Political pundits have written a good deal about how President Obama misread his mandate. At GayPatriot, we have focused on how he assumed the American people had elected him to use his judgment in discerning and then addressing what problems faced us, but in the process neglected some of the promises he made in the campaign (especially that “net spending cut“) and the main factor contributing to his September rise in the polls and eventual electoral success.
Recall, that the polls shifted in Obama’s favor during the financial crisis. With John McCain’s erratic behavior at the time, Obama seemed more temperamentally suited to confronting our economic difficulties than did his Republican rival. Americans expected him to focus on the economy.
But, not wanting(to borrow an expression) letting a crisis go to waste, Obama thought he could use the crisis to focus on the priorities nearer and dearer to his heart than promoting economic growth by spurring on the normally dynamic private sector. He just had to pass a massive health care overhaul.
Perhaps, had he kept his focus on the economy, people might have granted him more slack if the unemployment did not decline as rapidly as his team had forecast. At least, his fellow citizens would know he was concerned about their employment situation and financial well-being.
Charlie Cook believes his failure to focus on the economy accounts, in large measure, for the Democrats’ woes this fall:
Unemployment seems stuck at 9.5 percent, reinforcing the view that last year would have been better spent focusing on the economy than on health care reform.
He’s not the only one to say this. As Jay Cost noted last week, the focus on the unpopular health care overhaul really does seem to the primary factor endangering the Democratic majority in Congress. Guess some people just don’t learn from history.
I seem to recall McCain going to Washington whilst Obama said “Call me if you need me.”. It’s the same shit, different day now except he’s hitting the links while the proles are left to munch on cake.
Meanwhile, I find it particularly interesting that the liberals are somehow having second thought about raising taxes. They like to claim that every economist says we should all be taxed into oblivion, but now that their nuts are in a vice, they’re not too keen on the idea.
Huh? What has Obama done for the economy? It is crystal clear what he has done to the economy.
I understand that he has billions of TARP and STIMULUS money left unspent. I also understand that the Democrats won’t touch that money for their unemployment extensions, teacher bailouts, etc. because it is being saved for pre-election vote buying.
In short, Obama has fully demonstrated how he feels about government money and the market economy. More focus would have been a deeper hole and a greater (if possible) disaster.
No, because his economic policies are as destructive as his health care policies. Obama is like a 16-century “doctor” with leeches. The more we get of his “care”, the worse off we are.
McCain thought he was so awesome. And on a few issues, such as the Iraq war, he was. But he’s not really that smart. He had a chance to show leadership by fighting the irresponsible corporate-socialist bailouts. He didn’t. Consciously or not, the American people figured, if socialism is to be our lot either way, let’s see what life will be like with the younger and more authentic socialist (Obama).
The Democrats are so stupid, they don’t realize their own policies are causing it.
Mr. Obama didn’t/doesn’t give a rat’s ass about the American people. He is in it to be “historic”. He lined up people who were scared to death of being labeled “racist”. The were so scared, they were willing to throw themselves under the bus for him. They foolishly expected him to take some flack for his arrogance. When the shit hit the fan, Mr. Obama stepped out of the way.
There are a few axioms in life that never change :
Supply and Demand.
People vote their wallets.
I think for once, Daniel’s got this one right. Obama probably would’ve been better off focusing on reducing unemployment and stimulating economic growth rather than taking on the healthcare problem. People thinking that Obama would handle an economic crisis better than McCain was one big factor in him winning him the Presidency (I personally think Palin scaring away moderates and independents was the other big factor, but I digress).
I’ve always thought the reason he did this was Hillary Clinton. It’s been known that she’s wanted healthcare reform for a long time now, and the terms of their ceasefire in the Democratic Presidential primary most likely included a promise from Obama to enact healthcare reform.
Now Hillary’s not stupid, so it’s likely she realized the heights of 59/60 Senate seats for the Democrats could not be maintained for more than one Congress no matter what happened (I think even if Obama had focused on the economy, we’d still be looking at four or five Republican pick-ups) so it was 2009 or never, and Obama did not want to make an enemy of the Clinton family, so it was 2009.
