Found it:I'm still surprised he pulled that off, but it is typical.
Wartime Elections
Historically, presidents have done very well in wartime reelections. Nixon was easily reelected in 1972 in the midst of the Vietnam War, Franklin Delano Roosevelt was reelected in 1944 in the middle of World War II, Abraham Lincoln was reelected in 1864 during the Civil War, and James Madison was reelected during the War of 1812. The nature of these wartime reelections is best captured by Lincoln’s reelection slogan: ‘‘Don’t change horses in midstream.’’ Incumbents invariably argue that wartime is not the time to oust an incumbent from office.
Reasonable argument, but I would counter that Democrats have a broader coalition to appease, and struggle to unify at times. There are forces within the Democrat coalition that are naturally in opposition. A west coast evironmentalist has very different goals than a blue collar union coal miner, yet both are Democrats. Christian conservatives however will more easily rally around certain causes, and Republicans in general draw their leaders from wells that are more accustomed to leading complex organizations. Why do so many blue states have legislative majorities yet quite frequently elect Republican governors?The lack of prioritization, vision and leadership as you describe may be an apparent symptom of the party, but IMO, not the cause. I feel the cause of such symptoms have more to do with the typical Dem legislator's habit of being more individualistic, more reflective and, dare I say, more attached to the needs of their constituency, especially when compared with the Repub's legislators more like-minded and "orderly" approach toward accomplishing their national agenda?
If I recall, once upon a time before the severe in-fighting occurred when the Tea Party mounted their hostile takeover of the Party proper, the term lock-step was exclusively reserved for describing the GOP. As the Party's problems mounted with the ever tightening grip that the Tea Party exerted over it (remember how costly it was for the Party proper when the "insurrectionist Tea Party faction" forced a partial shutdown of gov't services?) Remember Boehner having to resign because he could not control the hardliner Tea Party caucus that wanted to burn everything to the ground so they could reshape the nation in their image?
Well, it seems to me the one single remnant of that internal struggle, and also the glue that's keeping the party from completely falling apart is the abject obstructionist policy the Repub Party came up with "to force Obama to be a one term president". Sure, that policy failed miserably in that it not only failed to keep Obama from being re-elected, but it also failed from totally obstructing Obama's many accomplishments during his two terms.
Yet, true to form, the Repubs are in lock-step in this regard.
The ARRA relied too heavily on tax relief and not enough on job creation, and I found that even the governance and prioritization of ARRA infrastructure projects got little bang for their buck.
The Republicans got their asses handed to them after 8 years of failed foreign policy. They were in no position to denounce much of anything. They played chicken with Obama and he blinked.
The opposition party exists to oppose and they did it in an furious and underhanded manner.
Your response to every point I made was essentially Republican obstructionism. That is my point entirely. Obama the candidate never really pivoted to Obama the President, and failed to find his stride or momentum to contend the inevitable obstructionism, especially from the Tea Party. I expected more.
So originally you said Obama should throw the Republicans a bone and now you're arguing against him throwing them a bone?
How so? He pursued his own renewed foreign engagement despite their enraged opposition. What did he blink on?
My response to almost none of what you wrote was obstructionism. I was telling you that he did almost all of the things you claimed he needed to do in order to 'build momentum' and they did not have the results you seem to think they should have. I think this indicates your hopes were not realistic.
He threw them the wrong bone. Obama had a mandate of change, but the Democrats anchored the majority of stimulus funds to the failed policy of tax relief.So originally you said Obama should throw the Republicans a bone and now you're arguing against him throwing them a bone?
How so? He pursued his own renewed foreign engagement despite their enraged opposition. What did he blink on?
My response to almost none of what you wrote was obstructionism. I was telling you that he did almost all of the things you claimed he needed to do in order to 'build momentum' and they did not have the results you seem to think they should have. I think this indicates your hopes were not realistic.
They're bad things if you want a smaller Government like many of the Conservative voices around here. Honestly they'd be pretty happy with any President doing nothing.
He threw them the wrong bone. Obama had a mandate of change, but the Democrats anchored the majority of stimulus funds to the failed policy of tax relief.
As for foreign policy, Obama blinked in the sense that he let Republicans drive the narrative for an exit strategy from Iraq, and found himself in the predicament of having to deliver on the promise of withdrawal without defining the conditions for it.
Obama "attempted" to do many of the things I suggested, but few succeeded. Is that a reflection of his leadership or experience or obstructionism or the fact that he built his campaign on an ideal and not a platform? Probably all of the above.
We have more pressing issues in our country that require the funding that was being sent to NAS/A such as joblessness and free trade which is exporting our manufacturing jobs through globalism. We have to get our own house in order first before we can allocate resources to ventures such as manned space flight. If every country on the planet provided funding to NASA then let the shuttles fly but since they don't put them in the museums and let that money go to making life better for our people. We don't need a thousand super carriers either nor do we need bombers that can reach any target on earth within a hour when we have homelessness and joblessness issues in practically every city. Fund education to provide our country with smarter workers and feed and shelter the poor instead of burning it up in some giant fuel tanks.Hes not so bad, although he just cut NASA's budget, fucker!
