Just heard a "Democratic Strategist" on Fox News say Obama could unite the country by NOT running...

[SKKY]

...in 2012. Of couse Greta declined to elaborate the question. I was disappointed. Perhaps I expect too much from an Operating Thetan?

[Syrinx]

1. let me guess

I didn't see the show, but I bet that "Democratic strategist" was named Doug Schoen. Am I right?

[SKKY]

2. Actually, yes, I think it was.

He's a crock, no?

[Syrinx]

5. yes, sir

He's a business partner of Mark Penn. A "New Democrat" on the surface, and a Republican at heart.

Well those are the same thing anyway. :(

[WillParkinson]

3. Soothsayer!

Witch! I cast thee out!!!!!

(lol)

[Syrinx]

6. cast out to where?

I may want to go. :)

[flpoljunkie]

30. Who did he suggest? The DLC's Harold Ford, Jr.?

[txlibdem]

4. So, predictably, their reverse psychology will work on Obama like a charm

Whenever he ramps up some center-right legislation the RW noise machine screams that Obama is being a Socialist so, instead of growing a spine and standing up to the RW idiots and calling them on their BS, Obama "compromises" and "capitulates" to make said legislation even more right wing approved.

Oh, yeah. That's the Democratic President I want working on MY behalf. NOT.

[SKKY]

7. I hope and pray that you're dead wrong...

...but, I fear you may be right.

[Proud Liberal Dem]

8. What "center right" legislation are you referring to in this instance?

Extension of tax cuts for middle-class (only), DADT repeal, START Treaty? :shrug:

Schoen and another "former Democratic Strategist" were pushing this nonsense (to put it charitably) the week before last, so I'm not terribly surprised that they're still doing it. Bad ideas NEVER seem to die with the Fox News crowd. :eyes:

[txlibdem]

9. What fantasy, never happened, legislation are YOU talking about?

DADT has not been repealed. START treaty has not been finalized and is not a new legislation by the Obama administration, merely a continuation of a RONALD REAGAN program so are you sure you want to use that as one of your examples??? And extension of tax cuts for middle class only? When did that slip past me unnoticed? All the things you cite have not happened.

Let's talk about legislation that actually has President Obama's signature:

--Credit card "reform" that puts no limits on interest rates, they simply have to notify you prior to getting screwed
--Health Care "reform" that is recognized almost universally as a giveaway to the insurance companies and big pharma
--Financial "reform" that does nothing to stop the egregious practices that destroyed our economy, put no limits on the banks, did not split the banking function from the investing function, put in place the largest banker bonus program in history, and guarantees that the fed provides TRILLIONS of dollars (TRILLIONS!!!) at near zero interest to these big banks --- with absolutely no rules as to how it is invested.


I could go on but I don't think you're very knowledgeable so it would be a waste of my time. You should consider a trip to "the google" before posting nonsense.

[Proud Liberal Dem]

17. Gee

I'm sorry to waste your time *making* you respond to my reply. :eyes:

Criticisms about the legislation that President Obama has signed to date aside, my question to is what Republican (mis-)administration would be pushing for any kind of reform of credit card companies, health care, the financial markets, military policy in regards to gays and lesbians, and maintaining tax policies favorable to the middle-class? If it were up to the Republicans, as well as those whom felt that the legislation didn't go far enough or wasn't perfect, NOTHING would have probably gotten done in this last session of Congress IMHO. If you have issues with the legislation (and I'm not saying they're perfect as they are either), keep pushing for the President and Congress to continue to improve the legislation. That's how our system is supposed to work, isn't it?

[txlibdem]

18. False dilemma: the lesser of two evils

I said no such thing in my posts so I have no idea where you are getting this. My view is that President Obama should, after the lame duck congressional session, state that he will not run.

"I shall not seek, and I will not accept, the nomination of my party for another term as your President."
http://www.lbjlib.utexas.edu/johnson/archives.hom/speeches.hom/680331.asp

President Obama, you know in your heart this is the right thing to do and after the lame duck session ends is the right time to do so.

[Proud Liberal Dem]

20. Well, good luck convincing him to do that

Thankfully, he's way too smart to fall for Caddell & Schoen's BS suggestion that he refuse to seek another term. If any President in recent history should ever have refused to seek another term it should've been Bush- during his first term- and if he had had any honor and/or integrity, he'd have actually done it (but, of course, he didn't).

