1. Welcome to SportsJournalists.com, a friendly forum for discussing all things sports and journalism.

    Your voice is missing! You will need to register for a free account to get access to the following site features:
    • Reply to discussions and create your own threads.
    • Access to private conversations with other members.
    • Fewer ads.

    We hope to see you as a part of our community soon!

The most popular politician in America!

Discussion in 'Sports and News' started by MisterCreosote, Sep 16, 2011.

  1. DanOregon

    DanOregon Well-Known Member

    Funny thing about Bill Clinton and Obama, they both managed to lose the House in their first two years after having Dem control of Congress and the White House, Clinton also lost the Senate.
     
  2. Mizzougrad96

    Mizzougrad96 Active Member

    I think most presidents see a shift in power in the house and senate two years after they're elected.

    Clinton had it in 1994. Bush had it in his second term. Obama, obviously had it.
     
  3. suburbia

    suburbia Active Member

    It's a consequence of neither party being able to control itself upon getting full power. Yet neither side ever manages to remember the lesson the next time they get back in power.
     
  4. Stoney

    Stoney Well-Known Member

    But, you know, that doesn't matter so much IF you're full court pressing your agenda during a time period when you firmly control both the House and Senate, the other side's at its all time low popularity wise, and you have vast popular support--as was the case when Obama took office. In that situation, you should be able to get your shit done even if the opposition won't cooperate--and they're the ones that pay the political price if overly obstinate about trying to impede that progress.

    If rolling back the Bush tax cuts for the rich had been Obama's highest non-negotiable priority from Day 1 (as he plainly suggested during his campaign) he absolutely could've gotten it done during those first two years when he was holding all the political cards. But instead he tried to make nice at first thinking he could do it later. So he ends up waiting until after the rise of the Tea Party movement and after the 2010 mid-terms neutered him of his political muscle. An inexcusable miscalculation. If he loses next year, failure to get that rollback done in his first two years will likely be remembered as his biggest blunder.

    I get the impression Obama honestly thought he could alter the political climate and foster some spirit of cooperation and compromise with Republicans before attacking some of the more contested parts of his agenda. It represents a fatally naive view of Washington that I'm quite sure Hillary moved beyond years ago.

    I still support Obama, but I'll cop to now wondering if him over Hillary wasn't a collective heart over head choice by democrats. Was an inexperienced first-term senator who'd only been in Washington for about 3 years really ready to take on the Republican establishment in this political climate? Especially when you're trying to pound through as many changes from the status quo as democrat voters were demanding. In retrospect, that might've been a job better suited for the been-through-all-the-wars ballbuster.
     
  5. Greenhorn

    Greenhorn Active Member

    I don't belong to a political party and never took part in a primary. I always found the Clintons less than admirable so I was glad Obama won the nomination. I supported him over McCain because I have no faith in the Republican party. I certainly did not think Obama would reform Washington, enact the entire progressive agenda or send every right-wing politician down to defeat. You really only have a binary choice for president. And that is more than what I had in my old conservative congressional district where the same old GOPer ran unopposed every year.
     
  6. YGBFKM

    YGBFKM Guest

    Alma, what are the legendary forces aligned against your dog?
     
  7. HejiraHenry

    HejiraHenry Well-Known Member

    She'd piss standing up, I bet.
     
  8. I Should Coco

    I Should Coco Well-Known Member

    I understand what you're trying to say, Bob, but respectfully disagree.

    Full disclosure: I did vote for Nader in 2000, and passed petitions to put him on the ballot in Michigan. I've voted Green Party the past two presidential elections (did NOT vote for Obama after he voted for the Wall Street bailout).

    Throwing away my vote? No. Voting for people who campaign on proposals I agree with? Yes.

    Gore lost in 2000 -- and the Democrats lost control of the House in 2010 -- because they abandoned their core constituents. Gore backpedaled on tougher fuel standards for autos; Obama and the House Dems settled for a half-assed health care "reform" plan that doesn't address the underlying problems of the current system.

    Liberals, progressives, Green Partiers, etc., noticed and voted accordingly. That's why we have elections.

    Republicans want the right wing vote, so they act accordingly in office. Democrats could learn something from that.
     
  9. SpeedTchr

    SpeedTchr Well-Known Member

    GFYA
     
  10. old_tony

    old_tony Well-Known Member

    It couldn't possibly be that they're against policies that have been disastrous. No, siree. Couldn't possibly be that. ::)

    Got news for you: This guy's skin color has nothing to do with why he's the worst president in U.S. history. It's the red that bothers people, not the black.
     
  11. Baron Scicluna

    Baron Scicluna Well-Known Member

    Then where were they for the eight years that Bush was president? Or when Reagan ran up huge deficits? There was no Tea Party then.

    All of a sudden now, the deficits are too high. Well, where were they when Cheney said, "Deficits don't matter?"
     
  12. Michael_ Gee

    Michael_ Gee Well-Known Member

    Prediction: When the next Republican President doubles the deficit in an attempt to deal with unemployment (which could be as soon as 2013), you won't hear a peep about it from Republicans of any kind. They're a tribe, not a political party. It's a waste of pixels to use logic on 'em.
     
Draft saved Draft deleted

Share This Page