea Party came from. It originated with TARP and that was a rescue of the big banks. Read Nicole Gelinas' book "After the Fall." She points out that there was a beginning of a market (I know you are not interested in markets) that might have bought the troubled assets of big banks for 25% or so of the book value. Such an auction might have liquidated those assets as in a bankruptcy. Instead TARP was sold to the establishment Republicans and Democrats as a way to rescue the assets. It became a slush fund but accomplished their rescue without the messy consequences to the CEO types who made the foolish investments in MBS instruments.
Then Dodd and Franks, who were the authors of the original CRA and its extensions, wrote the law that ensured big banks would never be challenged again. Eventually, that law and the equally destructive Sarbanes Oxley Act will have to be repealed. Probably after a national bankruptcy of some sort.
Democrats are the current champions of the money classes and the Establishment GOP is trying to destroy the Tea Party so they can go on as usual. I just disagree with your proposed remedy. Socialism doesn't work.
"And GHWB didnt run on Reagan's record. "Voodoo Economics", remember?"
Voodoo Economics from the 1980 primary.
I think the "kindler, gentler" phrase is what you were looking for that represents HW distancing himself from Reagan.
What do I rely on Mr Obama for? pft. Let him resign so that Mr Biden can run as an incumbent. I'd pay a couple of bucks to watch that political theatre.
Or at least, isn't it ridiculous, every 4 or 8 years, to hear a new set of imperfect individuals claiming that they've got something different and it's going to be better than the reality we just experienced?
Was it weird 8 years ago, or is the "strange new respect" for positive treatment of a lame-duck sitting President?
"We rely on him and we, as a nation, invested him with our confidence. He will be replaced, and we need to think intelligently about who should replace him, but he will be doing many things in our name and an utterly torn-down person is not in our interest."
Not the half of us that he told, during negotiations on Obamacare with the Republicans, simply, "I won." He's governed like that ever since, only representing himself and his half. The rest of us he told to fuck off, he'll use his majority when available and his veto pen and phone and conditional enforcement and whatever other means necessary when not, and screw the Constitution and double screw the opposition, he'd do what he wanted and just try and stop him. Kinda Putin, domestically. Unfortunately, kinda like Carter in the foreign policy sphere.
Let him burn and twist. Let those who wish for the opportunity to vote for continuation, vote for whomever the dem they wish. Theu are the same no matter what they profess: free range abortion, full gay agenda, ever higher taxes, cuts to the military, more welfare, more regulations, and higher taxes again. Which current dem candidate disagrees with any of that?
I'd like to see Joe Biden enter the race with the focused message that Obama has been good, and I am offering America not change, but continuity.
The problem is that Slow Joe Biden is one of the few people actually dumb enough to believe that Obama has been good.
The people you presumably support--the Republicans--are no less industrious in the loyal service to the financial elites than any Democrats.
One party gets all of the blame of being in Wall Street's back pocket --- but it's not the one that IS in Wall Street's back pocket.
Republicans' biggest mistake is protecting Progressives from their political desires. Wall Street hedge fund managers are OVERWHELMINGLY Democratic and they know that they will have the GOP there to stop the Dems from harming them directly.
WHY do they do that? Why DO Republicans protect them?
They want to vote Dem? Then suffer the consequences in full.
We did not invade Iraq in 1990.
To Saddam, yeah, we did. He felt Kuwait was an Iraqi province.
Not the half of us that he told, during negotiations on Obamacare with the Republicans, simply, "I won." He's governed like that ever since, only representing himself and his half. The rest of us he told to fuck off, he'll use his majority when available and his veto pen and phone and conditional enforcement and whatever other means necessary when not, and screw the Constitution and double screw the opposition, he'd do what he wanted and just try and stop him. Kinda Putin, domestically. Unfortunately, kinda like Carter in the foreign policy sphere.
She doesn't get that some of us take his actions fairly personally. He's more kind and tolerant of Iranian mullahs than of conservatives. I'm not an abused spouse and not fond of the Stockholm Syndrome. If he wants to loathe me, rest assured, he can't make the loathing I have of him.
