Posted on 04/21/2012 6:11:04 PM PDT by neverdem
Politics: Perhaps Democrats know something the rest of us don't about Barack Obama's political fortunes. What else explains the increasing numbers who are openly defying the president on two key election issues?
The notoriously thin-skinned Obama could not have been happy with the news last week that, as the Hill newspaper put it, "an increasing number of Democrats are taking potshots at President Obama's health care law."
North Carolina's Brad Miller, who voted for the law, now laments that "we would all have been better off" if Congress had dealt with more pressing issues "and then came back to health care."
Barney Frank complained that the Democrats "paid a terrible price for health care." And Virginia's outgoing Sen. Jim Webb said the law would be Obama's "biggest downside" in the election and had cost him "a lot of credibility as a leader."
Meanwhile, stalwart Massachusetts liberal Elizabeth Warren is now calling to repeal a piece of ObamaCare — the 2.3% tax on medical devices — because, she says, it "disproportionately impacts the small companies with the narrowest financial margins."
Warren, by the way, is running for the Senate seat occupied by Republican Scott Brown, whose victory in 2010 was a result of the public's intense opposition...
--snip--
This fear is even more evident when you look at the growing opposition among Democrats to Obama's position on the Keystone XL pipeline.
Obama may have thought he'd cleverly handled the issue by putting it off until next year, and that no one would think to defy his veto threats.
But when Republicans called his bluff with a bill to force a start on construction, 69 Democrats rushed to join them, giving the House bill a veto-proof majority. The Senate bill is just a vote or two away from overcoming a Democratic filibuster...
(Excerpt) Read more at news.investors.com ...
Is that a particularly bad sort of quandary?
No, he merely despises them utterly, and laughs at conservatives.
Screw the White Hut. Give me the Senate and House, and Congress can use the Hut for artillery practice. You may recall that Slick Willie, the political paragon of the age, didn't like that experience too much.
That's why it's more important to get the public on our side of the issues than it is to win elections. Like Newt proved in the '90s with welfare reform, if you get enough of the public to back you, the Democrats will capitulate. It's a democracy and they don't want to lose power. Even if Obama is reelected, we can still seek to get veto-proof majorities to go around him when we have the kind of support that these two issues have.
That depends if you think capitalism is the same thing as corporatism and crony capitalism. If you listen to Levin as you say, then you would know which of those philosophies he believes Romney agrees with.
Romney is as ignorant about the military as Herman Cain or Obama was. Considering that even Obama flip-flopped on a lot of his liberal military-related positions, it's almost impossible to know how Romney would act as commander-in-chief. My best guess is very Clinton-esque, so, as soon as a military action became unpopular, he would pull out and abandon our allies.
As far as whether Romney "hates the country," that's a simplistic statement that I can't translate directly into policy. My opinion is progressives by their nature either hate or at least want to abandon the foundations this country was built on. Romney has described himself as progressive and governed that way in terms of key foundational issues like socialized medicine and homosexual marriage. That makes him not any different from Obama as someone who claims to love the country but undermines the Judeo-Christian tradition and tradition of individualism that made the country what it is.
The rats who make it through the election will be back in true form come January 2013.
Rats just appear to be jumping ship, it’s all in thier strategy. Once relected they will be on board again and the deception worked, those stupid Americans!
Look, I don't completely disagree with you on this. I think Bush did a good deal of damage to the conservative movement (at least the GOP) during his time in office, but he did pave the way, along with the GOP Congress for some substantial tax cuts. Good grief, at least under the GOP during the Bush years, unemployment was at about 5% and the economy was growing.
While I certainly understand your frustration, this is our reality. As I said, who ever the GOP candidate turns out to be...I'll vote for them.
Sadly, I think the only dumba$$es that have been falling for this are McConnell, Boehner, Cantor, and few of the other worthless GOP “leaders!” It's these GOPe that HAVE TO BE REPLACED! These few I mentioned are GUTLESS COWARDS!
“If we can show his not so nice side, somehow, which we well know he has, to the Nation than we will beat him easily. This is where we should concentrate some effort. It is not so much about politics, as far as they are concerned, but about a created cult of personality.”
I think Obama and the Dems have been doing this to themselves. They showed how they really feel about women (at least Stay-At-Home-Moms). This backfired big time! And they've also shown that they're nothing but hateful Race Pimps...a la George Zimmerman! Some polls have also shown that Dear Leader is no longer connecting to the younger crowd (minus the maggot infested OWS groupies) either. I think Obama and the Dems are showing who they really are: hateful, mean, racist, anti-women dirtbags. I agree wih that the GOP should be exploiting this at every turn. I laugh at John Boehner’s assertion that Obama, while doing horrible politically, is personally liked and admired by the American people! Ha! Hey John, get a clue, we the people see Obama as a totalitarian, Marxist thug who's out to destroy our nation!
Not really. The stock market broke in 2000, and Bush's entire tenure of office was dominated by pigs at the trough grabbing what they could from a declining economy lubricated by massive tranches of expedient Fed money, as both Fed and Administration became non-ideological dealers in Keynesian fixes and reflationary (and porkulent) tax cuts: Untax untax, spend and grab, spend and grab, pork out and elect, pork out and elect -- all under the shadow of national-security spending and defense against terrorism, as the Administration combined Reaganaut tax-cutting with Johnsonian and Rooseveltian war-fighting on borrowed money shoveled out by the Fed.
If you don't like that explanation, try rolling your own -- but be careful to explain how, if that didn't happen, Goldman Sachs common stock got to $250 a share in 2007. (Oink!)
Frankly, I think a lot of that thematic pretzeling was Dick Cheney's idea; he learned flexuousness of principle and the advantages of rising above during his time in Nixon's White House.
There's pragmatism, and then there's pig-matism: I think the Bush Administration practiced both, combining the impulses of both the Nixon and Bush 41 administrations.
People talk about outsourcing: Bush's people practiced outporking. They outporked everything they could get their hands on, and managed to make the Clinton Administration look like a bunch of fiscal choirboys by comparison, as they rode the Reagan boom and let a rising economy do its magic for them.
Obama Sees Steep Dropoff in Cash From Major Donors Front page above the fold!
China's High-Tech Military Threat
Some noteworthy articles about politics, foreign or military affairs, IMHO, FReepmail me if you want on or off my list.
BTTT
Look at the contrast in the area where his wristwatch usually sits.
Some democRats might still love America.
This is great news
Read the freakin’ bill? Dems are much too important to be bothered with that type of thing. Remember they’re smarter, better looking and “Oh so much more important” than the rest of us....
Thanks for the thoughtful reply. To clarify, I will definitely be voting for the republican nominee no matter who it is. And as an aside, here in Florida I did vote for Newt in the primary.
That's a picture of Barack, not Michelle.
Oh wait, did you say 'rookie'? Nevermind, I thought you said 'wookie'.
Yeah, maybe the pubs and conjure up another “power sharing” agreement. How sickening was that?
I prefer my way or the highway when we take charge - do to them worse than what they did to us.
Sad but true, mostly.
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.