someone's going to be drafted in a republican brokered convention that's not romney or santorum or gingrich. most likely candidates, with jeb bush to my mind being the most likely choice.
considering the reality of obama's presidency, the question becomes ... who to vote for in a obama vs. jeb bush race?
at this point in time i would tentatively go with jeb bush.
who would you vote for?
considering the reality of obama's presidency, the question becomes ... who to vote for in a obama vs. jeb bush race?
at this point in time i would tentatively go with jeb bush.
who would you vote for?
Even if such a thing were to pass -- it would pretty much be the end of the Republican race for the White House for 2012.
No, IF Romney is the Republican Candidate, the Republicans would still have a fighting chance with Obama. Drafting Jeb Bush would only cripple the GOP...
<talking about a brokered convention is a good parlor game for those who aren't enamored with any of the current republican candidates. it ain't going to happen.>
rash statement considering the utter contempt of laws, rules, regulations and convention demonstrated the last 12 years.
02/21wither a new candidate pops up or it's going to be brokered, rules and convention be damned.
romney - the base detests him, he will massively de-energize the base and the moderates will see no reason to pick him over obama. and nobody LIKES him. remember the highly effective 'who would you like to have a beer with' bush campaign ditty ... who the hell would like to go to a bar and have a beer with mitt romney?
santorum - that's a no brainer. HE THINKS CONSTACEPTION SHOULD BE AGAINST THE LAW. 90% of the country thinks that's a batshit crazy intrusion on their freedom and privacy.
the republican leadership just aren't going to feild another candidate that will be steamrolled by a ******.
02/21a) once the base realizes that it's their candidate versus barack obama, the base will fall in line and vote romney. besides, the majority of the base will have already voted for romney. look at the 2008 democratic primary. it was bitterly contested between obama and clinton. obama ended up winning. did clinton supporters end up withholding their votes because their candidate didn't win the nomination? no, of course not, because it's stupid and divisive and gives the other party the best chance to win the general election. who are they going to mutiny towards? if ron paul ends up running a third party candidacy, then that practically all but seals a second term for obama. gary johnson certainly won't and doesn't have a legitimate shot at beating obama as a third party candidate and would only end up splitting the vote, ala ralph nader.
the whole point of a primary, especially an open primary where there is no heir apparent, is to get all the cobwebs out of the system. it's meant to be bitter and it's meant to divide and then unite the party faithful.
b) i think constipation should be against the law too. so painful sometimes!
#1) the convention is at the end of august. so that basically gives the republican machine 2 months to get the rest of the country to get behind a candidate THEY DID NOT VOTE FOR. i'd put that in italics, but, alas, tribe doesn't have those capabilities. let me repeat: "a candidate THEY DID NOT VOTE FOR." now, if it was a brokered convention where santorum, who gives romney a run for his money but ultimately falls short, or paul are the brokered candidate, then i think you'd have a little bit more of a chance.
#2) see #1 and the fact that the republican establishment is not going to want to appear to battered and broken 2 months before the general election. there's just no way. the republicans won't want to appear that weak and divided 2 months before voters go to the polls.
i mean, come on. think about this rationally. not only would it be a huge slap in the face to every single candidate who ran and every single voter who sat through all these debates and then voted for one of these schmucks, it would show a pretty clear disregard for election law.
Unsu...<someone's going to be drafted in a republican brokered convention that's not romney or santorum or gingrich>
There are 2,286 delegates. A candidate must accumulate 1,144 delegate votes at the national convention to win.
romney is obamacare.
gingrich is Fannie and Mac.
santorum is big government spender.
who is peace, prosperity, liberty.
who is war, poverty, tyranny.
<who would you vote for?>
Y'r kidding, right? Another Republican who will be so much worse than what all the anti-Obama people say that he does/does not do? Oh - Obama. No question. Jeb Bush will just be another Bush. You like Bush that much or dislike Obama that much that you would doom all of us by voting your displeasure at some of his actions? Dude, don't cut off your nose to spite your face.
<Sure, if you ignore the virtually hundreds of differing views and positions between Bush and Obama on the issues that face our nation.>
But is this breaking of America’s back a planned series of fiascoes? Is there an elitist group, backed by the Money Power, including the Federal Reserve, the White House and corporate banking interests, overseeing this destructive process? Indeed, is Red China, their perfect “Communist Ideal,” set to rise as the leader of the New World Order? Will the U.S. be leveled and the dollar decimated to benefit the communist tyrants in Beijing? Can we stop this foul plan of the elite and make America great once again?www.texemarrs.com/die_ameri..._promo.htm ;-)
This choice is between someone very so so or somebody complety crap (Republican).
Cant we have another choice ? All i think Obama needs is a good kick up the arss from the American people to get going, he got a bit of a push from Warren Buffet and Occupy Wall street and he has responded a BIT. Now if you guys intensify that he could really get going.
He has seen that since he anounced the new tax stance, and started to fight the insanity of the Republicans (which admitidly he should have done from the start) his popularity has risen.
That will make him think hes done the right thing in starting to move and change. Now if Progressive Americans make more noise, he'll move more.
I see no need for America to commit suicide with the Republicans just because Obama has been slow of the starting block.
When real change came in 60s America it was driven from the bottom up and politicans responded, thats what needs to happen now . Finaly some progressives in America have woken up and started to stir, but that needs to get stronger, a lot stronger, like in the 60s, and it shouldnt be all on the street in the modern age some of it should be on the net too.
Politics corrupted by Wall street and Big oil donations ? Campaign for change on that and push the president hard. Make your voice hear, get organised. Is that really harder than Civil rights in the 60s ? I dont think so.
Obama cant make these changes unless the American public demand and ask for them. Demand them. Demand more on tax reform, more on investment, more on greater equality, more on the environment.
Its going to happen sooner or later, the path of America is slowly turning, whats it finds a new direction and starts to get a bit clarity on that direction it will move faster.
<He has seen that since he anounced the new tax stance, and started to fight the insanity of the Republicans (which admitidly he should have done from the start) his popularity has risen.
That will make him think hes done the right thing in starting to move and change. Now if Progressive Americans make more noise, he'll move more.>
What part of 'shifting into campaign mode' are you finding elusive?