Michael K
The government unwisely created the Resolution Trust Corporation after the S&L debacle. The government then sold off assets at pennies on the dollar creating great wealth for those who had the nerve to bid in those packages. There were many who longed for an RTC type disposition of real estate loans and hard assets after the last meltdown. Wisely the government held back. We have had a slow but steady rise in value of many of those loans which have traded at par or even premiums. On the whole the deleveraging we have gone through, and continue to go through, has been a boon to those of us who came out of the depression with assets and a slow motion disaster for the over levered middle class and those whose wealth resided solely in their homes. None of this was Obama's doing, of course, though he is always willing to take credit where there are demonstrable successes.
Ann Althouse said...
I have seen too many Presidents carrying out the end of their work in an atmosphere of hatred: LBJ, Nixon, Carter, Clinton, Bush, Obama.
Get with the Narrative, Ann. Hatred of Obama is unique and unprecedented, and most of all, racist in origin.
108 comments. I told you it was clickbait.
Althouse's income must be down. Of course, Althouse tends to be clickbait any anymore, anyway. At least she's consistent, if not worthwhile.
"We have had a slow but steady rise in value of many of those loans which have traded at par or even premiums."
If the assets had been auctioned off at the time nothing would have changed. The bad assets were mortgages that were in default, not with savers who did not have all their assets in their homes.
Read her book. She is a little more enthusiastic than I am about Roosevelt. Other than that it is an excellent analysis. What we have now is a huge asset bubble that will burst soon. I live in Orange County which has an enormous real estate bubble going on. A young couple bought the three bedroom house next door to my son's house for about $600 k. He is a high school coach.
Right now, I can buy a 3500 sq ft house in Tucson with a pool on 1 acre for $260k.
If we avoid nuclear war in the next 18 months, I expect financial collapse in the next ten years. Maybe less.
" it's a grim 15 months we face, with a President getting torn down from all sides."
News flash: For the private sector taxpayer, for those who aren't living off government at other people's expense it been a grim six and half years. And this clown has shown he gets dumber and more arrogant over time. Why doesn't he do a Nixon and resign? Best thing he could ever do for the country.
Normally a candidate running from the party who currently has the white house runs on the predecessor's record but with a few tweaks to improve on it. So far none of the current Democrats are running on stay the course with a few cosmetic changes. As for Biden, remember Biden's chief selling point for Obama was that he is so dumb no one would kill Obama and have Biden become president. So what is Biden supposed to run on? Elect me in-spite of the fact Obama thought I was too stupid to be president, hence I'm his life insurance policy? Elect me I'm so stupid I'm going to continue with Obama's great track record? And who can Biden find to be his Biden?
"Otherwise, it's a grim 15 months we face, with a President getting torn down from all sides."
More grim than a president tearing down the Presidency, the country, and our position in the world?
Robert Cook thinks he's getting us on a technicality. But we did actually send forces into Iraq during 1st Gulf War:
"The initial conflict to expel Iraqi troops from Kuwait began with an aerial and naval bombardment on 17 January 1991, continuing for five weeks. This was followed by a ground assault on 24 February. This was a decisive victory for the Coalition forces, who drove the Iraqi military from Kuwait and advanced into Iraqi territory. The Coalition ceased its advance and declared a cease-fire 100 hours after the ground campaign started. Aerial and ground combat was confined to Iraq, Kuwait, and areas on Saudi Arabia's border"
Why though doesn't our problems date to the 1st Gulf war?
"This is a bizarre notion. I like Joe Biden...."
Yeah, just one likes a crazy uncle in the attic. Sure, we all like Uncle Joey but we only want to bring him out of his room for family dinners and we definitely don't want him anywhere near sharp objects.
" I think there are plenty of Americans who'd like a way to say that Obama has been a success." Yes, those poor, deluded fools.
We need that and we deserve to hear that
Why do we need or deserve that?
What if, well, revealed preference shows that everyone thinks he sucked?
(Or thinks the way to win is to play on that, at least.)
Truth will out, I guess?
""The initial conflict to expel Iraqi troops from Kuwait began with an aerial and naval bombardment on 17 January 1991, "
The initial exercise, which involved sending 500,000 troops to Saudi Arabia began right after Saddam invaded Kuwait. That was 1990.
Had we not done so, Saddam after refueling his tanks would have continued into Saudi.
Obama has never done anything in our interest. If he is being abandoned, even by his own party, it is because he deserves it, on the strength of all that he has done and said since announcing for the job all those years ago.
It's you training as a lawyer, Ann, that leads you to think someone should represent this guy in the court of public opinion -- but that court has different rules. The trial begins the instant one becomes known to the court, and never ends. Its verdict is rendered, appealed, and revised in real time.
