Posted on 07/24/2011 6:53:32 PM PDT by GlockThe Vote
July 24, 2011, 10:11 AM President Pushover Updated: Drew article now available.
The redoubtable Elizabeth Drew has a forthcoming article in the New York Review of Books — not yet online — that confirms all our worst fears. She tells us that past concessions have
established in both Democrats’ and Republicans’ minds the thought that Obama was a weak negotiator—a “pushover.” He was more widely seen among Democrats and other close observers as having a strategy of starting near where he thinks the Republicans are—at the fifty-yard line—and then moving closer to their position. Even more alarming, however, is her window on what the White House is thinking:
It all goes back to the “shellacking” Obama took in the 2010 elections. The President’s political advisers studied the numbers and concluded that the voters wanted the government to spend less. This was an arguable interpretation. Nevertheless, the political advisers believed that elections are decided by middle-of-the-road independent voters, and this group became the target for determining the policies of the next two years.
OK, I’ve never won a tough election. But neither has Obama! The 2008 race was looking close until Sarah Palin and Lehman came along. And as far as I can tell, this assessment both of what 2010 was about and what matters for 2012 is just ludicrous.
(Excerpt) Read more at community.nytimes.com ...
I tried being coy about it, but I got ahead of myself.
Frank Rich is another lunatic owned by the Times..
The old bulls in the Dem party made one of the gravest strategic errors of all time, when they willingly allowed the radical young turks of their party to take control. Obama was the very face of that radical, young, leftist contingent, and they fooked up and made him president.
I doubt there's enough testosterone in their whole party to tap him on the shoulder, now.
Well said.
If Obama's poll numbers continue to implode, and it looks really bad for the dems, then it will have to be the Black caucus memebrs, and one or two black columnists..Eugene Robinson comes to mind..who will make the first "suggestions" that perhaps Barry should step aside...
The comments are prolix.
Why did they get Krugman? Chomsky was too right wing?
I loved the one that laments, without a trace of irony, “Obama is a right wing Republican.”
Chomsky was too coherent.
Damned if you do...
when they REALLY turn on him, it will be ugly.
The Left are racists and that long stifled racial hate will manifest itself when they dump him for Hillary...
The comments are priceless.
This discussion has come up on FR lots of times. My conclusion, then and now, is that Obama would have to come up with some reason for stepping aside that was entirely believable and airtight, to retain the black voting bloc.
My guess would be something health related. I wouldn't put it past him to concoct some elaborate "I've fallen and I can't get up!" scenario to fool the 25% hard core left into believing that he can't run again.
Krugman says... "I'm going to hurt Obama's feelings."
Damn, kitten fight.
I held my nose and watched Krugman on Charlie Rose a couple weeks ago, where he made it clear his ONLY regret is Obama didn’t spend MORE in the so called stimulus. His type is even dumber than Obama, as hard as it is to believe.
I made a few polite, not too snarky or provocative comments on DU and got banned. I was rarely even contrary, more probing, politely asking for a citation for an assertion or a clarification. I actually gently warned posters that they were in danger of making DU look like a bunch of moonbats, but I think I was polite and intended it constructively. Some people cannot take the least criticism.
I have been watching DU. Complete meltdown.
I bet some of them won’t vote for him again.
I got bounced after two months. To be honest I think it was comments about partying golf, drinking, and date nights that got me banned.
I suspect that the Dem internal polls are already making them very nervous..so if we try to walk back the possible timeline..you'd have to start seeing "hints" late this year..and he'd have to announce that he's not running by about March at the latest.
Other thing is that the Dems would have to decide u[pon the nominee..a primary would tear the party apart...I've been thinking that Hillary might be the one..Bill's been interjecting himself intot he discussion of altge, but after seeing that pic today of Hillary in a mu-mu..no way she's running...
The old bulls in the Dem party made one of the gravest strategic errors of all time, when they willingly allowed the radical young turks of their party to take control. Obama was the very face of that radical, young, leftist contingent, and they fooked up and made him president.
I doubt there's enough testosterone in their whole party to tap him on the shoulder, now.
Well, I'm not even sure if the democrat party has any "elder statesmen" anymore, Carter and Clinton would probably be the closest, and Obama is flat out not going to listen to Clinton because of the bad blood between them during the last camapaign and the fact that Obama will think (maybe correctly) that the only reason Clinton wants him to step aside is so Hillary can run again. As for Carter, I'm not sure if anybody in the party really pays much attention to him.
Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.