PDA

View Full Version : Support President Obama- Vote Republican?



Milo Christensen
06-07-2010, 07:21 AM
Interesting op-ed in the WSJ (http://online.wsj.com/article/SB10001424052748703703704575276931429180508.html?m od=WSJ_newsreel_opinion)claiming that the best thing for President Obama would be to lose the Democratic majority in the House and get rid of Speaker Pelosi.

According to the op-ed this would allow Obama to be more Clintonesque in his governance.




But if Republicans win the House, everything changes. Mrs. Pelosi's influence as minority leader would be minimal—that is, assuming she's not ousted by Democrats upset over losing the majority.
Mr. Obama would be in a position to make his long-awaited pivot to the center. With Republicans in charge, he'd have to be bipartisan. He'd surely have to accede to serious cuts in spending—even as he complains they are harsh and mean-spirited. Mr. Obama could play a double game, appeasing Democrats by criticizing the cuts and getting credit with everyone else by acquiescing to them.
Mr. Clinton did this brilliantly in 1996. He fought with Republicans over the budget, winning some battles, losing others, as he lurched to the center. He twice vetoed Republican welfare reform bills, then signed a similar measure. He was hailed as the president who overhauled the unpopular welfare system.
In recent months, the president has met repeatedly with Mr. Clinton. We can only guess what they talked about. But given Mr. Clinton's own experience, I suspect he suggested to Mr. Obama that Republicans could be the answer to his political prayers. In 1994, Republicans freed the president from the clutches of liberal Democratic leaders in Congress. In 2010, they can do it again.

Chris Coose
06-07-2010, 07:36 AM
Sounds like a high school pep rally for the team that has no offense, defence, quarterback, losing seasons and ugly cheerleaders.

Keith Wilson
06-07-2010, 07:38 AM
The current crowd? The party of "no, no a thousand times no"? The party of "We don't care if the whole damn world goes down the tubes as long as this president fails"? The party of "Sure, it was a Republican proposal ten years ago, but now it's the devils's own socialism"? Not bloody likely. At least a few of the Democrats behave like responsible adults.

blindbrook
06-07-2010, 08:08 AM
Name them:D

Tom Montgomery
06-07-2010, 08:09 AM
I love it when the Wall Street Journal opines on what would be best for the Democratic Party. It's sort of like Sitting Bull advising Custer on his campaign strategy.

Cuyahoga Chuck
06-07-2010, 08:15 AM
The WSJ is a fine news source but reading the editorials or the ops is only suitable for true believers or those who are easily gulled.

Gerarddm
06-07-2010, 08:32 AM
WSJ is only Murdoch in a better suit.

elf
06-07-2010, 08:35 AM
Murdoch's so cheap even the suit isn't better.

Ian McColgin
06-07-2010, 08:36 AM
The WSJ was ever thus, as when owned by Dow Jones. It's been thirty five years since any friends of mine worked there, but reading the paper shows that nothing significant has changed:

On the news side, the facts are as well reported as humanly possible and errors are responsibly owned, with the only editorial censorship being the not inconsiderable choise of what to cover and what to spike; and

The editorial page remains in the hands or narrow-minded shills for corporate wealth utterly free of any concern for fact or truth.

Captain Blight
06-07-2010, 11:26 AM
Name them:D
Ron Kind, D-WI, for one. The next time somebody asks, "Hey, when's the last time a Democrat lowered taxes?" you can point to Ron Kind. Sponsored a tax-abatement bill for veterans.

So. You were saying?

pipefitter
06-07-2010, 12:01 PM
I could agree that it would be good if they didn't recycle the current majority. Meaning, seating more qualified/concerned representatives regardless of party affiliation. Even if that means electing those conservatives who more reflect conservative Obama voters as positive balance, would be a step in the right direction towards efficient government. We need to get rid of the chaff from both parties. Can you say with a straight face that you are satisfied with an otherwise directionless yes-man current majority and do you think this has truly enhanced Obama's presidency?

Dane Allen
06-07-2010, 12:03 PM
Yeah, nothing is going to save Obama at this point, no matter who runs congress. Even if he doesn't resign or get impeached over the Sestak/Romanoff crimes he most likely will get voted out in 2012. The memory of Clinton and Carter is just too fresh for another fraud to be perptrated upon the american people.

He sure was able to do a lot of damage in just two years, I'll give you that!!

TomF
06-07-2010, 12:19 PM
Yeah, nothing is going to save Obama at this point, no matter who runs congress. Even if he doesn't resign or get impeached over the Sestak/Romanoff crimes he most likely will get voted out in 2012. The memory of Clinton and Carter is just too fresh for another fraud to be perptrated upon the american people.

He sure was able to do a lot of damage in just two years, I'll give you that!!Damage? We really aren't looking at the same guy. You see 2 years of damage, ane I see 2 years of damage-control - re the 2 wars, re the economy ... and significant 1st steps in the health reforms Presidents have been talking about for 100 years.

Obama's no demi-god, and personally, I think he's made some mistakes (as I've outlined elsewhere). But you and I have seriously different lens prescriptions in our respective glasses if you think he's a guy who'll resign, be impeached, or be voted out for the damage he's done.

oznabrag
06-07-2010, 12:50 PM
Yeah, nothing is going to save Obama at this point, no matter who runs congress. Even if he doesn't resign or get impeached over the Sestak/Romanoff crimes he most likely will get voted out in 2012. The memory of Clinton and Carter is just too fresh for another fraud to be perptrated upon the american people.

He sure was able to do a lot of damage in just two years, I'll give you that!!

Dream your dream, child.

You'll have to face reality and its lack of sugarplums soon enough.

BrianW
06-07-2010, 01:06 PM
Not a good idea.

The complaining about Republicans not playing ball, and how even a majority is not good enough to pass the real reforms they want, is already too much to bear.

John of Phoenix
06-07-2010, 01:19 PM
In AZ we now have a republican governor, house and senate. By the WSJ's logic, if I wanted to further the interests of our great state, I should vote a straight Democratic ticket. I'll consider it.

paladin
06-07-2010, 01:43 PM
I love it when the Wall Street Journal opines on what would be best for the Democratic Party. It's sort of like Sitting Bull advising Custer on his campaign strategy.

I think Sitting Bull and Crazy Horse did a fantastic job of consulting with Custer.