President Obama blasts Republican Party

Right? Left? Centre?
Political news and debate.
Put your views and articles up for debate and destruction!
Post Reply
Grim Reaper
Posts: 944
Joined: Mon Apr 19, 2010 1:21 pm

President Obama blasts Republican Party

Post by Grim Reaper »

NY Times wrote: Calling Radicalism by Its Name

President Obama’s fruitless three-year search for compromise with the Republicans ended in a thunderclap of a speech on Tuesday, as he denounced the party and its presidential candidates for cruelty and extremism. He accused his opponents of imposing on the country a “radical vision” that “is antithetical to our entire history as a land of opportunity.”

Mitt Romney, the Republican presidential front-runner, has embraced a House budget plan that is little more than “thinly veiled social Darwinism,” the president said, a “Trojan horse” disguised as deficit reduction that would hurt middle- and lower-income Americans.

“By gutting the very things we need to grow an economy that’s built to last — education and training, research and development, our infrastructure — it is a prescription for decline,” he said, speaking to a group of Associated Press editors and reporters in Washington.

Mr. Obama has, in recent months, urged Republicans to put aside their destructive agenda. But, in this speech, he finally conceded that the party has demonstrated no interest in the values of compromise and realism. Even Ronald Reagan, who raised taxes in multiple budget deals, “could not get through a Republican primary today,” Mr. Obama said. While Democrats have repeatedly shown a willingness to cut entitlements and have agreed to trillions in domestic spending cuts, he said, Republicans won’t agree to any tax increases and, in fact, want to shower the rich with even more tax cuts.

The speech was the first time that Mr. Obama linked Mr. Romney, by name, to his party’s dishonest budget and discredited trickle-down policies. As Mr. Obama pointed out, Mr. Romney described as “marvelous” a budget that would drastically cut student financial aid, medical research, Head Start classrooms and environmental protections. Mr. Obama further ridiculed the budget’s deficit-cutting goal as “laughable” because it refuses to acknowledge the need for new revenues.

The speech was immediately attacked by the House speaker, John Boehner, for failing to deal with the debt crisis, but Mr. Obama pointed out how hollow that charge has become. “That argument might have a shred of credibility were it not for their proposal to also spend $4.6 trillion over the next decade on lower tax rates,” he said. The math is, in fact, quite simple: cutting both taxes and the deficit can mean only more sacrifice from the middle class and the poor, ending the promise of Medicare and Medicaid. Over the long term, the deficit can be brought down through a combination of cuts and new revenues; doing so immediately, as Mr. Romney and his party want to do, would reverse the fragile recovery.

Mr. Obama provided a powerful signal on Tuesday that he intends to make this election about the Republican Party’s failure to confront, what he called, “the defining issue of our time”: restoring a sense of economic security while giving everyone a fair shot, rather than enabling only a shrinking number of people to do exceedingly well. His remarks promise a tough-minded campaign that will call extremism and dishonesty by name.
Campaign mode engaged, now let's see if he can stay on the warpath after he gets reelected.

And here's a video of his speech:


dgs49
Posts: 3458
Joined: Fri Oct 29, 2010 9:13 pm

Re: President Obama blasts Republican Party

Post by dgs49 »

I may have related this anecdote before on this board, but I was involved in a contract negotiation at a law firm in San Francisco many years ago. The contract that was present by the law firm was long, tedious, and horribly one-sided. In fact, every single sentence had some little tidbit that put the "Contractor" at a disadvantage, whether it was getting the work accepted, proceeding with the work itself, or getting paid. Every conceivable risk, whether within the Contractor's control or not, was dumped on the Contractor (my employer).

My teammates were mainly engineers, and they were horribly bored as I fought, paragraph by paragraph to shift this document from a one-sided nightmare to something that was reasonably balanced. Furthermore, it was a horribly long day, as we had departed on a 6am flight from Pittsburgh, gone directly into these negotiations, and worked until (as I recall) 10 or so at night, San Francisco time.

And at the end of it, my co-workers were close to being angry with me for contesting so many points in the agreement. They had no real idea what I was dealing with, and didn't really care. I was, in their eyes, being terribly unreasonable.