He threw them the wrong bone. Obama had a mandate of change, but the Democrats anchored the majority of stimulus funds to the failed policy of tax relief.
As for foreign policy, Obama blinked in the sense that he let Republicans drive the narrative for an exit strategy from Iraq, and found himself in the predicament of having to deliver on the promise of withdrawal without defining the conditions for it.
Obama "attempted" to do many of the things I suggested, but few succeeded. Is that a reflection of his leadership or experience or obstructionism or the fact that he built his campaign on an ideal and not a platform? Probably all of the above.
I would think losing 800K/months during Bush was a major problem.Took the national debt to mind-numbing heights and didnt actually solve any major problems.
As for foreign policy, Obama blinked in the sense that he let Republicans drive the narrative for an exit strategy from Iraq, and found himself in the predicament of having to deliver on the promise of withdrawal without defining the conditions for it.
Immediately leveraged the excitement around his election and the expectation of hope and change to launch a major campaign to create jobs aligned to roads, dams, bridges and infrastructure. A bold ten year job creating engine focused on strengthening the non college educated middle class.No, approximately one third were tax relief. If that bone was wrong, what bone should he have thrown them instead, specifically?
Of course he couldn't define the conditions for it, they were already set before he went into office. I'm not even sure what the criticism is here. Drive the narrative how? These seem like extremely nebulous criticisms like when people say someone needs to display 'leadership'.
What does 'built his campaign on an ideal not a platform' even mean? Have you considered that maybe what he tried to do and what you wanted him to do were the same thing, just not achievable? Maybe when your elected opposition has determined that they have nothing to gain from cooperating with you, that's just that.
Sincere question, what specific, concrete policy changes would you have made to Obama's first term that would have led to this momentum that you mentioned?
I am altering the deal. Pray I don't alter it further.Iraq drove the narrative for our withdrawal. They said if you stay, you will be subject to our laws and Bush flinched and made the Status of Forces Agreement that Obama was forced to follow.
If only we had had a master negotiator like Trump instead of Bush. ;-)
Immediately leveraged the excitement around his election and the expectation of hope and change to launch a major campaign to create jobs aligned to roads, dams, bridges and infrastructure.
A bold ten year job creating engine focused on strengthening the non college educated middle class.
As for Iraq and Afghanistan, I recognize that Obama inherited a major clusterf@ck, but it was also on him to set the path forward. I can't claim to know what he should have done as hindsight is 20/20 but I can observe that what he did do clearly didn't work given that we not only failed to contain the situation, but it spread to Syria, Libya and allowed ISIS to fill the vacuum
The right-wing narrative that blames Obama's pullout for the situation in the middle east boggles the mind.I am altering the deal. Pray I don't alter it further.
The exchange started like this: at the end of Jeb Bush’s town-hall meeting in Reno, Nevada, on Wednesday, a college student named Ivy Ziedrich stood up and said that she had heard Bush blame the growth of isis on President Obama, in particular on his decision to withdraw American troops from Iraq in 2011. The origins of isis, Ziedrich said, lay in the decision by Bush’s brother, in 2003, to disband the Iraqi Army following the toppling of Saddam Hussein’s government.
“It was when thirty thousand individuals who were part of the Iraqi military were forced out—they had no employment, they had no income, and they were left with access to all of the same arms and weapons.… Your brother created isis,’’ she said...
I would think losing 800K/months during Bush was a major problem.
Auto industry almost going bankrupt was a major problem
Ah yes, the Trump on steroids of South-East Asia. "If you suspect someone of drug dealing, kill them."Maybe it's because he is, "the son of a whore", as the Philippine President likes to call him.....
I dont envy Obama. He inherited a tremendous mess. But his election was also a strong referendum against Bush. At some point the problems you inherit become your problems if you fail to fix them. The ME is arguably in worst shape. I don't blame Obama for ISIS. I think it is fair to question his strategy for containing it.The right-wing narrative that blames Obama's pullout for the situation in the middle east boggles the mind.
http://www.newyorker.com/news/news-desk/did-george-w-bush-create-isis
I am not sure what else you are looking for. I've made mention of several things he could have done better, or otherwise shifted prioritiesThat's basically exactly what he did though?
Strengthening it how?
Surely you can see how criticism isn't very useful if you can't identify anything he should have done differently, no?
Agreed. We're witnessing the failure of an entire region, yet we think bombing the crap out of their cities and infrastructure is going to make the bad guys yield, because that's all we really know.I dont envy Obama. He inherited a tremendous mess. But his election was also a strong referendum against Bush. At some point the problems you inherit become your problems if you fail to fix them. The ME is arguably in worst shape. I don't blame Obama for ISIS. I think it is fair to question his strategy for containing it.
That was an indicator of the quality of the cars they were manufacturing. Honestly I don't know how they continue to exist given their complete inability to match the reliability of Asian cars.
That's basically exactly what he did though?
Strengthening it how?
Surely you can see how criticism isn't very useful if you can't identify anything he should have done differently, no?
I am not sure what else you are looking for. I've made mention of several things he could have done better, or otherwise shifted priorities