Or perhaps you think it purely coincidental his sudden catering to the dem/prog base after pissing on them for three years has nothing to do with the fact he is now in campaign mode?
Gotta give it to Obama, he was dead on in his assessment of the left ... the vast majority of them are sheepbots too, just a matter of how to flock them up.
of course this is part of him fishing for votes.
Thats the whole point. If the public make clear that a vote winner is doing more about changing the financial system, doing more on tax, doing more to address the kind of thing Occupy Wall street is asking for, if they demand that loud enough and in large enough numbers, then its hard for them to ignore that - AND for the unsure middle ground swing voters to listen.
If more economist and people of note start saying the things that Sachs and Soros are saying.
Then he'll move more. It depends on the noise going on. I dont buy the argument that Obama has no convictions though. Its just yes, he is too influenced by his peers, he doesnt have enough balls to go for big change, he likes consensus and the status quoe, and he is deeply the kind of politican wnats to win, win in the sense of wining elections, public support, etc, and yes he is big on marketing so thinks campagin money is essential.
But if enough of the public demand the right things, he'll most likely go with them. Why wouldnt he ? And on the flip side, the public have more power than the realise, there just not geting directed that well.
Example, the recent Actor campaging against Apples labour practices, they have a previously ultra popular, ultra successful company and brand, on the run. This has happened before.
Now how about public campaigns to boycott banks who do the worst practices. Boycott environmental banks.
There are lots more could be done with this people power stuff.
The kenndy's, even Bobby, was not so keen on taking up the race struggle initaly, by 68 you could barely stop him.
Of course it also depends on what your looking for and asking for. The US has a lot of spread in that and a fair amount of confusion , but its starting to come together and focus, awrnesss on some issues is growing with some people.
Things could go many ways yet.
I certainly dont see Obama driving real big change. But if real big change starts pushing around in the country, he may well try and ride that wave, he is after all from Hawaii.
<the problem with obama is that he campaigned to the left but governed to the center. that's where the disconnect with many on the left comes into play.>
I agree completely. But what Id add to that from my perspective, are two things, and id be interested if you agreed or disagree, you are after all American unlike me and live there, is that America is going through a lot of Change right now.
First is even if the left hasnt got what they want, like say the occupy people, instead of acting like there in a huff about that and not going to talk to Obama instead they should demand it off him - and demand it effectively and loudly. Sure the rest of the country has a say in that too, but then there making there voice heard clearly, like the tea party did. At least that's started.
Second is for most of the last 30 years the choice has been between the centre and the right. Now there are thousands on the streets protesting that they want the left. Many Americans are probably in the middle not sure what they want.
So maybe its not suprising the president is a bit confused himself.
And there is this myth now that America has and always was a country with only a centre and a right. As Sachs points out Im really not sure if thats true from 1900 - 1973, certainly FDR seemed pretty left and there ware others like Teddy Rosovelt, relative anyway to the standards of the time. I dont even think Britain had much a welfare system to speak about back in the 30s.
So with all these different currents blowing around in America right now, a change of direction and uncertainty about that, isnt it parr for the course Obama is confused about which way to go ?
However, and this is my point, a great leader wouldn't be. Something from that FDR documentary, from a guy who was actually in his admin, and i may be slightly misquoting "you never felt like he was lost for what to do or didnt know what to do, he knew exactly what to do and he WOULD do it. "
Maybe we need someone who listens and has a dialogue with the people more in the modern day than a near demigod, but i think above is missing in Obama, but maybe some of it is historical too. The times we are in, lot of confusion about. Even many economists are confused, or at least deeply disagreeing.
<So maybe its not suprising the president is a bit confused himself.>
<instead of acting like there in a huff about that and not going to talk to Obama instead they should demand it off him - and demand it effectively and loudly.>
first of all, he's a center-left democrat, in the vein of bill clinton. he's DLC masked and, for some reason, promoted as a progressive. he certainly attempted to campaign as a progressive, but his governing has been hardly that.
second of all, who in congress is going to take the lead on this? most of the schmucks in congress, especially the house, are too busy worrying about reelection, where you need to campaign towards the MIDDLE, not the left, in order to win. it's the sad state of affairs in us politics "big tent" two-party system. the left has to join the democrats, otherwise where are they going to go? they either lay down or they supplicate themselves to the powers-that-be in the hopes of getting something they want. in the end, they usually don't get what they want, either because they are fools or because there just aren't the votes in congress.
<Many Americans are probably in the middle not sure what they want.>
the united states, historically, has been a conservative country. just take a look at these numbers from gallup: www.gallup.com/poll/15202...-Group.aspx
on average, about 40% of americans label themselves conservatives. conservatives are and always will be the largest ideological group. it's just a fact of political life. the problem with the numbers, however, is that it doesn't show how many conservatives lean towards the middle and how many are strict/pure conservatives. the same goes for moderates, whether they lean conservative or if they lean liberal.
yes, there is a liberal base in the united states, as the gallup polls show, but it's not nearly big enough or strong enough to affect all that much.
<And there is this myth now that America has and always was a country with only a centre and a right.>
it's not really a myth at all. of course, if your primary source of news and commentary are primarily on the left, you will, of course, think that liberals make up a much larger percentage of the electorate.
<<And there is this myth now that America has and always was a country with only a centre and a right.>
it's not really a myth at all. of course, if your primary source of news and commentary are primarily on the left, you will, of course, think that liberals make up a much larger percentage of the electorate.>>
I mean a myth in historical sense, its certainly true for the last 30 years, but before Reagan ? Was FDR center ? I wouldnt say so, he was left, and he was incredibly popular, and lasted four terms. Lyndon Johnson was on the left, many people forget that now because of Vietnam.
Jeffry Sachs even jokes that Nixon compared to Obama was on the left.
< for some reason, promoted as a progressive. he certainly attempted to campaign as a progressive>
this is the thing, that campaign was pretty successful, maybe what a lot of the public really wanted in 2009 was what they were promised ? Maybe the real reason it wasnt delivered was a conservative congress and media and not so much a public, and a too "moderate" Obama.
You say for some reason they promoted him as a progressive, i dont think the people working out the campaign just done that buy accident. It was thought out.