If Barack Obama -- himself a lawyer -- chose to enter that arena without fully grasping what he was getting himself into, it's because he had incompetent counsel: himself.
if there's no one to run on Obama's record, believe me, that's a plus for them. The democrats are STIL running against Bush ignoring the fact that Obama has been in charge for 7 years. I would LOVE BIden to run on Obama's record.
"So Joe, what were you saying about Iraq being a success? So Joe what happened in Libya. So Joe, have you heard what Sanders said about YOUR economy? Comments? SO, Joe, please let us know if we can keep our doctors? Hey Joe, did the cost curve bend down in health care.
Even if he doesn't defend it, we can attack it. Since dems have been by and large supportive of said policies they can be attacked for said support. If Biden thinks he can actually defend his record I welcome him trying.
Althouse says: I'd like to see Joe Biden enter the race with the focused message that Obama has been good, and I am offering America not change, but continuity. Otherwise, it's a grim 15 months we face, with a President getting torn down from all sides. I'm not saying I want a continuation of Obama, only that I want one voice in the debate arguing for the continuation. We need that and we deserve to hear that, not merely, within the President's party, Hillary and Bernie fighting to get better distance between themselves and our President.
What??
When I shop for a washing machine, I look for a salesperson who will also tout the virtues of the tub and washboard method. I'm not saying I want to use that method, but...
Althouse, liberals said that George Bush was either in on 9/11 or knew it was going to happened and did nothing precisely to start a war to enrich Dick Cheney's buddy Haliburton.
They further said Bush deliberately let Katrina over top the levees, and didn't do anything substantial because he doesn't like black people.
And you want to talk about a president getting beaten down for partisan reasons?
But, yeah. Inclusion of Biden, a known plagerist and buffoon, to elucidate Obama's record in the job should enliven the Donkey Debate.
Other non-candidates who could be invited to fill out the field: Debbie Wasserman-Schultz, Algore, Jimmy Carter, Alfred E. Neuman. Why not Obama himself, as Steve Croft suggested.
Michael K
I lived in Menlo Park for about five years with a house that was almost under water. Then the market spiked and I sold it for a 20% profit which I deployed into a mansion in Atherton. This was in the 80s during very high interest rate times. I lived in the Atherton house for three years and could not have sold it for what I had in it. Then the next year I sold it for twice my equity. The California markets are if nothing else spiky. I expect the Atherton house has been torn down or is eight figures today.
If the coach bought with little equity and a floater he is doomed. If a fixed rate possibly not. As long as his team keeps winning.
Tucson is a super spot. Up on top of the mountain you would think you were in the Santa Cruz mountains. Or Tahoe.
damikesc wrote:
Not the half of us that he told, during negotiations on Obamacare with the Republicans, simply, "I won." He's governed like that ever since, only representing himself and his half.
And demagouged the opposition to his policies as being for a false choice with his "some might argue" style arguments.
For example:
"I reject the tired old debate that says we have to choose between two extremes: government-run health care with higher taxes - or insurance companies without rules denying people coverage,"
Who was for insurance companies without any rules denying people coverage?
We need not choose between a chaotic and unforgiving capitalism and an oppressive government-run economy. That is a false choice that will not serve our people or any people."
Who was advocating EITHER position?
avoiding any discussion of alternatives to his position by instead posing false choice arguments that his opponents never argued for.
Michael K said...
" it's a grim 15 months we face, with a President getting torn down from all sides."
Oh, it's worse than that. At Chicagoboyz we are discussing whether we will see the first use of nuclear weapons since 1945.
I just wish us luck.
Not to worry ,Doc.
I'm told we have nothing too worry about.
Six days after Saddam's tanks raped Kuwait, the 82 Airborne Divisions 18,000 men was digging in out in a Desert in August 80 miles north of the Saudi Capital City Riyadh after an overnight flight in C-5As from Pope Air Force Base.
They only had with them their rifles and a few machine guns with minimum ammo...but no artillery, no tanks, no Apaches or A-10s and basicly no operational intelligence. All the had was the American guts that they should stop whatever came down the road towards Riyadh. And Saddam blinked.
The great coalition's air support and Armored Divisions finally showed up 4 months later from Ft Stewart Georgia, England and France.
Thank God Obama was not around then to surrender them.
