¡Si’ se puede! y ¡Esperanza y cambio!

[Yonivore]

Bill Otis offers a powerful analysis of President Obama's current woes (http://www.powerlineblog.com/archives/2009/08/024348.php):


It seems to me that the explanation for Obama's current woes is simple: He over-read his mandate, to the extent there ever was a "mandate."

When you campaign on vacuous nonsense like "Yes We Can!" and "Hope and Change" and other such empty bromides, your victory hardly betokens a public desperate for specific and massive changes affecting intensely personal issues, like who you can choose as your doctor and how it's going to get paid for (or not paid for and thus, as people are starting to understand, rationed).

This would be true in any event, but it's especially true with Obama, for several reasons. First, he got no landslide. Winning 53 to 46 isn't that close, but it's not anything like what (say) Reagan got in either of his elections. Second, Obama ran as The Man Who Wasn't Bush. That was shrewd, and successful, but it scarcely bespeaks a public clamor for any particular change. Third and relatedly, but for the banking meltdown in mid-September, it isn't clear that Obama would have won at all; the polls were close up to that point. Fourth, as has been noted many times, a significant part of the public wanted to elect a black man as President. That is understandable in its way, but the subterrainian longing for racial expiation can hardly be confused (by rational people, anyway) as a longing for socialized medicine.

And it's not so much that Obama tried to put over "too much too soon," as is commonly said. That gives him more credit than he deserves. It's that he tried to put over something the majority simply doesn't want and is properly suspicious of -- a massive change in a system that most people believe (correctly) serves them well.

Still, the push for health care "reform" is in one important way, as your title states, a recklessness borne of arrogance -- or if not arrogance exactly, then of the echo-chamber quality of a liberalism that can no longer hear the outside world or, increasingly, itself. This is again related to the way Obama campaigned and has governed. The fact that big majorities are satisfied with the health care system in general and their care in particular just does not register with him. What registers are the Queen for a Day stories -- the cancer-stricken granny whose insurance company cuts her off three days before chemotherapy was to have begun, etc.

Putting a single human face on policy choices that will affect 300,000,000 people paints a powerful picture. But in short order it succumbs to the defects of its "virtues." The public is not yet so dumbed-down that it's going to cashier a system it knows and likes in favor of the Government Sponsored Unknown, and still less is it going to do such a thing on the basis of a handful of anecdotal horror stories -- stories that it senses are deeply dishonest for attempting to convey as routine something people know is anything but.

Bottom line: When you hide your substantive agenda and campaign on nothing, don't be surprised when nothing is the public's response after the agenda actually shows itself.

[ChumpDumper]

Obama indeed campaigned on health care reform -- but that's not why he was elected. He was elected because the Republicans failed so miserably.

[polysylab1k]

Obama indeed campaigned on health care reform -- but that's not why he was elected. He was elected because the Republicans failed so miserably.
That's the fail of the primary election in democrats. Bush's admin was so repugnant that it damaged the fame of republicans as a whole severely, then the victory of democrats was almost granted before the elephant&donkey show even started off.

[FromWayDowntown]

I remember that mandate that Bush won in 2000.

[LnGrrrR]

I remember that mandate that Bush won in 2000.

LOL I remember that Bush himself said he had a mandate in 2004... no conservatives seemed to be correcting him much back then. But hey, it's the fun of politics.

[SouthernFried]

I'm not sure why folks can't understand why Bush and the GOP lost.

I guess they think it was the Iraq war. It wasn't

It was overspending and acting like a liberal democrat with such things as the new drug "entitlement." And it was the same with BUSH SR. He lied about "no new taxes."

It wasn't because of anything Obama or the democrats did. They don't have a "mandate," cuz they are just doing the same things we didn't like BUSH doing (this is change?)...and McCain would have continued it. They both act like Democrats.

And everyone on the right was criticizing him...just not for the same reasons Demo's did.

Demo's think BUSH was terrible, basically because he was a republican.

He was terrible cuz he acted like a Democrat.

[ChumpDumper]

I guess they think it was the Iraq war. It wasn'tSure it was.

Crucial mistakes regarding Katrina didn't help.

Nobody really gives a shit about government spending. Reagan ran up the debt more than Bush ever did and Republicans beatify him as a conservative.

[SouthernFried]

nobody really gives a shit about government spending.

Us "nobody's" will be the reason all the "somebody's" in DC (and evidently here,) who don't care about govt spending...will find out they should have.

Reagan's deficit spending was his greatest regret. He signed on them to appease democrats (who else?) who controlled most of congress...and he shouldn't have. To say that nobody cared about them, is simply incorrect. It was my biggest dissappointment in Reagan...and my biggest Dissappointment in both Bush's.

We can't expect anything else from Democrats...no reason to be dissappointed there. We hope to expect better from Republicans, tho we've been sorely tested.

And that's the reason the GOP lost. Until the spending issue is resolved, the GOP will suffer...as will the country.

You might not give a s**t about govt spending...but there's a LOT of "nobody's" who do.