"change you can belive in" some say one of the most successful campaigns. So what are people saying they want there in responding to that.
and here is the final thought. The public can obviously be influenced, right then just after that campaign, if they had have got what was promised and a progressive president of a kind of modern version of FDR, well maybe the public would have moved even further in that direction, if it was done well.
For sure FDR influenced a hell of a lot of America like that. The mood went from depression and gloom to hope pretty fast, and completely revolutionary things were tried and and worked mostly, according to historians on that period.
What Im saying is i think America is about to embark on change, but that change is surely not going to be initiated by Obama. A new phase.
To me Occupy Wall street is the small tip of the icebourg in that.
I just dont think the average income of Americans can stay the same like it has for the last 35 years while incomes at the top tripple for another 35 years without some sudden wake up and reaction to that, and to me its starting, slowly, but thats probably how it happens normaly.
Sure right now the progressive base is too small. But in 1978 the Reagn style conservative base probably wasnt that big, in 1929 the left wing big government base probably was pretty damn small.
Then, there was big change. How do you know its not coming again ? How do you the occupy thing wont grow - though it doesn't have to come necessarily from that direction.
How do you know more and more Americans might think median income that doesn't move for decades while the top incomes tripple isnt crap and want to change that ?
re the gallup poll, again I'm talking about changes of decades.
Right now that might be true but again i think some kind of change is going to happen, re the start of occupy, the chart i am sure woudl be very different from 1900 - 1973.
Couldnt find that much on that but i did find this -
<Meanwhile, Karlyn Bowman, a polling analyst at the American Enterprise Institute, a conservative think tank, found two other examples that undercut Will's claim. Gallup asked the following question in successive polls during November 1937, a year after Roosevelt's reelection: "Do you think the policies of the Roosevelt Administration are too liberal, too conservative, or about right?" In the first poll, 70 percent of Democrats said "about right," 26 percent said "too liberal" and 4 percent said "too conservative." In the second poll, the numbers were similar, with "about right" rising to 74 percent. So, Democrats were once again likelier to say that FDR was too liberal than that he was too conservative, but both groups of respondents were far outnumbered by those who said FDR's approach was "about right."
We'll grant that Will's introductory point -- that hard times in the 1930s didn't move the U.S. to the left -- has some merit. Several political scientists we talked to noted that public opinion tends to move in reaction to whoever the president is. "When a Republican is elected President, opinion shifts in a liberal direction, responding to real or perceived conservative changes in policy, and when a Democrat gets elected, opinion moves conservative," said Robert Y. Shapiro, a Columbia University political scientist. So when FDR came in, Gallup polling showed indications that respondents were concerned about leftward drift.
So let's sum up. The book sources Will used did report the poll result accurately. But there are two problems. One is that Gallup polls at the time under-reported the views of many Americans. The other is that at least three Gallup polls from that era showed that 50 to 70 percent of Democrats thought FDR's approach was "about right," with much smaller proportions of Democrats seeking a more conservative FDR. So we rate Will's statement Half True.
---Now if Progressive Americans make more noise, he'll move more.
No he won't. Not at all. The stupid Progressives has publicly walked away from him and harmed his re-election, so they are persona non grata in any & every context. The idiots should have worked from the INSIDE...but instead they made childish and impossible demands and when he did not do what they wanted, they walked away. So, that drove him closer to the center, where he was more comfortable, anyway.
American progressives are idiots. Seriously. They would rather get nothing and feel superior than fight from the inside which is what the Teabaggers did to such great effect.
<Obama is just another Bush, only without opposition from the left.>
See - that is just factually not true AT ALL. It's a talking point that simply is a lie.
Go through that for a few minutes. Name for me ONE OF THOSE ISSUES that a Bush would/will do. None. To say that Obama = Bush is a stupid talking point. A parroting of the irrelevant.
<Its just yes, he is too influenced by his peers>
Elo, stop opining on things that you know nothing about. He is not "influenced by his peers" at all. He is a pragmatist. He's an incrementalist. That we all knew all along. People are surprised now? I am not - I knew this from all the info that we had all along. A Progressive Lefty will NEVER achieve the White House. So, a Centrist Liberal can and will FOREVER as long as the stupid Far Left does not harm his or any Dem's ability to achieve the White House.
<he doesnt have enough balls to go for big change>
Oh man. I'm out of this inane debate.
<Elo, stop opining on things that you know nothing about. He is not "influenced by his peers" at all>
right, now theres an intelligently spelt out argument.
For a start Larry Summers, Timothy Geithner, and Robert Rubin where some of the principle architects of the Financial system the last 20 years, a system that Obama had promised to change. Yet he put them three people into some of the most key influential postions , like they were really supposed to help him change the system that they thought was so good that they created in teh first place ?
But i would know nothing about that.
Anyway pleased your departing from this conversation we might have a grown up one now. If Jeff B comes along too as well as Gerbil, Jeff disagrees with me about quite a bit of this stuff but he will not act like a big kid about that.
Its fun to debate stuff with people who have a different perspective but if you just throw out stuff like you havnt a clue, you know nothing about this stuff, or your an embarrassment every-time someone has a different opinion that just sinks the debate.
<A Progressive Lefty> sounds like something off fox news.
FDR was both progressive and left, not only did he win four elections, one with the biggest majority in History, also and a group of leading academics voted him Americas best ever president.
You cant see past the last 30 years - but many people are on your street right now demanding big change and there voice and influence is getting stronger.
this is interesting, discussion on Charlie rose by a panel of about 4 experts who put Obama in a historical perspective talking about other big presidents like Ronald Reagan and FDR, and where they think Obama and the country is now.
you see this is the key line in that conversation, something like
"the two great term setters in the last 100 years were FDR, and Ronald Reagan, FDR changed the landscape by putting government into center stage, and Truman didnt change that and ratified that, Reagan done the same by pushing Private enterprise center stage, and Clinton went along with that and ratified it.
now the question is, is Obama going to follow, it seems unlikely to me"
now the gripe that many have is if you campaigned heavily on change, then your fundamentally not delivering on that promise if you dont deliver it. Maybe he will in a second term, not so far no.
Its a bit much saying he is about incremental change when he promised big change.
its possible a lot more may happen in a second term though.
