I agree with Paul Krugman that powerful Republicans are intimidating the Federal Reserve into inaction to deter them from doing anything that might improve economic conditions and help Obama’s reelection. I also agree with him that part of the problem is internal dissent within the Federal Reserve itself. Assuming that Obama somehow weathers the storm and wins reelection anyway, I wonder how things will change in his second term. A strategy of complete obstruction can work for a single term, but can it work for eight consecutive years? Deliberately undermining the economy makes less sense when the president whose career you are attacking is not up for reelection. If the American people ratify Obama’s performance in 2012, a lot of the stuff the Republicans have been doing won’t make as much sense anymore. What’s the point of trying to delegitimize a second-term president? Didn’t the Democrats stop talking about Bush v. Gore in 2005?
A lot of things won’t change, but some of them will.
Yep, that’s the game that’s being played. If the GOP loses again, I don’t see how they double down on the “move right” strategy that they’ve been pursuing since Reagan. They really can’t move further to the right, ideologically, or in terms of political obstruction. But right now, it’s hard to say this strategy (which admittedly was put in place in an ad hoc way, as certain GOP elites, such as McConnel, Armey, Ginni Thomas, Palin et al basically seized on the Tea Party-Santelli Rant to seize control of the GOP and move it to the far-right) hasn’t been a huge success for them. The far-right has a better than even chance at putting one of their crazies in power in 2012- that’s insane and terrifying.
Where you and I differ Boo is you look at that dynamic and say, rally to the President and the WH, they are our only hope against what could be the end of the American experiment. I say, fire the WH political team who let us get in this mess. There were a lot of people who have called this political dynamic from miles away: the fact that McConnel was transforming his party into a parliamentary style unit and was going to obstruct everything, the fact that the GOP was seizing on the populist mantle to gain power in 2010 and stop Obama’s policy agenda. Obama needs to fire people who got it wrong, and hire people who got it right. We’ll lose in 2012 without a radical shape-up of Obama’s political team.
He brought Plouffe back. I have confidence in him.
Plouffe’s a sharp cookie.
Never confuse investor intelligence with behavior in a rising market.
Plouffe’s “political intelligence” is a good example of that. In 2007, he and Axelrod bought into the anti-Clinton feeling that many had. They used this effectively. But the general election had a HUGE amount of “Bush-revulsion” going, and a HUGE amount of “Palin-Fear” going, and a HUGE amount of “McCain-Get-off-my-lawn” revulsion.
Obama is and was the candidate of “fill-in-the-blank”. His strength is and was his lack of a huge record. We all filled in the blank. We got what we wanted, not-Clinton not-Bush not-McCain.
So, exactly what is Obama?
How about Messina? He’s running the 2012 campaign. Was that a good call?
well, he’s better than Bob Shrum.
Good point. But is it too much to ask that, if we are going to have to fight tooth and nail for Obama in 2012 as you rightly point out, that we be led by political strategists who have proven themselves against the far-right?
Confidence in him to do what?
Confident of expressing your abilities.
http://stores.ebay.com/Shears-and-Scissors
If the “oppose everything Obama does” is just an electoral strategy, then sure – it makes sense to ditch it if it doesn’t work and try something else if he gets re-elected.
But it seems like opposition to Democrats at all costs has become an ideological litmus test for the far-right activist base of the GOP. And if that’s the case then oppose everything Obama does isn’t just an electoral strategy, it’s a way of placating the base and ensuring re-election for at least some of the Republicans.
I think if Obama is re-elected AND Democrats re-take the House AND Democrats maintain the Senate, then the “oppose everything Obama does” strategy continues – Republicans in the Senate continue to filibuster everything and nothing changes.
If Democrats lose the Senate but take back the House, things may change a bit. I think the Senate Republicans are more likely to negotiate from a position of strength with Obama and are more likely to be winning to compromise with the Democrats in the House – especially if they can have things that are their pet ideas baked into agreements.
If the Democrats lose the Senate and the House then of course it isn’t Republicans obstructing everything anymore it’s Obama “vetoing everything” and they’ll push through the most radical things they can get to his desk to force that veto and keep their far-right elements happy.
I’m not sure what happens if the Dems keep the Senate and the GOP keeps the House though. If that happens I think it vindicates the strategy of the far-right elements of the House and Senate and we end up with four more years of what we’ve got now. But I could be very wrong about that.
What Republican behavior changes are you anticipating?
Allowing more executive appointments to go through? Surely not judges. The gang of 12 bullshit happened in Bush’s second term, and the Republicans obstructed Clinton all over the place in his second term, so that seems unlikely.
Will Republicans really be any more willing to engage on comprehensive tax reform or energy policy or climate change in 2013?
Maybe immigration (or at least DREAM Act) and education reform?
If I’m a Republican, I know whoever follows Obama will be a shittier politician with less goodwill with the public as a person, if not always as an officeholder. So why wouldn’t I just want to wait him out? Let him fuck around overseas. Take another failed run at Israel and Palestine. His domestic legacy might well be 80-90% locked in already. Unless the filibuster is reformed.
If we hold the Senate and retake the House, Reid has to reform the filibuster, otherwise things will certainly get worse. And the GOP will just continue to obstruct everything. They have to stop Schweitzer or Feingold in ’16, after all.
I’m cautiously optimistic that there could be some improvement among the Republicans.
Keep in mind that Obama’s reelection in 2012 would, if it happens, almost certainly be accompanied by the Democrats retaking the House and keeping the Senate. In other words, if Obama gets a second term, it will be as massive a defeat for the Republicans as 2010 was a victory, perhaps even greater.
Which is to say, there will be people in the party saying that the strategy they have currently been pursuing is a political loser.
2008 should have been a massive defeat for the Pukes. And look what happened.