This is analogous to what is going on with Barry and the Progressives right now. They are trying to ram through a huge laundry list of new socialist initiatives, big-government programs, and regulatory nightmares. None of it has ever been done before, and it all started during the relative nanosecond when the American Public foolishly elected a Democrat Congress and President. The PUblic tried to put the brakes on in 2010, but the message never got through to Barry.

To compromise with extremists is never a good idea. You end up with half a nightmare.

If this is Barry's campaign mode - and apparently it is - bring it on. He is a liar, a cheat, and a failure. The American people are dumb, but they are not as dumb as he hopes they are.

User avatar
Rick
Posts: 3875
Joined: Wed Apr 14, 2010 1:12 am
Location: Arkansas

Re: President Obama blasts Republican Party

Post by Rick »

Obama does not need to mount a negative campaign, it can only hurt him.

He needs to continue on message right, wrong, or indifferent.
Sometimes it seems as though one has to cross the line just to figger out where it is

Grim Reaper
Posts: 944
Joined: Mon Apr 19, 2010 1:21 pm

Re: President Obama blasts Republican Party

Post by Grim Reaper »

dgs49 wrote:To compromise with extremists is never a good idea. You end up with half a nightmare.
And that's what Democrats have realized after several years of trying to compromise with the Republicans.

User avatar
Econoline
Posts: 9607
Joined: Sun Apr 18, 2010 6:25 pm
Location: DeKalb, Illinois...out amidst the corn, soybeans, and Republicans

Re: President Obama blasts Republican Party

Post by Econoline »

:ok Bingo!
People who are wrong are just as sure they're right as people who are right. The only difference is, they're wrong.
God @The Tweet of God

rubato
Posts: 14245
Joined: Sun May 09, 2010 10:14 pm

Re: President Obama blasts Republican Party

Post by rubato »

If you think borrowing $300 billion a year to give to the rich and add to the debt is a good thing, then vote Republican!

And fuck everyone in the ass who makes less than $150,000 /yr.

Someone who makes $200,000 just breaks even. And some one who makes > $250,000 / yr is slightly ahead.


Hey thanks! We're better than "slightly ahead"! Way better. You're fucking yourselves to give me money!

God I just love Republicans! They're too stupid to know when they've screwed themselves!



yrs,
rubato

User avatar
Lord Jim
Posts: 29716
Joined: Thu Jun 10, 2010 12:44 pm
Location: TCTUTKHBDTMDITSAF

Re: President Obama blasts Republican Party

Post by Lord Jim »

Obama does not need to mount a negative campaign
I don't see where he has any choice Keld...

He certainly can't run on his record...

The national campaign from the conventions to election day is more than two months long; how many times can he just keep repeating, "I got Bin Ladin!"

That represents just about the sum total of achievements he can legitimately point to. That and the fact that like George W. Bush he has prevented any further major terrorist attacks on US soil.

It's kind of problematic for him that his only real accomplishments are in the area of national security. It will help him with some independent voters, but it's not an area that the base of his party really cares much about, (a large portion of them are down right hostile towards the things...like The Patriot Act...that have made this success possible...) so it won't inspire them.

As for the rest of what hes done in his term:

The MOAP was the worst bang for the buck "stimulus package" in terms of dollars spent versus economic recovery spurred in modern US history. And to get it, he jettisoned the great reservoir of goodwill he came into Office with and turned it over to the partisan hacks led by Nancy Pelosi.

Starting with that, for two years he paid lip service to "reaching out " to the GOP while the reality was that he arrogantly pursued a one party approach. Only after this approach resulted in his party taking a bath of historic proportions did he out of sheer necessity start trying to reach compromises with the GOP on Capitol Hill. That approach got a few things done at the margins, and helped his popularity rebound somewhat, but by that time, having been shut out of the process for so long, and seeing a political value to keeping a certain distance, the Republicans were not in much of a mood to work with him.

