Posted on 01/17/2013 1:23:48 AM PST by Kaslin
To judge from his surly demeanor and defiant words at his press conference on Monday, Barack Obama begins his second term with a strategy to defeat and humiliate Republicans rather than a strategy to govern.
His point blank refusal to negotiate over the debt ceiling was clearly designed to make the House Republicans look bad.
But Obama knows very well that negotiations usually accompany legislation to increase the government's debt limit. As Gordon Gray of the conservative American Action Network points out, most of the 17 increases in the debt ceiling over the last 20 years have been part of broader measures.
Working out what will be in those measures is a matter for negotiation between the legislative and executive branches. That's because the Constitution gives Congress the power to incur debt and the president the power to veto.
Obama supporters like to portray Republican attempts to negotiate as hostage-taking or extortion. But those are violent crimes. Negotiations -- discussions attempting to reach agreement among those who differ -- are peaceful acts.
What we do know, from Bob Woodward's "The Price of Politics," is that Obama is not very good at negotiating. He apparently can't stomach listening to views he does not share.
Perhaps that is to be expected of one who has chosen all his adult life to live in university communities and who made his way upward in the one-party politics of Chicago. Thus on the fiscal cliff he left the unpleasant business of listening to others' views and reaching agreement to Joe Biden.
Obama has laid down another marker in his puzzling nomination of Chuck Hagel to be secretary of defense.
As the Washington Post editorial writers pointed out, Hagel -- though a nominal Republican -- has stood way to the left of Obama on whether a military option to stop Iran's nuclear weapons program is feasible.
Obama has said repeatedly that that option, however risky and unpalatable, is on the table. Hagel has said it shouldn't be.
It's not at all clear that Hagel has the experience and temperament to head the Pentagon. His vocal defenders tend to concentrate on attacking his detractors rather than make the affirmative case for his qualifications.
Hagel seems likely to be confirmed given his endorsement by Sen. Charles Schumer yesterday. But it's interesting that no Republican senators have spoken up for him and that liberal Democratic senators like Bob Menendez and Ben Cardin have declined to do so.
As defense secretary, Hagel seems likely to cut military personnel and capabilities. There's undoubtedly some detritus that can be swept away. But his nomination seems less aimed at managing the military than tormenting the Republicans.
Then there is gun control. Some recent media polls show majority support for further restrictions on guns. If you phrase the question the right way, you tend to get that kind of response, especially after a horrifying crime like Newtown.
But new restrictions are unlikely to have any significant practical effect. The ban on assault weapons -- a category defined mostly by cosmetics -- certainly had none in the 10 years it was in effect.
The fact is that we have many more guns and many fewer murders than we did 20 years ago. Allowing law-abiding citizens to carry concealed weapons, as most states do, has not resulted in the street shootouts some predicted.
Strict state gun control laws did not stop the carnage in Newtown or the frequent killings on the streets of Chicago. The push for gun control is more a symbolic gesture than a serious attempt at governing.
Something better can be said about Obama's call for immigration law changes. The need for some change is clear.
That was also true in Obama's first two years, when he did nothing to advance legislation on the subject when Democrats had a solid majorities in Congress.
The question is whether Obama wants legislation or to stick it to the opposition. Many Republicans, like Sen. Marco Rubio, are ready to support legalization of those brought here as children but not immediate legalization for all 11 million illegals.
Negotiations and compromises will be needed to get a bill through Congress. A president interested in governing would not insist on getting his way 100 percent. Whether Obama is such a president is far from clear.
I am going to try to piece together your plan from the bits and pieces of critical comments you post:
1) The GOP can no long win national Federal elections because Dems give out free stuff, so drop that idea.
2) We can still hold the House though if even by a slim margin, hopefully
3) So the House needs to take control, shut down everything, no spending, no borrowing, no bills until O caves, if he doesnt then Americans get what they deserve no matter what happens. If the economy gets bad enough O would get the blame if it wasnt for the MSM and moochers, so its still a good idea,.
4) OK, if the House Republicans refuse to hold out for ‘3’, to shoot the hostages, then we shoot them, we teach them a lesson, we replace all the Scott Browns with Liz Warrens till they learn. Let the Dems takre everything House, SCOTUS, the hell with it.
5) When things get bad enough under Dem super-majority then the country will turn to ‘Rush-isism’, even if takes a civil war with all the guns we have been buying, and we go back to the stone age, that is when we win.
There is a major flaw in this plan that appears to be yours #3 , no one will run for R Speaker who will do that, just as I said. So it just ends in more Christmases for Dems.