<its possible a lot more may happen in a second term though.>
exactly. we don't know how obama's presidency will pan out. there's still 9 months left until the election. all in all, that whole segment is just intellectual masturbation with, i'm guessing, nary a voice on the far left given an opportunity to speak.
well i have to admit that a lot of them four experts in that Charlie Rose discussion were actually emphasizing that they thought a good chance of a stronger second term to come. They also made the point that they felt he was a good learner, that most presidents that do good second terms, like FDR, learn from the first, and that Obama was caught flat footed in the first year and learned from that.
still, id still want to see the change that was promised.
This is the maximum depth. Additional responses will not be threaded.
<and as ive noted many times, i think obama doesn't get a lot of credit for what he has done because of the shitty things he has done. >
maybe that's because the 'shitty' things he's done are so massively present and future destructive.
personally lobbying to gut the frank-dodd bill ... no investigations or prosecutions of the ongoing criminal sprees by the tbtf's and nothing to shut down their casino proclivities ... sweeping the GARGANTUANLY EPIDEMIC, myraid and ongoing forclosure frauds under the rug. we are talking, very literally, MILLIONS of prosecutable CRIMES here ... lobbying to INCLUDE american citizens in the indefinite detention on american soil rider ...
these are all massive in their destuctiveness to this country in the present and even more so in the future.
the entire system has become totally rigged for the rich and powerful against the interests of the rest and obama is in that cesspool of corruption and special priviledge to his eyebrows.
i certainly think there is something in above, but then again, i also think there is something in Jeffs argument that it takes more than one man to change that when there is a very hostile congress, a history of 30 years heading in that wrong direction, and a deeply divided, and sometimes deeply confused public.
Maybe it will turn out that the first term was just pulling back from the cazyiness of the last 10 years, if not the last 30 years, and in a second term both Obama and the public, or better to say America, will both change much more, because i think you need both for real change to happen, the president, congress, public, some of the media, thinkers, a LOT of America. .
It takes a big part of a country to create real big deep change, and that change might happen yet, and if it doesnt, i think there's going to be big trouble of some kind till it does change.
But Obama needs to do more just as America needs to do more. Same could be said for much of the world really.
02/24yep, looking more and more like jeb is being groomed and promoted as an alternative candidate to slimeball and revulsionboy.
he's got a few major things in his favor.
1. instant name recognition and credibility with the right.
2. won't have a record of the scary crazy proposals and sound bites necessary to win the primary in republican looney tune land.
3. will ENERGIZE the republican base like romney could only dream of doing, they will have someone they can BELIEVE in!!!
4. he will be very non-threatening to the moderates, smart, erudite, measured, moderate ... essentially a white obama.
even the name bush won't be that much of a negative with obama having spent the last few years rehabilitating gwb and will be dogpiled by the media if he suddenly decides to attack gwb to sidcredit the bush name after all these years. also, jeb is pretty much the diametric opposite of bush when it comes to the intellect and the ability to speak coherently and of course he is a consummate and experienced politician.
jeb bush would be obama's worst re-election
02/27<<yep, looking more and more like jeb is being groomed and promoted as an alternative candidate to slimeball and revulsionboy.
Actually it just likes speculation created by the pundits to increase the drama for this election, much like the rumor that Obama is going to drop Biden for Hillary.
<<he will be very non-threatening to the moderates, smart, erudite, measured, moderate ... essentially a white obama.
Andybody with the poisonous name "Bush" will be looked upon quite warily by moderates.
<<now the gripe that many have is if you campaigned heavily on change, then your fundamentally not delivering on that promise if you dont deliver it.
I think the problem is one of unrealistic expectations coming from a sector of the electorate. Some think the President can wave a magic wand and enact every single campaign promise and do so in the matter of 3 years. When reality is such that enacting campaign promises is an uphill battle for every single President, none of which have ever been able to enact 100% of their agenda. Yes, FDR was a great President that enacted legislation (like Social Security) that has become the bedrock of our nations safety net. But it must also be remembered that FDR had TWELVE YEARS as President and a Democratic legislature that largely supported his programs. Obama has been in office for a bit over three years and has had an intransigent and historically oppositional Congress blocking some of his agenda.
Then you have others who had expectations that had no basis in reality, they thought Obama was more progressive than he actually is. And then they raise a stink when Obama did not live up to the expectations they had in their heads. The problem of course is that those expectations were based on their being caught up in the moment and projecting their own views on to Obama, voting for him, and then getting pissed when every action was not the equivalent to how Kucinich would have voted. News flash, they should have pulled their heads out of the clouds and payed attention to his actual platform.
In closing, I agree with about 80% to 90% of what Obama has done with his Presidency thusfar. Yes, I take in to account opposition from the right wing wacko party. And no, I did not have unrealistic and and false understanding of Obama's positions. Subsequently I am not completely disallusioned with the President based on uneducated expectations of how he would govern moving forward. For instance, some were pissed that Obama ordered a temporary surge in Afghanistan, ranting and raving that Obama promised to pull us out of Afghanistan immediately upon becoming president. When reality is such that Obama campaigned on the notion that we took our eye off the ball in Afghanistan in order to fight a war of choice in Iraq, and that his administration would refocus our efforts in Afghanistan. If you are one of these people and you suspect you may have had an inaccurate understanding of Obama's actual platform, if you think you were listening with your heart and not your brain, then might I politely suggest that you go back and listen to his actual words.
I think there is something in the idea that progress projected there own desires onto Obama. Something.
However thats not the whole story. As Gerbil says, Obama campaigned as a progressive, but delivered centrist policies. . There was a very simple emphasis also in the campaign from Obama - CHANGE, we all know what change means. That came from Obama, they were not peoples projections and expections, and boy did Obama plug that word.
So I feel the falut with that is on both sides.
But its silly to look at whos "fault" this is. Something deeper is going on here than that. Obama Ultimately is a popularist, he is very into the concept of going with what the WHOLE country wants, not just part of it.
On the other hand many on the left want big change, a new direction for America. They see that in 35 years the average wage hasnt gone up while the top wages have trippled, there understandably deeply pissed off about that and what it changed in a big way not a small way.