Will Joe feel that leading on climate change is far better than having a competent foreign policy?
On reflection, Ms. Althouse's suggestion that Biden enter the race as a marker for the policies of the last 7 years is brilliant.
It would separate the policies from the con man.
I can see the campaign slogan:
"If you liked the last 8 years, a vote for me is 8 more of the same"
traditionalguy, was 82nd Airborne your group?
Vets tend to be reticent until you poke them. Modesty is a virtue, but in these days of a volunteer military, if vets don't say what they did, nobody will.
I did not serve, by the way.
I remember lefty whackos claing that Bush dynamited the levees in New Orleans. Cry babies whining that Obambi has been treated poorly -- or that it's unprecedented -- are full of shit.
"We need that and we deserve to hear that."
Yeah! Good and hard!
Or maybe, good and shrill.
I don't think tradguy is a vet, he just likes to tell stories, often inaccurate. I believe the first deployments to KSA were some dozens of fighter-bombers, as a shield for the build-up. Not that the 82nd didn't set up as he describes.
Also, Althouse, why would you want to subject Biden to such humiliation?
Run Joe! Another stupe democrat to add to the left wing Democrat slate.
"Tucson is a super spot."
I love Tucson but my kids and grandkids are here in California. However, I am still edging toward the border.
It seems that Ann has done well enough under Team Obama that she wants a continuation. Of course, she's in academia, the part of the economy that's doing quite well under the HopeN'Change President.
Why don't you do the heavy lifting for once, Althouse? Get out there and tell us (in a serious of post if necessary), why Obama is still so great for you and why he deserves continuity. Don't shy away from it. You raised the ante, and I'm calling you on it. Show us your cards.
Moneyrunner said--Of course, she's in academia, the part of the economy that's doing quite well under the HopeN'Change President.
Academia, and gun sales.
For one, the American People as such don't get a choice as to whether there will be a continuity candidate, that is completely up to the people voting in the primaries. Nothing obliges the Democrats to put up such a candidate, and if they feel their best odds of winning are not to go with continuity, they won't.
But there is another point here, which is that Obama has consciously chosen a path that has left him rather isolated politically. It is very hard to ask the Democrats to forge ahead with the mantle of SAME when Obama has shown little interest in helping them out politically. Yes, he's gotten their votes when they've been demanded, but that has cost them twice in Congressional elections, every time he hasn't personally been on the ballot. And he's not going to be personally on any ballot in 2016.
As far as I'm concerned, Obama has sowed the seeds that have led to there being no candidate running on his record. If Biden feels like entering to change that state of affairs, power to him, but I don't think any President automatically deserves the privilege.
I'd like to see Biden run on a platform of adding a few more trillion to the public debt, nuclear weapons for Iran, mandatory homosexual field camp for elementary school children, and special rights for Mexicans.
F. G.
No one wants to run truly on someone else's record--it makes you look like a beta male, a second fiddle, a toady. Even Bush Sr. went with his "kinder gentler nation" stuff and departed from the Reagan record somewhat. Gore tried to be with the "people against the powerful".
Then of course there's the fact that "more of the same" is boring sounding--even incumbents don't run solely on their own records--they'll defend their records if they're attacked, but they spend most of their own elections talking about how they're going to do better in the next four years.
As for the Left-Democrats, who clearly are the party's zeitgeist this cycle, they feel Obama has fallen short, and he has. For all his talk of post-partisanship, he's descended into partisan sniping and managed to lose the Democrats' congressional supermajority. He passed a health care law that gives more power to insurance companies and does not guarantee health care coverage for all Americans. He kept most of Bush's tax cuts in place, and despite his pre-emptive Nobel Peace Prize, has consistently escalated conflicts around the world (the Left isn't going as nuts over that as they did with Bush, but it certainly gives them nothing to cheer about).
What Democrat would ever want to run on that record?
"Had we not (repelled Iraq from Kuwait), Saddam after refueling his tanks would have continued into Saudi."
Baloney. No one has shown he had any ambitions to take over the M.E. Hussein invaded Kuwait because he had a particular beef with them--he felt they were overproducing oil and undercutting him on oil prices, and he also was peeved that they were slant-drilling and tapping into--stealing--"his" oil reserves, (the oil under Iraq's land.) He believed we (April Glaspie) had told him we would not interfere in his beef with Kuwait.
So, we can invade Mexico?
Post a Comment