His other major "accomplishment" Obamacare, (that he spent 14 months on while the economy continued to go south) consistently gets a thumbs down from nearly 2/3 of the electorate in the polls, so that's not much of a winner for him. The bill itself is a truly ugly thing that was the best he could get from his own party, even when when he had a filibuster proof majority in the Senate.

And oh yeah, thanks to his own Justice Department strategy, (he could have avoided having this argued before the election) the Supreme Court might wind up throwing out either the whole thing, or the one part that makes the dollars on it work; the individual mandate.

So on this issue Obama will have the wonderful options of either running on a program that's widely unpopular or getting to explain how he wasted so much of the country's time and money, at a time of great economic pain and distress, on a boondoggle that couldn't pass constitutional muster...

He made that box for himself....

His Afghanistan surge strategy, (which I supported, BTW) designed to copy the success it had in Iraq, has largely flopped. Internationally, other than that, (and the afore mentioned nailing of Bin Ladin) he hasn't had any great failures, but he hasn't had any noticeable successes either.

His auto bail out (which I, unlike many Republicans, also supported) has turned out to be a success, so I guess he can point to that as an accomplishment, but that's only going to resonate meaningfully with the relatively small portion of the electorate directly affected.

All in all he just doesn't have the kind of record that he can build a successful campaign on. His whole re-election strategy has to be built on trying to destroy Romney as an acceptable alternative. And to do it he will use nearly a billion dollars in campaign money and some of the strawman swords that the media has so thoughtfully fashioned for him; like the "war on women" BS and and the class warfare demagoguery....

That speech (which I watched) referenced in the OP is clearly designed to whip up the base...the folks who have somehow managed to convince themselves that Obama's only real fault is that he's been too "nice", and who stand up and cheer every time he gets nasty... (and judging from some of the approving comments in this thread, I suppose it hit its mark...a lot of liberals seem to believe that their biggest fault is that they're just too nice)

But that kind of approach carries risks, because there ain't enough of those folks too get him re-elected, and he's going to start turning off independents if he strays too far into the demagoguery that his hardcore supporters love....

With so few accomplishments to his credit, and unemployment stuck above the eight per cent level (that he assured the country his stimulus package would prevent it from reaching) for now nearly three years, he simply does not look particularly competent...

Oh sure, his hardcore partisans will make excuses for his poor performance, but that won't cut much ice with that six percent of the vote that this election is going to turn on. His only option is "Flame On"

If his 2008 slogan was "Hope and Change" this year it's going to be, "Be Afraid...Be Very Afraid"....

His chief weapon in this elections is going to be fear. He has to scare enough people about Romney and the GOP to put him over the top despite his poor record.
ImageImageImage

User avatar
Gob
Posts: 33646
Joined: Tue Apr 06, 2010 8:40 am

Re: President Obama blasts Republican Party

Post by Gob »

Lord Jim wrote:He has to scare enough people about Romney and the GOP to put him over the top despite his poor record.

Romney will do the job for him, from what I've heard from the man.
“If you trust in yourself, and believe in your dreams, and follow your star. . . you'll still get beaten by people who spent their time working hard and learning things and weren't so lazy.”

Grim Reaper
Posts: 944
Joined: Mon Apr 19, 2010 1:21 pm

Re: President Obama blasts Republican Party

Post by Grim Reaper »

Lord Jim wrote:Starting with that, for two years he paid lip service to "reaching out " to the GOP while the reality was that he arrogantly pursued a one party approach. Only after this approach resulted in his party taking a bath of historic proportions did he out of sheer necessity start trying to reach compromises with the GOP on Capitol Hill. That approach got a few things done at the margins, and helped his popularity rebound somewhat, but by that time, having been shut out of the process for so long, and seeing a political value to keeping a certain distance, the Republicans were not in much of a mood to work with him.
He's always been trying to reach for compromise. And the Republican Party has increasingly been anti-compromise, especially after the 2010 elections.
Lord Jim wrote:His other major "accomplishment" Obamacare, (that he spent 14 months on while the economy continued to go south) consistently gets a thumbs down from nearly 2/3 of the electorate in the polls, so that's not much of a winner for him. The bill itself is a truly ugly thing that was the best he could get from his own party, even when when he had a filibuster proof majority in the Senate.
That bill was also the result of him trying to compromise with the Republican Party.