You still, despite countless posts filled with a litany of complaints and admonishments about what the GOP should NOT do, have not made a single concrete suggestion about what the Republicans SHOULD do. You have made it abundantly, obnoxiously clear what you believe the Republicans should NOT do, what they should STOP doing, where they erred, where they bungled, what they did wrong and continue to do wrong, etc., etc., ad nauseum.
Ping me again when you think you can finally make a few reasonable, understandable suggestions about what you think the Republicans SHOULD do, the strategic legislative moves they SHOULD make. The stands they SHOULD take... Something... anything...
I look forward to reading your list of suggestions when you have come up with some, and not before then.
Thanks.
completely untrue. The post you replied to asking me for this had me giving a specific suggestion in bold, and they all give some advice or the other, so then you said my suggestion was not good enough for you, then you repeat that there was none because they are not good enough for you. (You are not really looking for an answer anyway.)
My suggestions should be obvious, specific suggestions to win the way winners have won and stop losing by doing what the losers have done.
You reject anything that is a not a get-rich-quick idea of beating obama. Your answer is “
“What?? That's it? We don't have time for talk to get the public to side with Rs against O, I want immediate results. I refuse to acknowledge anything that doesn't give me immediate satisfaction without thought or teamwork. Give me your idea of a House bill that makes O do what we want NOW or I will say you have no ideas”
Well get rich quick scenes usually end in disaster as yours will too, as all the others.
Speaking of suggestions : Where is your suggestion for beating O at this without “If only Bohner ....bla-bal-bla” Where is your plan for making Bohner do what you want intermediately? applying your own silly rules on yourself.
Win elections, is that to the point enough??
Get voters support and win the WH, more Senate seats and more house seats, not lose them.
In other words, you have nothing.
Please don't ping me to your posts anymore.
Thanks.
Now I see where your coming from, it makes sense now.
later :)
Of course not. Why would I??
I honestly didnt know you,
Now I know why you hold my “How Rs can beat Os “ posts in utter contempt, because you decided this country is dead and you showed indifference to O being re-elected.
That is not as bad as you making believe you want to hear how to beat Obama when you really have no interest in that because you have decided this country is dead, but you forgot to tell me that.
The more I see what cowards the Republicans are, the more I feel justified in my decision to sit out the presidential election and hunker down, get under the radar, and protect my family in my own way.
America is dead and gone. The final nail in the coffin was the 2008 election of an African communist as President and Commander-in-Chief of the Armed Forces. America had a great run. Remember it fondly for what it was. There’s no point hanging onto the past.
47 47 posted on Saturday, July 28, 2012 12:12:51 AM by Lancey Howard
Yeah, it was called “America” and it's basically dead and gone. The citizens there elected an African communist as its president in 2008, and the country is now little more than a land mass populated by cretins, ingrates, and parasites who have absolutely no respect for the military and who vote for big government to confiscate money from their neighbors so that it may be “redistributed” to them in exchange for their votes. It is not an America worth defending anymore. That America no longer exists.
#24 24 posted on Monday, October 08, 2012 1:34:38 AM by Lancey Howard
America is dead and gone. The final nail in the coffin was the 2008 election of an African communist as President and Commander-in-Chief of the Armed Forces. Hey, America had a great run... remember it fondly for what it was. There’s no point hanging onto the past. The upcoming election is meaningless.
41 posted on Tuesday, September 25, 2012 1:27:44 AM by Lancey Howard
The more I see what cowards the Republicans are, the more I feel justified in my decision to sit out the presidential election and hunker down, get under the radar, and protect my family in my own way.
America is dead and gone. The final nail in the coffin was the 2008 election of an African communist as President and Commander-in-Chief of the Armed Forces. America had a great run. Remember it fondly for what it was. There’s no point hanging onto the past.
59 posted on Wednesday, September 19, 2012 2:03:08 AM by Lancey Howard
You don't understand - - I CAN”T vote for Romney. Early in the primary campaign I vowed here at FR that if the scumbag GOPe succeeded in foisting Romney on normal Americans as their GOP candidate, God should strike me dead if I ever voted for him. So, if I voted for Romney I would be risking my life. Not gonna do it.
19 posted on Tuesday, September 11, 2012 12:29:09 AM by Lancey Howard
I give this guy Aikin kudos for hanging tough. I think he’ll win BECAUSE voters will see he wasn’t cowed by a bunch of Democrat newsrooms and quisling Republicans.
17 posted on Tuesday, August 21, 2012 10:25:25 PM by Lancey Howard
I love it when they make it fun!
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.