Seems that Dick Morris and I have been thinking along the same lines.
In my opinion, the very BEST thing Obama could do for his legacy at this point would be to bow out of the 2012 race while promising to focus like a laser on getting the economy moving again through TRUE bipartisanship efforts. However, by doing so now or in the future rather than when he had the opportunity during his infamous Joint-Session Jobs Bill speech, the impact will be greatly diminished. Had Obama done what Dick Morris and I have suggested he needs to do during that Joint-Session of Congress, he would have endeared himself to many people across the political spectrum and softened some of the harsh criticism he will likely receive throughout America's future history.
Friday, September 30, 2011
24 comments:
Your First Amendment right to free speech is a privilege and comes with a measure of responsibility. You have the right to exercise that responsibility here but we reserve the right to inform you when you've used that right irresponsibly.
We are benevolent dictators in this regard. Enjoy.
Subscribe to:
Post Comments (Atom)
I agree with everything in this post. Problem is Obama is the most narcissistic President we've ever had, he would never take one for the team.
ReplyDeleteI would challenge any Obama supporter to come up with an example of Obama performing any kind of personal sacrifice for anything.
I'm not an Obama supporter, but he performs a personal sacrifice each year, on 9/11, when he forgoes some of the "traditional" presidential duties in favor of doing community service... spooning food onto the trays of the homeless. (that's not a bad thing, btw)
ReplyDeleteIf the economy in January is as bad or worse than it is today, he may likely face a primary challenge. Leaders in the democratic party may ask him to fore go his bid for reelection (we'll never hear about if they do), but I agree with Edwin... Obama is too much of a narcissist to take one for the team. And that's what I'm counting on, because if both his and the economic numbers are the same or worse come January, it'll be a Republican landslide in 2012.
ReplyDeleteObama has shown himself to be incapable of his post. He is, by almost every measure, the worst president in modern American history. He is the living embodiment of the Peter Principle...
"In a hierarchy every employee tends to rise to his level of incompetence."
Geeezzzz, I had to catch my breath before I could get myself off the floor after reading this post.
ReplyDeleteOMG!
"bow out of the 2012 race while promising to focus like a laser on getting the economy moving again through TRUE bipartisanship efforts."
He's tried bi-partisan for two and a half years. The Republicans will NEVER do ANYTHING that would allow any hint of success for Obama. Period. The idea that he would give up a second term to have a better chance at getting Republicans to cooperate is truly, TRULY absurd.
"he would have endeared himself to many people across the political spectrum and softened some of the harsh criticism he will likely receive throughout America's future history."
Sorry, I fell off my chair and couldn't get up.
"Obama is the most narcissistic President we've ever had,"
Thank you, doctor Fraud.
" I would challenge any Obama supporter to come up with an example of Obama performing any kind of personal sacrifice for anything."
Bush's personal sacrifice was what? Not playing golf? Staying off the sauce for 8 years? Reagan's personal sacrifice was..? What the heck are you talking about?
"he may likely face a primary challenge."
And he will likely fly to the moon on golden wings, too! What Democrat has raised the money and put together the staff and organization to make any kind of run at a sitting president with an enormous war chest?
Pardon me, I need to catch my breath again.
"The Republicans will NEVER do ANYTHING that would allow any hint of success for Obama."
ReplyDeleteThis supposes that successful implementation of Obama policy proposals would be a good thing. This idea that people want to block Obama merely because he's Obama is naive and childish. He's clearly not up to the task of being president and I would favor routine obstruction UNTIL his ideas can be proven to work by historic examples of similar proposals working in the past. To be sure, I don't want ANY Republican to "co-operate" if by doing so bad policy is implemented. That kind of cooperation is not good for the country. It is false. It's like saying, let's hang the guy slowly so he can live a little bit longer before dying. Obstruct away, GOP.
"This idea that people want to block Obama merely because he's Obama is naive and childish."
ReplyDeleteReally? Then why do they block things that they have proposed or supported in the past?
"Really? Then why do they block things that they have proposed or supported in the past?"
ReplyDeleteI've heard this claim, but I haven't heard anything that suggests an exact proposal has been thwarted by a Republican who originally proposed it. Nor have I heard of an specific proposal that was necessarily a good one when it was originally proposed. The point I am making here is that there are new people in Congress who are more conservative than those who have been referred to as having proposed what current people are "obstructing". One of the things I think we're seeing these days is a breed of people who understand "sorta conservative" isn't conservative at all and will not support watered down versions of bad ideas any more than they'd support totally bad ideas. That is not the kind of compromise people want to see; compromise for the sake of compromise; compromise for the sake of pretending to get things done. Real results and real solutions are what is needed and sought by the current crop of elected officials because that is the mood of the voters who elected them.
"Real results and real solutions are what is needed and sought by the current crop of elected officials because that is the mood of the voters who elected them."
ReplyDeleteMeaning that the compromise "people" (TP-ers) want is "my way or forget it."
"Meaning that the compromise "people" (TP-ers) want is "my way or forget it.""
ReplyDeleteMeaning that the compromise people (people like you) want THEIR way and when THEIR way is crap, they complain that those with the sense to see that won't compromise. We are dealing with an administration, with its minions in Congress, pushing bad ideas. To compromise is to wind up with something less bad, but still bad. That is not compromise, that is giving in to bad ideas. We can't afford to allow more bad when things have gotten as bad as it has already.
Exactly! Your way or no way.