Really, the truth here could well be that Obama was thinking of himself. If he’d focused on the economy, the Democrats could’ve probably kept their majority, but Obama would be fighting Clinton again in 2012 and the party infighting could cost him a second term. Taking on healthcare may well turn out to destroy the Democrats’ short-lived majority in Congress, but he keeps Clinton as an ally for 2012.
Somewhat ironic that you’d use leeches as your only example here. Leeches have made something of a comeback in the last few decades and are an accepted medical treatment for use in reconstructive surgery due to their abilities as an anticoagulant.
As usual, your stereotype misses the mark.
Somewhat ironic that you’d use leeches as your only example here. Leeches have made something of a comeback in the last few decades and are an accepted medical treatment for use in reconstructive surgery due to their abilities as an anticoagulant.
And yours is an excellent example of liberal thought; if one radical thing works in one specific situation, it must work in all situations.
Also, since liberals like yourself insist that everything done in the past was wrong and must be thrown out in favor of “progressive” ideals, you yourself by citing this source are demonstrating how change for the sake of change often destroys and removes superior treatments and ideas.
As usual, you demonstrate your utter incapability of thinking beyond liberal talking points and making excuses for the failure and collapse of your ideology.
You think a ‘radical government takeover of 20% of the economy’ (which is what most people here think the healthcare reform bill is) is the sort of thing that actually works sometimes? In which situation do you think that’s the correct course of action?
Yes, because universal healthcare is such a new concept. Why it’s not even 130 years old and only 34 nations (plus Afghanistan and Iraq, who get free healthcare courtesy of the United States government) have since decided it’s a good idea! We clearly need a few more decades to think about this…
I found it ironic that he cited about the only good 16th century treatment in his misguided efforts to stereotype.
But of course, probably the most radical world changing event since the 16th century was the American War of Independence and the founding of the United States. A truly radical and forward-thinking idea that was criticized by many at the time as dangerous and unnecessary. Change for the sake of change, or change we can believe in?
The trick is working out which is which without the help of hindsight.
I haven’t taken a serious look at your response to my other comment about Sarah Palin and ‘the Left’, but I’m betting it’ll be similar to this. Let’s see.
Obama has done what liberals do. Try to manage everyones lives.
Obamacare came easy….he thought he’d get heralded by 80% of the folk.
By focusing on everything but the economy, the truth got out and businesses are now FROZEN from fright. We are scared to death of Obama care, cap n tax, even the holding up of BP. All examples of what an overarching mean socialist govenment can and will do to business.
THE ECONOMY, the liberals thought the American engine would do what it always does. Shift gears, but eventually roar back to life and over come spending with growth. Trouble is, we’ve never seen this kind of spending, wanton mis spending of Americans money. And the people have had it. Obama himself said we piss away $100 BILLION a YEAR in bad checks and fraudlent payments. But he can’t find a way to stop that? He’s going to cut it in half in 5 years. Big wow. Call Gov Christie!
Your problem is that you’re looking at the current use for leeches rather than the old Hirudotherapy which was an attempt to cause illness to leak out of the body through blood drainage and restoring the humors to balanc. You were so hell bent on trying to show how mucher you am smart than Dan, but you totally blew it. Major FAIL!
With Obama’s need for centralized government, he would have rammed more Porkulus bills in his attempt to save jobs. President Obama seemed to be believe his Porkulus would have saved the economy given his Keynesian economics mantra; therefore, I believe in Obama’s warped mind, he did focus on jobs. It just blew up in his face as an absolute failure.
This is why he shifted to ObamaCare because he thought he had dealt with the unemployment issue in Porkulus.
Both Porkulus & ObamaCare will prove fatal for all Obama Democrats & President Obama himself in the long run.
I welcome “Serenity” returning to 16th century medical practices – including their use of leeches.
Perhaps if you were to cover your own face in leeches right now, Serenity, it might help you to see a few of your many errors.
(Or at least bleed off some of your ill humors… etc.)
Perhaps it would be more accurate – closer to truth-in-advertising – if Serenity changed handles to Pomposity. heh 🙂
Funny thing for me, about Serenity is that a) The Browncoats fought against an oppressive central government and b) Serenity valley was essentially their last stand. Either way, her name is anything but.
Geek! 😉