[ChumpDumper]

Us "nobody's" will be the reason all the "somebody's" in DC (and evidently here,) who don't care about govt spending...will find out they should have.Yeah, you sure showed them during the Reagan and Bush years!


Reagan's deficit spending was his greatest regret. He signed on them to appease democrats (who else?) who controlled most of congress...and he shouldn't have. To say that nobody cared about them, is simply incorrect. It was my biggest dissappointment in Reagan...and my biggest Dissappointment in both Bush's.People say one thing and do another. The proof is right there. Nobody really gives a shit.


We can't expect anything else from Democrats...no reason to be dissappointed there. We hope to expect better from Republicans, tho we've been sorely tested.As long as your district is taken care of, you really don't care.


And that's the reason the GOP lost. Until the spending issue is resolved, the GOP will suffer...as will the country.Nah, they'll get back in power with lip service to spending and fun non-issues like gay marriage, then continue to spend just like they always did.


You might not give a s**t about govt spending...but there's a LOT of "nobody's" who do.You never elect anyone who does, so it doesn't matter.

[SouthernFried]

Yeah, you sure showed them during the Reagan and Bush years!

Yes, we did. It is the reason we've had 8 yrs of Clinton and now Obama. We're just hoping they actually "get it" this time...we'll see.

People say one thing and do another. The proof is right there. Nobody really gives a shit.

Like I've said...Clinton and Obama were elected for exactly these reasons. We gave a s**t.

As long as your district is taken care of, you really don't care.

I don't even know what my district is. That's more of a mentality of the left, than right.

Nah, they'll get back in power with lip service to spending and fun non-issues like gay marriage, then continue to spend just like they always did.

This has been true...and why the GOP is in trouble now. Maybe they'll "get it" this time...mebbe they wont. Democrats sure "don't give a s**t about govt spending...let's all hope, for the sake of the country and our childrens future, this next go-around the GOP will.

You never elect anyone who does, so it doesn't matter.

Is there anyone in politics that does "give a s**t about govt spending? It's obvious you don't, it's also obvious the Democratic party doesn't. The GOP has been bad too, tho no one has been as bad as the current administration in the history of this country. I hope it wakes up people like yourself and others, who "don't give a s**t about govt spending.

Because you should..

[ChumpDumper]

:lol Since you gave a shit about government spending, you elected the most liberal member of the Senate to the presidency.

:rollin


I hope it wakes up people like yourself and others, who "don't give a s**t about govt spending.

Because you should.. Why? I'll be dead and in heaven when and if all this is settled one way or another, like all good Christians.

[SouthernFried]

:lol Since you gave a shit about government spending, you elected the most liberal member of the Senate to the presidency.

:rollin

Why? I'll be dead and in heaven when and if all this is settled one way or another, like all good Christians.

You don't give a s**t about govt spending, because you'll be dead and won't have to deal with it?

Honesty...I'll give you points for honesty. Don't think they outweigh the negatives for Greed & Selfishness. But, since your a christian, I'm sure someone will figure out better than I.

[ChumpDumper]

You don't give a s**t about govt spending, because you'll be dead and won't have to deal with it?I won't be able to give a shit about it, as I will be dead.


Honesty...I'll give you points for honesty. Don't think they outweigh the negatives for Greed & Selfishness.Your anonymous internets opinion really matters to me.
But, since your a christian, I'm sure someone will figure out better than I.Maybe someone can figure out what you meant to say in that sentence.

[SouthernFried]

Maybe someone can figure out what you meant to say in that sentence.

I'm sure someone has.

[ChumpDumper]

Maybe you can tell me what you meant.

[SouthernFried]

You don't give a s**t about govt spending, because you'll be dead and won't have to deal with it?

Honesty...I'll give you points for honesty. Don't think they outweigh the negatives for Greed & Selfishness. But, since your a christian, I'm sure someone will figure out better than I.

This isn't all that cryptic, I'm surprised you need explanation...especially since you stated you don't care what some anonymous poster here says.

But, since you asked...

Basically, because your a christian, I am saying that whatever points I took away from you for your selfishness and greed...and that I added to you for your honesty in openly stating your selfishness and greed...is really irrelevant.

I would judge you pretty harshly. But, I am "just an anonymous poster" here. My judgement simply doesn't matter. And, since your a christian, I am saying your God can make the judgement for, or against this things...much better than I ever could.

[ChumpDumper]

God is a real deficit hawk, isn't he?

Jesus condemns people to hell for being apathetic about government debt.

Do you guys ever think about what you post?

[SouthernFried]

Uh...this was about selfishness, honesty, and greed. I'm not religious...but, isn't that something they take into account?

[ChumpDumper]

You know why I don't think anyone really takes fiscal policy seriously?

No one has ever talked about actually paying off the debt.

No one.

Everyone just talks about going a little lower or a little higher than where we are now, which doesn't do much for the overall issue of debt.

So, beyond that micro debate -- what is there to talk about?

[ChumpDumper]

Uh...this was about selfishness, honesty, and greed. I'm not religious...but, isn't that something they take into account?Is it?

What amounts of selfishness, dishonesty and greed will keep one out of heaven?