On the other hand of course there are a lot of people disagree. The left dont care that they disagree.
So in other words the country is divided when Obama is trying to take them all in one direction. Thats the conflict.
Now I agree that Obama can not wave a magic wand. Yet I think its crucial the changes that should happen to America, needs to happen to America to get it back on track after 35 years solid of going along the right path to the extent that there are now huge inequalities and social problems, and if you think im exegarting that just take a look at this graph -
Thats why you have thousands of people on your streets trying to occupy buildings, banks and what have you.
If you wonder why i care about this so much you can see where the UK fall on that chart, and i also recognize the huge impact America still have on the world, besides i care about what goes on in the whole world.
In 1959 it could have been quite easy for some blacks to turn around and say to other blacks, get your head out the coulds, this kind of change isnt going to happen anytime soon, before the movment had got really big that is. Point is, some people had to make it get big in the early days.
If big change on inequalities and investment are going to happen in America, i think both people, the progressive base AND Obama have to do more. -
1 progressives need to help create a national environment that makes that BIG change more possible, massive protest, and more organised around concrete soultions that they demand. Also people like Warren Buffet, Sachs, Josehp Stigliz, etc, need to come more out of the woodwork to support that. like has alrady started. IE the Warren Buffet rule.
The Improved direction that Obama has been going over the last six months, the people of Occcupy Wall Street and Warren Buffet deserve at least part of the credit for that. Obama himself has acknowledge that with both a nod to Occupy in his speechs and naming the new Tax Rule the Buffet Rule.
But more, much more needs to be done. Thats partly the job of progressives voice becoming so loud and so effective that the convince the masses of America undediced in the middle, exactly like what happened on the race issue in America between about 1961 and 1965. OK demographics were different then, but there are a lot of middle aged and older Americans pissed at what has been happening this last 30 years and some of them have been on occupy two.
2 Obama needs to do his bit more. IF this movement above goes bigger, he needs to respond to it. Ture he has a conservative congress against him, including the so called "blue democrats". The four experts on Charlie Rose who know this stuff insdie out, though they had sympathy for the way congress is often thwarting Obama, said congress for Lydon Johnson was even more dysfunctional. They talked about how Lyndon Johnson got around that by obssevivly wining over key players in that congress and playing the poltical game really well.
Nobody said thats an easy job for Obama, but if hew wants to be remembered as great instead of average, thats what he has to do.
On the other hand, Obama cannot do 2 without 1, 2 and one have to go together or this is going nowhere.
For historic change, the people have to change in a historic way, exactly as is happening in countries like Egypt, Tunisia etc. Indeed many have noted that some of the roots in Occupy started in Tunisia and Egypt.
Ultmatly, its down to deep historic currents if Historic change happens in America now, but America sure needs it, take another glance at that graph.
Globally we certainly have the right astrological conditions for this, Pluto makes its first square with Uranus this year, and lasts for 5-6 years after that, the last time that happened was indeed in the days of FDR 1930s and then again in the 1960s during huge protests, huge change, Kennedy and Johnson.
This is the maximum depth. Additional responses will not be threaded.<<Obama campaigned as a progressive, but delivered centrist policies. .
I have to politely disagree, Obama delivered policies on track with the vast majority of his stated platform during the campaign. Are there exceptions to that rule? Certainly, that is the case for every President. You are right in that the spirit of Obama's campaign was populist in nature, but his platform made it clear that he is a bit to the right of Kucinich, while that populist spirit led many to think he would govern in a Kucinich style manner. In other words, Obama campaigned on centrist AND progressive policies.
<<There was a very simple emphasis also in the campaign from Obama - CHANGE, we all know what change means.
What specifically does it mean? It can mean different things to different people. The word "change" can have any number of meanings, and in this case it ultimately meant change from the previous administrations ruinous Republican policies. In that context, does a candidate promoting centrist and progressive policies = change? Absolutely. While some can point to a handful of policies where there are similarities to the Bush administration, the vast majority of his policies and the manner in which he governs is night and day from the Bush years. Some just read too much in to what "change" meant to them.
Politifact is keeping track of campaign promises, here is where Obama is at in just three years:
The Obameter Scorecard
Promise Kept 168
Promise Broken 63
In the Works 156
You can read the details of each item here. www.politifact.com/truth-o-...obameter/
<<On the other hand many on the left want big change, a new direction for America. They see that in 35 years the average wage hasnt gone up while the top wages have trippled, there understandably deeply pissed off about that and what it changed in a big way not a small way.
I agree that America wants to see the kind of changes you are speaking of. But considering the depth of the Republican economic crisis Obama inheritied, the best he could do at the outset is to stop the bleeding. It would have been a miracle in order to fix the long standing inequities that exist in this country in the midst of such an ecomomic emergency. Once you stop the bleeding, then one can move forward in fixing the underlying issues of the growing income divide. A big thanks to Occupy for bringing that to the forefront by the way. :)
<<So in other words the country is divided when Obama is trying to take them all in one direction. Thats the conflict.
Which is something I think existed since the founding of our country. I read a great book awhile back called Miracle at Philidelphia, it isabout the history of the Federal Convention in Philadelphia that resulted in the Constitution of the United States. It outlines the debates our forefathers had in the course of writing the Constitution, and what became clear to me in reading it is that our country has been divided since the outset. Shit, back then people actually engaged in duals over political disagreements. Can you imagine shooting at each other to settle such a dispute in this day and age? lol. :)
<< and if you think im exegarting that just take a look at this graph -
I don't think you are exaggerating at all, you are spot on with this reality.
<<In 1959 it could have been quite easy for some blacks to turn around and say to other blacks, get your head out the coulds, this kind of change isnt going to happen anytime soon, before the movment had got really big that is. Point is, some people had to make it get big in the early days.
I agree, we have to give support where needed and be vocal where needed. I am not of the opinion that we just elect a President and wash our hands of it for 4 years, we have to be out there pushing progressive causes. When the people stand up in such masses it lends support to that change which we are seeking. You can see the Occupy movements message lending support to Obama's economic message regarding the 1% paying their fair share in taxes.