I just can't imagine what horrible, evil things President Obama has done that makes it so imperative that should have to "fall on his sword" just because some "Faux Democrats" say so. :eyes: You DO realize that if he refuses to seek another term, we'll almost certainly be getting a Republican in the WH (and probably in the House AND the Senate) come 2013, right? There's no way that the Democratic Party is going to take such a massive hit and be successful in the 2012 elections IMHO.

[txlibdem]

21. You have that exactly backwards

If Obama is the Democratic nominee in 2012 the Republicans WILL take the White House.

The only way he can win in 2012 is if he brings back Glass Stiegel, the WPA, and put anti-trust into high gear to break apart all the big banks and investment houses as a start.

But since Pres. Obama is basically a center-right Republican (that is how he has governed so far) he will do NONE of those things. And he, therefore, has absolutely zero chance of being re-elected so he should do the honorable thing and refuse to run again. Put The Party first, put The Country first.

[Proud Liberal Dem]

24. Only if those things that you mentioned are important to the vast majority of people

If the economy is doing better and people are starting to feel the effects of it (i.e. less unemployment), he will almost certainly win re-election IMHO.

[txlibdem]

25. I agree with what you wrote

Since nothing he has tried so far has budged unemployment, how may I ask is he to accomplish this miracle feat? It's like you don't really understand WHY American businesses are sitting on $2 Trillion in CASH instead of hiring or expanding. I get the feeling that you don't really understand that our economy has been neutered over the past decades and that consumer spending amounts to 70% of our economy.

What will get those businesses to loosen up their grip on that $2,000,000,000,000 pile of greenbacks? Is it a $50bn project here or there? Nope. Is it a $3000 tax incentive to hire? Hasn't had any effect so far. In short, nothing that President Obama is likely to do will nudge unemployment figures. His prime failure, IMHO, is that he is a devout follower of the Trickle Down religion. Every decision he has made so far has been in favor of big businesses.

The only thing that will save Obama is direct job creation by government programs; ie, resurrect the WPA. This will jump start consumer spending and should thaw a major chunk of that $2 Trillion.

[Proud Liberal Dem]

26. I don't disagree with you

and there may have been more that he could've done during the past two years but, as I see things, he had barely enough time to stop the bleeding caused by the previous eight years of Republican economic hackery and malfeasance let alone be able to turn the entire ship of state around, particularly given what he had to work with in Congress- specifically a rock-solid wall of Republican opposition to EVERYTHING, a Senate Majority leader who, from the outset, declared that he "doesn't work for Obama," not to mention approximately 14-15 Dems in the Senate whom announced their intention to scrutinize and, if necessary, oppose the President's agenda. Now that the Republicans have the House for the next two years and an increased number of seats in the Senate, and remain committed as ever to Obama's political destruction, I have no idea what he's going to be able to get signed into law during the next two years. Hopefully, there will be some substantive things he can do with his executive authority because between fending off Republican mischief and attempts at reversing some of the progress he HAS made during the past 1-2 years, he'll have some substantial difficulties in getting good legislation through Congress and to his desk. Of course, Congress will be "under the gun" too, so I hope that President Obama calls the Republicans out early and often if they decide to spend their time gunning for him instead of helping out with the economy.

[txlibdem]

29. I'm glad that I've won you over to my side

We both agree that Pres. Obama has zero chance now precisely because he spent the last two years with a hands-off attitude and has done nothing to improve the lot of the Middle Class in America. Or should I say "has gotten nothing done that would" help the middle class.

All he had to do was to bring back the WPA, separate investment banks from commercial banks, bring back Glass Stiegel, and use the existing anti-trust laws to bust up the monopolies and the military industrial complex. But he did none of these things. He mentioned thinking about none of these things. He actively denounced programs like the WPA. Why? I believe that he allowed the right wingers to control him by calling him Socialist and Communist when he was proposing legislation that was in whole or in large part the same as legislation proposed by Republicans within the past decade. Now ask yourself why is a Democratic president getting behind Republican ideas and Republican-devised legislation...

There is a word for a person who is so easily manipulated: tool. Simpleton. Spineless wimp. Pick your poison.