[SouthernFried]

Is it?

What amounts of selfishness, dishonesty and greed will keep one out of heaven?

Your the christian...don't you know? Less than a quart, but no more than 1/2 gallon?

[SouthernFried]

You know why I don't think anyone really takes fiscal policy seriously?

No one has ever talked about actually paying off the debt.

No one.

Everyone just talks about going a little lower or a little higher than where we are now, which doesn't do much for the overall issue of debt.

So, beyond that micro debate -- what is there to talk about?

I've been talking about it for 20 yrs...as have most of my freinds. But, we're "nobody's"...the somebody's don't talk about it all that much. Mebbe the nobody's will get heard in the next election. Have to wait and see.

[ChumpDumper]

I've been talking about it for 20 yrs.Do you have a post about on these boards or some other message board you could link?

I'd like to see your plan.

[angrydude]

lots of people talk about getting rid of the debt. Democrats used to do it when Clinton was the one with the budget surplus. Its never going to happen though. Saying "no" isn't politically popular so they cook up hair-brain theories to convince themselves out of control spending is good.

[SouthernFried]

Dunno if I have any posts on it. Don't do this much...but, I've done it for a very long time, lol. Before the "real internet" even...back when I was running UTSA's computer system in the 70's, and talking to other kids at other colleges over phone modems.

Over 65% of the federal budget is social entitlement programs. Didn't take a genious, even 30 yrs ago, to know that this would happen. When Govt jobs overtook Manufacturing jobs (that was under Reagan too...), it was obvious it would very hard to be turned back.

Doesn't mean it can't be, just too many people now dependent on govt checks to make it easy.

So, how do you do it?

It's basically easy. Nothing new...no great plan...just tried and true finances, what you and I both know will work. What works in your house, and everyone elses house when finances get out of control...

You cut spending.

How much and where? A lot...and everywhere. Can give you a break down...but, it's most everything. 50% reductions to begin with...given the numbers, that's what is necessary.

But, politicians don't like cutting things, they like "doing" things...lol

Anyway...how many people have been proposing cutting spending over the years?

A lot.

How many times has govt actually cut spending?

Not in my lifetime. Govt budget spending has went up every single year.

So, there's actually been quite a few people demanding cuts in spending...been out there all my lifetime. Even some politicians campaign on it. Just never happens. So we keep trying again. Bush SR didn't do it...Bush JR. didn't do it...the GOP doesn't do it...even Reagan (who did actually try) didn't do it...We keep getting dissappointed, express it in our lack of support at the polls, then a Democrat get's in, and increases spending exponentially over what the GOPer's increased spending would be.

But, as you said, we're "nobody's"...we keep demanding they cut spending, they don't do it, we no longer support them in the polls...then the Demo's get in and go nutz, so we go back to polls and try again...rinse and repeat.

This is the first time, in my 52 yrs, that those "nobody's" like me...are actually getting pretty vocal about it.

Mebbe things will change this time. Doubt it...but, it's something to do.

[ChumpDumper]

This is the first time, in my 52 yrs, that those "nobody's" like me...are actually getting pretty vocal about it.The first time?

No wonder you're nobodies.

[SouthernFried]

The first time?

No wonder you're nobodies.

lol...guess I deserved that.

I should amend my quote...this is the first time "publicly" that we've been vocal about it, en masse. The "silent majority" and all that...

Always a lesson learned along the way, even if it's an old one.

"For evil to win, all that is needed, is for good men to do nothing."

Conservatives don't like politics and govt. So, don't go into it.

It left the door pretty much wide open...

lessons...

[ChumpDumper]

Conservatives go into government, then they become part of the government and end up being not conservative anymore.

And conservatives keep voting for them.

[SouthernFried]

Conservatives go into government, then they become part of the government and end up being not conservative anymore.

And conservatives keep voting for them.

Ayup. It's a losing battle.

I never really understood what liberals cry about so much. GOP does as much spending on social stuff as they do. I guess it's just they want the Demo's to do it instead.

Or, it becomes about meaningless, but ever so meaningful "social issues of the day". We'll elect someone just because his skin is darker than the other guy, to prove we don't care about the color of his skin. Or we do care about the color of his skin, and figure that someone with that skin color needs to be president right now.

And in the meantime...govt keeps growing, deficits keep piling up, debt becomes multi-trillions, and counting....

Given another 100 yrs, objective historians will wonder at the absurdity of it all, and will end up falling back on..."I guess you just had to be there to understand."

They'd be wrong tho, I'm here...and it's incomprehensible to me too.

[Wild Cobra]

LOL I remember that Bush himself said he had a mandate in 2004... no conservatives seemed to be correcting him much back then. But hey, it's the fun of politics.
Well, from my point of view, he was the only viable choice. can you imagine John sKerry as president?

[Wild Cobra]

A lot of conservatives voted in the Dem primary. I had to officially escort several out of the caucuses who voted in the GOP primary. They bitched and moaned and all where Clinton supporters, but at least I didn't take names and file charges. Although, looking back on it, I should have.
Are you admitting to obstruction of voting rights?