<<But more, much more needs to be done. Thats partly the job of progressives voice becoming so loud and so effective that the convince the masses of America undediced in the middle, exactly like what happened on the race issue in America between about 1961 and 1965. OK demographics were different then, but there are a lot of middle aged and older Americans pissed at what has been happening this last 30 years and some of them have been on occupy two
I wholeheartedly agree.
The scale runs from liberal commie bastards to conservative fascist dictator assholes, and in that scale Obama is a bit to the right of Kucinich. Certainly there are glaring differences, such as the Afghanistan war. Those differences stand out, but it must also be remembered that they are on the same page on many issues, such as allowing gays to server openly in US military, or the rich paying their fair share in taxes.
<and what became clear to me in reading it is that our country has been divided since the outset. >
while thats probably true, i think you get certain times where fate just collides in such a way that the overwhelming majority back big change, and someone steps up to the plate with power and leadership that delivers that, Again that happened in FDR's time, he done a much more Jeff than just create the welfare state. He invested so sensibly in US infrastructure that not only was he able by 1941 to start making planes, tanks and what have you at a rate that everyone thought he was insane when he first announced the numbers to beat Hitler, and hence probably made the biggest contribution to beating fascism second probably only to the amount of Russians who died.
He also in so doing, with his long term investments in what American needed, laid the economic backbone of Americas huge growth and material wealth that followed, and more equitable growth too, right through the 40s, 50s, 60s, he laid the foundation and backbone for that to happen. The financial regulations he put in place worked really good well after he was dead untill the started to destroy them happily in the 80s onwards, right through Clinton climaxing with Bush.
Fate colliding to cause big change happened again of course with Reagan from 79 - say 83, huge change in that short time, and them changes kept moving in that direction for 30 years, but id say in completely the wrong direction which is the main reason we are where we are now, and Reagan worked in tandem with his equally influential partner Margret Thatcher, both of them changed the world. They created 30 years of growth, but 30 years of growing inequality and growing social problems, and then in the end there economic system was seen to have extremely poor foundations and collapsed anway.
But as Gerbil says, historical comparisons have there limitations, things were very different back in 1933 and 1980. Now is now.
We are not at at time where the majority is backing deep change right now, America is split and confused i think. I think many of the thinkers are confused or still hold onto the old system of the last 30 years, from blue democrats to many mainstream economic thinkers.
BUT I sense we are on the tipping edge of that changing somehow, take the economic thinkers, i think many of the better ones are pushing out more radical thinking and the old models are starting to change. We might be on the cusp of hitting a phase again like the 60s and 30s. But it might need more trouble yet for that to happen.
<But considering the depth of the Republican economic crisis Obama inheritied, the best he could do at the outset is to stop the bleeding. It would have been a miracle in order to fix the long standing inequities that exist in this country in the midst of such an ecomomic emergency. Once you stop the bleeding, then one can move forward in fixing the underlying issues >
So, now is the time for big change. Step 2.
Maybe Sachs frames this in a slightly too negative way , but id really love you guys to comment on it even if you disagree (!) -
<Consider the bottom line of the Obama budget. The policy is to cut total primary (non-interest) federal spending from about 22.6 to 19.3 per cent of gross domestic product from 2011 to 2020, while revenues would rise from recession lows of about 15.4 per cent of GDP in 2011 to some 19.7 by 2020. Compare that with Republican congressman Paul Ryan’s budget a year ago. Mr Ryan’s budget aimed for about 17 per cent of GDP in primary outlays by 2020, with revenues at about 18 per cent of GDP. The difference is modest, but the important fact is this. Both sides are committed to significant cuts in government programmes relative to GDP. These cuts will be especially swingeing in the discretionary programmes for education; environmental protection; child nutrition; job re-training; transition to low-carbon energy; and infrastructure. The entire civilian discretionary budget will amount to only 2 per cent of GDP, or less, as of 2020, in the budget plans of both Obama and the Republicans.
There are far better alternatives for America’s future. Successful northern European countries spend much more as a share of GDP on early childhood development, family support, job training, science and technology, and infrastructure, and they raise higher tax revenues to pay for them. Through a better balance of private and public investments they achieve lower unemployment, lower trade deficits, lower budget deficits, less poverty, longer holidays, better child care, higher life expectancy and higher reported life satisfaction.
The true nature of Washington politics is thinly disguised by the heated political debate between them. Both parties depend on the money of rich corporate contributors from Wall Street, big oil, private healthcare, real estate, arms contractors and other corporate lobbies. Both cater to corporate desires, especially for tax cuts, unregulated executive pay and weak corporate regulation.
It is true that the parties’ economic policies are not identical. Mr Obama proposes to raise the top tax rate slightly from 35 per cent to 39.6 per cent. He advocates a minimum tax rate of 30 per cent on millionaires. These are modest measures and will be blocked by Republicans in Congress. He also resists even larger Republican cuts to programmes for the poor that are already on the chopping block. Yet Mr Obama also dangles the lure of further “tax reforms” to cut top personal and corporate income tax rates.
more here -
To fully understand Sachs argument you really need to listen to a full lecture, mostly because its kind of radically new, a fresh way of seeing things. We have been so blinded by the economic models of the last 30 years, sometimes we dont see how deep that thinking has gone.
Now i know its not easy for Obama to deliver that. Problem is i dont think he even thinks that way YET.
Part of the thing is i think this debate is only just evolving. The 1% - 99% is a start, but some swing voters and some centre right voters would say why is that such a problem ?
Well if you look at that graph that charts inequalities of 23 developed nations against social problems from mental health, longevity, physical health, crime, education etc i think it answers that really well, not enough people are aware of that.
Hell even the Guardian newspaper, our most intellectual left wing newspaper in the UK, when they mention Japan mostly just talk about how they have had pretty poor growth for decades. Yet look at where Japan fall on that chart of comparisons for them social factors and inequalities, one of the best in the world. People arnt talking about that enough.
Some of them changes in values are as much cultural as political. If we are too obsessed with economic growth compared to emotional, mental and social well being, is it really all politicians job to change that culture ? probably not, its also up to us.
Im not just concerned about American change though, global change is really important, environment, global inequalities, etc. .