User avatar
Lord Jim
Posts: 29716
Joined: Thu Jun 10, 2010 12:44 pm
Location: TCTUTKHBDTMDITSAF

Re: President Obama blasts Republican Party

Post by Lord Jim »

Romney will do the job for him, from what I've heard from the man.
It's not going to be as easy as you might think....

Lord knows Romney has many faults, (I've detailed a number of them) but he certainly does not come across as scary....out of touch at times, and overly ingratiating at others, (the 70's game show host analogy is an excellent one) but not scary....

Romney is just not the sneering glaring type. I don't believe I've ever seen the man lose his temper. He seems to be pretty much ungoadable...

Team Obama might have had an easier time portraying Santorum as scary; Santorum seems to have a sort split personality in is his public persona...he can come across far more likeable and engaging than Romney but he's also go a sneering sort of dark side that frequently comes through and that he can't seem to control....

And of course Gingrich would have been a slam dunk in terms of portraying him as scary...No challenge at all....

But Mitt is not personally going to be an easy sell on that score with most voters...

Another thing he's going to have going for him in the general election is ironically the very thing that made this such a drawn out tooth pulling affair in the primaries before he finally became The Nominee Presumptive; namely the wide spread belief that Romney really doesn't mean or believe a lot of the more right-wing positions he indicated support for in the struggle for the nomination.

And Romney is a smart guy and a very nimble politician. You better believe that he's going to do everything he can to encourage that perception in appealing to independents in the general election....(And this won't hurt in turnout with the base, because one huge advantage Romney has is the fact that he has an opponent who is so despised and feared by much of the Conservative base that he has a lot of maneuvering room in terms of the positions he can embrace and still count on them to show up and vote against Obama)

But the Obama folks are also not dummies, so I suspect they already know all this. So rather than try and make Romney himself look scary, I suspect that what they will do is try to run more against the "Republican Brand" and try to tie him as tightly as they can to the most extreme positions articulated by anyone in the party...they'll also try to make the point that if Romney is elected he will have to serve and follow these policies, regardless of whether he strongly believes them himself...they'll also try to tie him to anything unpopular the GOP Congress has done...

Whether or not this will work will depends on just how nimble Romney is, and that will remain to be seen...
Last edited by Lord Jim on Sat Apr 07, 2012 3:25 am, edited 1 time in total.
ImageImageImage

User avatar
Crackpot
Posts: 11657
Joined: Sat Apr 10, 2010 2:59 am
Location: Michigan

Re: President Obama blasts Republican Party

Post by Crackpot »

Personally I think Romney is a republican John Kerry
Okay... There's all kinds of things wrong with what you just said.

User avatar
Lord Jim
Posts: 29716
Joined: Thu Jun 10, 2010 12:44 pm
Location: TCTUTKHBDTMDITSAF

Re: President Obama blasts Republican Party

Post by Lord Jim »

He's always been trying to reach for compromise.
I'm sorry Grim, but that's just not accurate....

During the election race he certainly campaigned strongly on that idea...

In fact he was so convincing at it that some prominent conservatives like Chris Buckley even endorsed him....

After the election, Obama released a blueprint for the stimulus package. The immediate reaction from the Republican leadership on The Hill was positive. GOP Senate Leader Mitch McConnell called it, "something we can work with".

The assumption was that Democratic and Republican leaders would get together with the White House and hammer out a deal.

But Nancy Pelosi was having none of this. Shortly after The Inauguration she marched up to the White House and informed them that the Obama plan was a dead issue; that she and her partisan committee chairmen cronies would be writing the bill.

In what I have said a number of times before I believe to have been the greatest blunder of his Presidency, Rahm Emanuel's response to this was "message received"....Obama folded like a cheap lawn chair in the face of Pelosi's arrogance, when given the enormous popular support he enjoyed, he could have forced her to toe his line, rather than the other way around....

The House Democrats then proceeded to write the bill entirely shutting out any Republican input whatsoever, and voting down every single amendment or proposal offered by GOP House members, both in committee and on the floor.