Whatever the reason, whatever the underlying flaw in his character, I believe it is time for him to gracefully step aside and give the nod to a Democratic Presidential candidate who actually has a chance of winning the 2012 election.

[Proud Liberal Dem]

33. Well, my agreement is a bit more qualified than you seem to suggest

I agree that a government works program would be a good idea and to the extent that he can do something along those lines, he should.

I do NOT believe that President Obama has "zero chance" now to anything- just that things are going to be more difficult during the next two years to get anything huge accomplished absent bipartisan support but the kind of change you speak of probably would have never happened during the past 1-2 years either, nor is it necessarily what President Obama campaigned on. He is not radical or a revolutionary and did not present himself as such during the Presidential campaign. He is a pragmatic "centrist" and is clearly intent (and always has been) on working (mostly) through the existing system- improving it, tweaking it, etc. He has never AFAIK called for a dismantling of "the system".

I do NOT believe that President Obama is "easily manipulated"- he ran on a platform of trying to bridge the red state/blue state divide and he has pledged to try to work with the Republicans. The Republicans certainly haven't been willing to do so and I suppose that he may need to re-think his approach to dealing with him somewhat but he hasn't just rolled over for the Republicans either. Although what we got with HCR, Financial Reform, etc. was less than what most progressives wanted, I would argue that it was still far more than what the Republicans would ever tolerate (which, for them of course would be virtually NOTHING).

I keep recommending that everybody read (or listen to) his book, "The Audacity of Hope", which should go a long way in clarifying exactly who he is and his approach to politics/government.

Who, pray tell, do you recommend as a viable potential replacement candidate for 2012 should Obama heed Caddell & Schoen's idiotic and brainless advice? :shrug:

[txlibdem]

35. He did indeed campaign on "changing the way Washington works"

Shame on me, perhaps, for thinking that Obama had the ability to deduce what times we were living in as I did. I foresaw the collapse and sold everything I could to ride out the storm. So a Harvard educated professor is less astute than some 40-something with no college degree? Good luck to America. That is your argument in favor of Obama: he just didn't know. My question to you is: why in the hell did he NOT know? Who in their right F*king mind could NOT have known that the economy was heading for the worst crash in our lifetime after seeing all that was going on from 2003 onward especially but also going back to 1970s, 1980s, 1990s, and the tech crash in 2001. If our President had used his head for something greater than a hat rack he would have come to the same conclusions that I did: that these are FDR-scale times and we need an FDR-scale leader with FDR-size cajones and FDR-type programs on the appropriate scale.

So I'm some freaking genius and Obama couldn't possibly have been expected to know how screwed up the economy was, and was heading toward? Yeah, I believe that. I suppose you have a bridge to sell ME?

Excusing his failure to lead, his failure to assess reality, his failure to grow a pair and start busting some heads to get stuff done by trying to say he had some kind of "lofty goals" or "audacity to hope beyond hope even in the face of a deadly reality" is purely bunk in my opinion. Once you are in that chair you become responsible. To hell with your lofty goals that you wrote a book about years before. Your JOB is to deal with the reality of the day and to do what is needed to fix the problems in the nation.

He failed to get out of his celebrity daze and do a damn thing to address the actual sh*t hitting the fan around him on a daily basis.

[Proud Liberal Dem]

37. It's perfectly obvious

that for whatever reason you intensely loathe (if not outright hate) President Obama, so no matter what I or anybody else says or President Obama does, nothing will change your mind. Hey, I can respect that. I will assume that you will be hard at work for the next two years grooming another candidate to replace him in 2012. Best of luck with that.

[txlibdem]

38. It's perfectly obvious

That you will defend a failed Presidency no matter the cost to the nation, no matter the cost to your own future and that of your children and grandchildren. Just so you don't have to admit you screwed up, backed the wrong guy. Some of us have bigger stones than others, I guess: I am perfectly comfortable saying that I was a rabid and fanatical Obama supporter who worked tirelessly to get him elected because of what he told us he would do after getting elected and am now realizing that we were all lied to, we were all hoodwinked into voting for a center-right Republican who wore Democratic clothing.

But you are certainly entitled to your opinion that Obama has greater than a snowball's chance in hell of getting re-elected in 2012 (unless he's running against Sarah Palin that is). My only request is that you answer the question of how and why?