I came across this today, its interesting, to me it says do we really not know we have loads we need to change - still,
I think the time for much of that change is coming soon, and many of the solutions. Obama may be a big part of them solutions eventually, he may not, we will see. I have an open mind ! Either is possible if you ask me.
and by the way some of these changes i think can take up to 20-30 years to see right through, especially on environment and global equality, but we need plans and the right direction for them to be successful. that's another thing needs to change, short term neediness rather than long term responsibility.
<<There are far better alternatives for America’s future. Successful northern European countries spend much more as a share of GDP on early childhood development, family support, job training, science and technology, and infrastructure, and they raise higher tax revenues to pay for them. Through a better balance of private and public investments they achieve lower unemployment, lower trade deficits, lower budget deficits, less poverty, longer holidays, better child care, higher life expectancy and higher reported life satisfaction.
The true nature of Washington politics is thinly disguised by the heated political debate between them. Both parties depend on the money of rich corporate contributors from Wall Street, big oil, private healthcare, real estate, arms contractors and other corporate lobbies. Both cater to corporate desires, especially for tax cuts, unregulated executive pay and weak corporate regulation.
I can't really disagree with any of this, it seems spot on. One question though, how does the European financial crisis factor in to these northern European countries?
<I can't really disagree with any of this, it seems spot on. One question though, how does the European financial crisis factor in to these northern European countries?>
thats a good question and someone asked Sachs this on Bloomberg.
just to clarify in case your not aware that Sachs is talking there of countries like Sweden, Norway, Finland, the Netherlands, and Denmark, not the UK, France or Germany - though Germany is more like the Scandinavian countries the UK the least.
The Euro when it was set up many had warned it had fundamental issues and problems that would need to be sorted out in terms of Economics though not politically, there was a strong political will to come together and get Europe stronger in that way, and it was hoped that in time, over decades the fundamental problem of having a shared currency without a truly shared fiscal policy or central bank would be overcome.
Then 2008 happend and caused a huge crisis eventualy because of the knock on debt effects of course.
This will sap some of the vitality from all European countries, no question, hell if it gets really bad its even going to affect you over there in the US and the rest of the world.
But here is the thing. It will probably affect it in the same way Japans problem affected over the last two years. Dampened growth, yet still it scores just about the best in the world on all them social factors. And I have read the book written by the equality trust people, there really reliable figures, they have been peer reviewed in top academic circles.
What you have to remember is the mistake of bad foresight and bad planing with the Euro creation is a very separate issue. Also the smaller players Sachs is talking about, Norway, Finland, Sweden, didnt have as much say in that as bigger players like Germany, France and the UK. You can include Japan in the model of good government investment and taxation policies though i believe there mode is slightly different to the Scandinavian one.
I would like to do more research on how the Scandinavian countries are weathering the storm, but at first glance -
<The IMF said growth on the mainland, which excludes the lucrative oil sector, is seen at 2.2 percent, below the 2.5 percent forecast in November, but still well ahead of the euro zone which could contract by 0.5 percent.>
<The Swedish economy is expected to grow by 0.7% this year, said the Commission, the European Union's executive arm, a downward revision from last autumn's forecast of 1.4% growth.>
<The Commission expects Finnish GDP to grow to the tune of 0.8 per cent this year.
According to the prediction, Finland’s exports will be reduced.
The employment situation and the salary development, however, will support demand in the domestic market, which in turn will be manifested in increased production, the Commission calculates.
According to the Commission, what is somewhat risky for Finland is the fact that investment items form a large portion of the country's exports.
If the trust in the growth of the economy starts to dwindle on a global scale, causing the investment figures to turn downwards significantly, this will be manifested quickly as reduced export figures and weakened growth for Finland.>
Now thats got to be put in context that the big Euro economies are forecast to do worse.
<Both Germany and the UK are forecast to record 0.6% GDP growth this year and France 0.4%>
Now of course if American and UK Financial systems had not have crashed, the Euro would not have this trouble, and as i say it was badly designed which is a separate issue.
And again, Sachs argument, and we can see that from Japan, is saying you have to balance growth with the importance of social issues. By the way some of them countries had outstanding growth before 2008 and the Euro crisis.
You also have to remember America does not have the Euro issue,so all the ideas above on investment and taxiation that Sachs talks about should again not be confused with the Euro Crisis.
Hell there would be nothing to stop economies even like China, India, Russia, Brazil taking on that more successful model.
In a way I think sometimes China do balance more the role of goverment and private sector mix, they control there banking sector more, control housing bubbles better, are very concerned in long term investments, but on the other hand i think its a strange mixture in the sense of other aspects are developing very similar to the American model. They have huge inequalities, partly because of them industrializing so rapidly.
Im not pretending to be a expert on all this though I do think ive learnt a fair amount in the last 6 months on these things. Ive just ordered Sachs new Book., and really looking forward to reading it.
Sorry to keep pestering you but i cannot recommend enough that Sachs Colombia University lecture i messaged you a few weeks ago, if you have time, he talks about it all in detail with extreme clarity there and puts it all in historical context of the last 40 years, talking about how the 70s was a big transit decade for the US, then wham, BIG change came with Reagan in 1980. Hes a good talker too so makes Economics very interesting.
He has apparently talked about some of this stuff with Obama, he says he feels and hopes that eventualy Obama is probably going to go in this direction. Dont confuse his passion for this change with dislike of Obama, sometimes it can come over that way. Hes just blunt.
You know what i really think, that America if it had a big change could excel in this sort of thing, America is creative and has more noble prize winners than any country in the world and is not by nature bureaucratic, and of course still has lots of power.
If little countries like Norway and Sweden can make this kind of thing work well when they have to stay afloat in a big competitive global economy, even though of course these changes would take time to plan and implement - Sachs suggests 10 years, I think if a big change happened, and i know political changes have to happen first fo that, i could see a not to far future where America does this kind of thing really well and could give Norway and Japan a run for there money !
above was a bit long winded (as usual from me, lol) what i could have just said is that even though them countries have amazingly fantastic domestic economics, the global financial world is so dominated by big players like New York and London, that its difficult for them to isolate themselves from its effects.
That being said countries are in the long term process of trying to do that just more.