When the GOP leadership went to the White House to complain about this, Obama responded "We won the election"....

Yeah, some "reaching out"...

And then when not one Republican house member voted for this bill that they had been deliberately and systematically shut out from having any role in drafting, Obama and the House Dems cynically coined the phrase "The Party Of No"....

What the way this was handled did was completely destroy the goodwill and trust that the Republican Leadership had extended to Obama based on his campaign pledges, almost at the very outset of his Presidency. It completely poisoned the well, and set the tone for everything that followed.
That bill was also the result of him trying to compromise with the Republican Party.
I'm afraid that's not accurate either...

I don't recall if there were any GOP House votes for the bill, but I know there weren't any on the Senate side. It simply wouldn't make sense to put things in a bill or leave things out that you didn't want, if you weren't attracting any votes in return.

They could have had at least some GOP support in the Senate, but once again high handed arrogance carried the day, this time on the part of Senate Majority Leader Harry Reid....

The Senate Budget Committee reported out a bill, that actually contained a trigger mechanism for a public option that had the vote of Republican Committee member Susan Collins.

Reid then announced no no, that bill is dead, (completely throwing Collins under the bus) and that he, Reid would bring his own bill to the floor and that it would contain a public option without the need for a trigger....

Then either deliberately or accidentally (I don't know for sure, but I lean towards deliberately since Reid has always been an excellent vote counter) Reid completely bungles this strategy because he has two Democrats Lieberman and Nelson...who absolutely will not vote for a public option, or a trigger for a public option, so he winds up with a bill that has neither.

At this point he needed every single Democratic vote, (The Dems still had 60 at the time, so they could pass it) because obviously no Republican was going to vote for it after the way Collins had walked the plank on it, only to be betrayed by Reid.....

Ironically, if he had accepted the Budget Committee bill he would have had at least one GOP vote for a bill with a trigger mechanism, and it's entirely possible he could have picked up one more to offset the loss of Lieberman and Nelson...

The fact he didn't go that route leads me to believe that he didn't really want a public option or public option trigger in the bill, himself....

I do agree, as I mentioned, that after the disastrous election results in 2010, he did start trying to reach out and compromise with the GOP, and that he was largely rebuffed. (And I would say that has been to the disservice of the country.) But there's a larger context to this.

This is part of Obama's ineffectiveness problem. First he let's Pelosi roll him, and then after that decision leads to an historic election defeat, he turns right around and lets the most extreme elements in the House GOP use him for a heavy bag....

I think this goes to something I said before about Obama; this is not the behavior of a man with a great deal of self confidence; a self-confident person with a full understanding of the strength of his position would have stared Pelosi down....

If he had done that, there would have been a much better stimulus bill written, the economy would be in far better shape today, the political atmosphere would be far less poisonous, and instead of talking about whether or not Obama can somehow manage to hold on and squeak by into another term, we'd be talking about how large the dimension of his landslide was going to be....
ImageImageImage

Grim Reaper
Posts: 944
Joined: Mon Apr 19, 2010 1:21 pm

Re: President Obama blasts Republican Party

Post by Grim Reaper »

Lord Jim wrote:And then when not one Republican house member voted for this bill that they had been deliberately and systematically shut out from having any role in drafting, Obama and the House Dems cynically coined the phrase "The Party Of No"....
The stimulus package was changed to compromise with the Republicans. And some Republicans did vote for it when it went through the Senate, which is why it was changed.
Lord Jim wrote:I don't recall if there were any GOP House votes for the bill, but I know there weren't any on the Senate side. It simply wouldn't make sense to put things in a bill or leave things out that you didn't want, if you weren't attracting any votes in return.
The individual mandate, that people are now proclaiming to be unconstitutional, was something the Republicans used to support.

Here's a quick video that the Republican Party would probably wish never existed:



They liked individual mandates when it was their idea. The individual mandate was worked into Obamacare in order to appeal to the Republican Party who supported the idea just a few years earlier. But they suddenly hated it when a Democrat proposed it.

Post Reply