How is Pres. Obama going to win an election when he has governed more Republican than a lot of Republican Presidents in the past? Please answer that question.

[Proud Liberal Dem]

40. Failed presidency?

If 80-85% of Democrats remain supportive of him and he has a near 50% approval rating among the general electorate (higher than the Republican Party I might add), then I fail to see how his Presidency could conceivably be considered a "failure" and the recent midterm election, one in which a majority of the country (including a lot of Democrats and progressives) didn't apparently vote, while not pretty, was not a referendum on President Obama nor an endorsement of Republican policies. You say that he has governed more "Republican" than a lot(?) of Republican Presidents in the past but if 80-85% of DEMOCRATS still support him, then they must either not actually believe it or, at the very least, not be terribly bothered by his governing style. His governing like a "Republican, even more so than the more moderate Republican Presidents like Richard Nixon and Dwight Eisenhower (whom, presumably, you're referring to), certainly hasn't won him any real support among Republicans for his policies or style of governance that you say he is trying to emulate.

Frankly, until or unless, President Obama's support among Democrats drastically decreases between now and 2012 and/or his polls numbers sink down to post-2004 Bushian levels, I'm not going to stop supporting President Obama for re-election. Can you name me any Democrat out there who has even greater support than President Obama who could be a viable potential challenger to Obama's renomination? Which Republican candidate(s) is going to be able to appease both the Tea Party AND the general electorate AND be the overall stronger challenger for Obama to have to beat in 2012? :shrug:

[Lisa D]

31. Most ridiculous thing I've read here in awhile

and that's saying something.

[impik]

11. "Center-Right legislation". You people just gets funnier.

[txlibdem]

13. Define "You People" please

eom

[burning rain]

15. Sometimes "you people" is bigoted, & sometimes it isn't.

Here it seems simply to mean something like "you disagreeable people who have a more-or-less common position I find objectionable," in this case that the president has been too conservative.

[txlibdem]

19. Fair enough

But, to quote a famous American, "You are entitled to your own opinion, but you are not entitled to your own facts."

[burning rain]

34. I myself think the president & Senate Dems have been too conservative.

I just wanted to push back against what I saw as the possible suspicion that the expression "you people" had bigotry behind it in this case. That expression tends to set DUers off pretty automatically.

[treestar]

23. this is not even true; Obama has called Republicans no their BS

[txlibdem]

28. Sure he did, child.

Now drink you warm milk and go back to mental slumber. It's so much more comfortable there, rather than the harsh reality of actual events post 1-19-2009.

[ProSense]

10. Here's some advice from a real Democratic strategist

Time to End the Caddell-Schoen Masquerade

Throw Mark Penn in too.

[burning rain]

16. Nice piece, ProSense!

Oliver Willis is also a great scourge of the disgraceful Fox News Democrats, for those who aren't familiar with his work.

[impik]

12. Back stubbing racists "Democrats:.

[burning rain]

14. Fox loves this sort of idiotic mischief...

speculating on a Hillary run in 2012, etc.

[treestar]

22. He must think Obama would win

Or it wouldn't be a "problem."

[Proud Liberal Dem]

27. That's what I think it's all about personally

They (Republicans) must NOT be very confident that they can beat Obama in 2012. Why do they think that they could suggest something so asinine and then expect to be taken seriously is beyond my powers of comprehension. :banghead:

[Phx_Dem]

32. He sounds like a DUer. n/t

[jeanpalmer]

36. He couldn't unite the country

but he could potentially unite the Democratic Party, and do us all a favor. If he thinks about anyone but himself, he'll announce he's not running. We can't afford another one of his debacles.

[CakeGrrl]

39. Which of his "debacles" can't we afford?

And good luck uniting the Democratic Party.

I'm willing to wager there could be a demographic of Dems/Indies who might get it in their head that massively disgruntled/malcontent Progressives, hypothetically speaking, sowed seeds of division.

Why should their ideal candidate, whom no one has really been able to name thus far, be a uniting force?

What would that candidate have to say to make these Progressives line up behind him/her?

What would make them credible?

[Jennicut]

41. Schoen is about all that passes for a Dem on Faux. So pathetically obvious.