And the blowback from 2008 made 2010 happen, plus Obama’s massive fecklessness and inability to actually be a politician. Politicians realize that they come from a team, and play the strengths of that team to advantage. Obama does not acknowledge that he is on a team. He thinks that he is a statesman.
He doesn’t realize that a statesman is a dead or retired politician, and usually one that is successful. At this point in the failed Obama presidency, he is unlikely to become a statesman. He is more likely to become Jimmy Carter, if he isn’t Carter already.
Obama is a Republican In All But Name (RIABN). We need to begin to use this acronym. Why do I say this?
I put him at 5-10% likely to be re-elected at this point, since he’s lost the left, never had a chance at the right and the actual center doesn’t give a shit, plus hears nothing but negative things about him.
When is Obama going to actually do some leading?
and yet he still manages to out poll everybody in Washington. How do you explain that?
oh, and if he really is a Republican in Democratic clothes why on earth do the repukes fight him tooth and nail over everything? Jealously I guess.
Oh, spare me. He’s beating no-one? Pardon my huge lack of being overwhelmed. Until there is a nominee, you are dealing with the huge uncertainty and competition in the Repukes. Once there is a nominee, next summer, things will be different.
No one who has an ounce of brains pays even the least amount of attention to those idiotic polls now. And I know from polling.
and yet you are certain that he only has a 5% chance of re-election? Sifted your tea-leaves have you?
What is it about the term “put him at” which you read as “certain”? I am merely expressing an opinion. If I was certain, I would have said “I am certain”.
Yes, I see him as very unlikely to be re-elected at this time, but he could if he had a clue change that. When Maxine Waters gets annoyed at the first black president for exactly the reasons I have stated, you know that he is in trouble with his base. But Obama appears to be blisfully untroubled about his base. He appears to have the calm, clear feeling that we will all get in line, and tote that bale. He may be wrong.
95% sounds pretty certain, even for an opinion, but whatevers..
As far as getting a clue, I’ll take his political acumen over yours, or Maxine Waters any day.
Hey, whatever. But one thing to note: Maxine Waters has been re-elected to a national/regional position 10 times. Obama 2 times (1-S, 1-P). She’s more left than he is, to be sure. But she has the pulse of a very large portion of the Dems. Obama has the pulse of a …. who the hell knows WHAT party that RIABN is running with.
Dataguy, see my comment below–you make my point. Your hyperbole is comical. Thanks, I couldn’t have written a fictional version that illustrated it better. You’re so focused on Obama, you have such a personal stake in seeing him as evil incarnate, that you don’t see or hear the freight train that’s bearing down at you from the side. Karl Rove has you on a leash.
You are confused about my comments.
This is a very dangerous moment, a tipping point where prospects could get frighteningly more difficult for Obama’s reelection or tilt back towards a certain likelihood that he prevails despite horrendous economic realities.
In addition to what Booman calls “weaponized stupidity”, there is also a new normalized media capitulation to lies and idiocy, beyond the sad state we’ve all become accustomed to. Even a couple of years ago, an entrance like Perry has made, with an unrelenting stream of outrageous public declarations and bald-faced lies would have had a cost of some sort attached to it. Now? Nada. Trump could not have tried harder to discredit himself in the media with his stunt, but instead he rode a wave of publicity like a world-champion surfer.
Democrats and the progressive left have fallen into what I think is a Rovian trap. All of the positive things Obama has managed to accomplish in an insanely effed up and hostile environment in 2 and a half years in office are now consistently ignored, and instead all the energy is concentrated on his missteps, real or simply perceived but unproven. So much of it has to do with political novices who look at history as if things happen in a simple straight line, overnight, when instead significant change occurs over years and years. MLK himself was vilified for his plodding, ineffectual tactics at the time, but he is now looked at as if he gave a few great speeches and waved a magic wand.
Trumka’s ill-chosen linkage of Obama to the Tea Party this week is a prime example of the overheated rhetoric. To what end does he say something like that? He’ll be getting a hotter Obama soon enough: September 5th, at the Detroit Labor Day parade.
One of Obama’s biggest problems is the retrograde image of masculinity and toughness in America that is outdated but still widely persists. Bold, brash braggadocio, inflamatory rhetoric, decisive and reflexive actions, never admitting mistakes–these are the hallmarks of the cojones so many blindly worship. Next thing you know, Maureen Dowd will come right out and say Perry is the bold leader Obama is not, despite some flaws. Obama, on the other hand, is secure in his masculinity, and does not need to dance in the endzone. Like Barry Sanders, he drops the ball when he gets there and walks back to the bench. Collectively, we’re punishing him for that at the moment because not enough of us recognize the value of patience and maintaining cool. Soon enough he’ll be heating up, having waiting until it’s most needed and most effective. It would sure help if more of us had more faith in his judgement about how to deal with a set of conditions no American leader has EVER had to deal with, and a culture that’s drawn to the loudest, shrillest and stupidest voices around.
Really, have you listened to a single thing that the critics of Obama are saying? Let me try to clearly define the issues with this idiot.
It’s like the guy is mentally retarded or something. They keep hitting him over the head, and he keeps saying “Please, sir, can I have another?”
What is it going to take to actually get Obama to remember that, once upon a time, long long ago, he pretended to be a Democrat?
Part of the problem is also Obama.
http://thinkprogress.org/yglesias/2011/08/25/304809/nomination-oversights-may-be-obamas-biggest-sin/
i.e. the Clinton Impeachment? If, as I think likely, the Republicans take the Senate, but Obama wins re-election by a razor margin (due to the craziness of his likely opponents), then look to see the Republicans impeach him on some trumped up charges.
It doesn’t have to make sense. It just has to play to the Tea Party. I almost choked laughing today as one Teabagger described him as “The most Left Wing Democrat ever.”