ReplyDeleteNo, Jim. Whatever way is a good idea, not a bad one. What problem do you have with this? It seems that the whiney left assumes that the right doesn't understand their ideas, or won't/don't peruse them, or just opposes them out of hand due to the fact that a lefty is proposing it. That isn't the case at all.
ReplyDeleteOn the other hand, you seem to suggest that because someone of the Republican party proposed an idea, that we must find it to be a good one simply because a Republican proposed it.
What's really happening is that the current crop of reps look at ideas without regard to who it was the proposed it but only at the idea itself and whether or not it is a good one and worthy of support.
Obamacare is a grand example. Some say it contains elements proposed by Republicans, or that it mirrors Romney's idea in Massachusetts and thus, why would any right-winger oppose it? Without ever having seen a bit of it, my personal concern was that I wasn't hearing anything that addressed the real causes of rising costs in health care and health care insurance. Why would I want to look at something else without first addressing those known causes, one by one?
So I support any representative that will hold firmly against bad ideas and NOT compromise for the sake of compromise. Reject bad ideas and only focus on what is a good idea. Less bad is still bad and compromise that results in "not quite as bad" is still bad for the nation. It's called spine, and we need more reps with one.
Jim acts as though the only obstructionists are those on the right. The house has passed numerous bill this term but they have all languished and died in the DEMOCRATIC held senate. Harry Reid has declared that there are more important matters to see to than Obama's new jobs bill....
ReplyDeleteJim has strayed into 'pot meet kettle' territory... if it were Iran, he'd be arrested as a spy.
Jim seems to forget that Reid and Pelosi held up dozens of judicial appointments, refused to pass a budget and filibustered social security reform during the Bush Presidency.
ReplyDelete"Jim seems to forget that Reid and Pelosi held up dozens of judicial appointments"
ReplyDeleteProving once again that you argue about things you know nothing about. Pelosi was Speaker of the House. The House has no role whatsoever in approving judicial appointments.
The social security privatization "bill" never got out of committee in the Senate.
"Whatever way is a good idea, not a bad one. What problem do you have with this?"
ReplyDeleteNone, except that according to you your side is the one and only arbiter of good and bad. That won't work.
"None, except that according to you your side is the one and only arbiter of good and bad. That won't work."
ReplyDeletePot, meet kettle.
the budget originates in the house Jim. thats why I mentioned it. Nice try but cherry picking my comments won't stop you from looking like a partisan tool.
ReplyDeleteELA, I don't do that. I'm willing to accept compromise if something I think is bad is a trade off for something I think is good to move our country forward. It's called "governing."
ReplyDeleteYou have yet to demonstrate you possess a spirit of compromise at this forum. What you call 'governing' is a posse of Black Panthers outside a voting precinct, billy clubs in hand.
ReplyDelete"I'm willing to accept compromise if something I think is bad is a trade off for something I think is good to move our country forward."
ReplyDeleteThis is not a bad practice. What is bad is when the bad ideas are so bad that to accept them even in part, for the sake of "moving the country forward", actually does more harm than good. Real "move the country forward" moves might involve rejecting in whole the proposals of the opposition in favor of radically different, ideologically opposite proposals with some history of success. I think the current impasse has a lot to do with choices between what each side traditionally supports, and what history has shown is likely to succeed and fail. What's more, the history is quite recent and easy to read. Why would a responsible Republican/conservative "compromise" and accept what history clearly shows is failure when we are already so deep in the mess?
"I'm willing to accept compromise if something I think is bad is a trade off for something I think is good to move our country forward."
ReplyDeleteThis is not a bad practice. What is bad is when the bad ideas are so bad that to accept them even in part, for the sake of "moving the country forward", actually does more harm than good. Real "move the country forward" moves might involve rejecting in whole the proposals of the opposition in favor of radically different, ideologically opposite proposals with some history of success. I think the current impasse has a lot to do with choices between what each side traditionally supports, and what history has shown is likely to succeed and fail. What's more, the history is quite recent and easy to read. Why would a responsible Republican/conservative "compromise" and accept what history clearly shows is failure when we are already so deep in the mess?
"I'm willing to accept compromise if something I think is bad is a trade off for something I think is good to move our country forward."
ReplyDeleteThis is not a bad practice. What is bad is when the bad ideas are so bad that to accept them even in part, for the sake of "moving the country forward", actually does more harm than good. Real "move the country forward" moves might involve rejecting in whole the proposals of the opposition in favor of radically different, ideologically opposite proposals with some history of success. I think the current impasse has a lot to do with choices between what each side traditionally supports, and what history has shown is likely to succeed and fail. What's more, the history is quite recent and easy to read. Why would a responsible Republican/conservative "compromise" and accept what history clearly shows is failure when we are already so deep in the mess?
"I'm willing to accept compromise if something I think is bad is a trade off for something I think is good to move our country forward."
ReplyDeleteThis is not a bad practice. What is bad is when the bad ideas are so bad that to accept them even in part, for the sake of "moving the country forward", actually does more harm than good. Real "move the country forward" moves might involve rejecting in whole the proposals of the opposition in favor of radically different, ideologically opposite proposals with some history of success. I think the current impasse has a lot to do with choices between what each side traditionally supports, and what history has shown is likely to succeed and fail. What's more, the history is quite recent and easy to read. Why would a responsible Republican/conservative "compromise" and accept what history clearly shows is failure when we are already so deep in the mess?
"What you call 'governing' is a posse of Black Panthers outside a voting precinct, billy clubs in hand."
ReplyDeleteWow! Good one, ELLA. WTF?