But if we really want a truly stable world of finance thats not going to threaten countries, big players like New York, London, Tokyo, Hong Kong, even China to some extent, and with respect to the Euro, tthe EU, need to step up to the plate more. There have been some quite good improvements like that recently but not quite enough yet. we are slowly heading into the right direction but not quite fast enough for my liking. But overall we are still suffering from the effects of 2008, and Europe is likely to for quite a while.
Not sure if you have seen this movie Jeff, but it has so much information about the Financial crash and its very entertaining the way they made it, its won quite a lot of awards, -
<its difficult for them to isolate themselves from its effects.>
i don't know. argentina seemed to distance themselves and has been growing at ridiculous rates, even with the economic downturn.
it would be interesting to see what would happen if greece took a similar tact.
i don't really put much stock into presidential comparisons for many reasons.
1) the social and economic climate is considerably different at different points in american history. what if reagan had served during an economic downturn like the one obama has? or what if obama served in the economic boom that occurred when clinton was president? there are way too many different variable that go into being president that i don't think you can compare obama to fdr. sure, it's nice to do occasionally, to help prove a point but, in the end, it really means nothing.
i mean, how could you possibly compare a president like george washington or abraham lincoln to a modern-day president like bill clinton, george w bush, or barack obama? they served and presided over completely different countries. fdr's america is certainly not the same as obama's america. obama's america is certainly not the same as kennedy's america.
2) how can you compare presidencies when one of them isn't even finished? we have the luxury of hundreds of years since washington served compared to zero for obama. so i'm not sure how you can put obama in historical perspective when it is currently going on and the ramifications of many of his policies have not been felt.
<there are way too many different variable that go into being president that i don't think you can compare obama to fdr>
yeah i dont disagree, dont take my comparison too literally or in too specific a way. .
All i am saying with that is just because America has certainly been on the right for the last 30 years, that doesnt mean it cant make another big change soon, of the kind of change that happened say from 1978 - 1981, or from 1929 - 1933, and i really dont care if the Obama that backs that kind of change is completely different to FDR at all and has a completely different style. Thats not important to my point.
The thing im emphasizing is the possibility of change.
<2) how can you compare presidencies when one of them isn't even finished? we have the luxury of hundreds of years since washington served compared to zero for obama.<
true, and the people on Charlie rose made that point too.
If you notice in one of my posts above, what I said is that i feel if movements like occupy wall street go big and grow a lot stronger, if the progressive base expands, if the Americans in the middle of that swing to the left, then Obama may well try and surf that wave.
Occupy and other things like it may amount to not that much yet. But then again it may be the start of a historic shift that comes first from the BOTTOM UP.
I made the anology with Bobby and J F Kenndy on the huge race changes of the 60s. They started out VERY reluctant to take them on board, just before J F K was killed he had already started, and by 68 bobby couldn't be kept away.
IF - and of course its an IF there is a dramatic change in mood of the people in America, i certainly would not be supried if Obama reacted like that.
I got to confess im expecting something of the kind with the huge 6 year square of Pluto Uranus starting this summer that last happened in the 60s and before that in the 30s.
As much as i criticize Obama a lot like Jeffry Sachs does, like Sachs i still like him. And if i was American id certainly vote for him again, even though id hope he moves a lot more to the left If he can ie if America does too.
This is the maximum depth. Additional responses will not be threaded.One thing you, Jeff and the experts on C Rose made me realize though, to some extent i have forgotten just how bad it was 3 or 4 years before, both on Economics and Foreign Policy, Obama has been quite an improvement on that.
But i think its only natural after this first term, after Obama has patched some of that up, to demand and look for bigger more fundamental changes, big decades long changes on core issues like equality and the environment. And re the post just below Jeffs above, that cant come just from Obama, it has to be mirrored in changes going on with the US public, like happened in the 30s and 60s, if there is enough noise like that, Obama will then probably want to and be able to get stuff past congress.
Apparently Martin Luther King cried for the first time in Public when he heard Lyndon Johnson speech in 65 of "we shall overcome", both Johnson and King were responding to what was going on in the street.
<<Occupy and other things like it may amount to not that much yet. But then again it may be the start of a historic shift that comes first from the BOTTOM UP.
At the very least the Occupy movement changed the national dialogue, with the 1% vs the 99% now a part of our American lexicon. This has influenced the platform of the Democratic party, not to mention the support this kind of populace movement can give the President in in his efforts to change some of these inequities. And now we see that Romney has come up with a brand new tax plan, one where he emphasizes that the 1% do not benefit. That can't be a coincidence, especially considering that the tax plan he has been running on up to now emphasized tax cuts for the rich, and raising taxes on the poor by a whopping 60%. That kind of tax platform is now a looser, and I think that happened in no small part because of the Occupy movement.
This is the maximum depth. Additional responses will not be threaded.< not to mention the support this kind of populace movement can give the President in in his efforts to change some of these inequities.>
exactly Jeff, and Obama to be fair listened to them and gave them credit, and so he did too with Warren Buffet who helped all of this enormously, so what Im saying if that side of it gets stronger, then Obama probably could and probably would be more bold, maybe much more bold, it would probably change some of Obams thinking too, he might then be able to challenge the blue democrats in Congress, get a bigger overall majority in Congress, and be much more radical.
Its a team act, the people and the leaders, and like i say clever people like Jeffry Sachs, Joseph Stiglitz, and even progressive good business people like Warren Buffet, even people like Bill Gates, they Google guys etc need to do there bit too. I fill somehow we are on the tip of that. Tip of a potential icebourg. Hopefully.
THEN, maybe, America could be about real deep change. I realize Obama has fixed things to some extent compared to how they were and where they were going 3 or 4 years ago. But if you put a historical perspective on that, think about for example average wages havnt gone up since the 70s while top wages have tripled, and how barely anything globally is been done on CO2 emmisons - ultimatly the most important issue of all and time is runing out, sure with your work you know about that one, America needs much more change than that. Much more. So does the world. The kind of change that happened in FDR days, and in the Reagan early years (all be that one in completely the wrong direction).
To me again its like looking at the Kennedy's attitude to race reform, once they knew where the public was really headed, from 61-63, they changed, joined and helped and then Johnson really got on board. The people gave them a passion for change, that started more as a top down thing not bottom down. Artists in the media world, really good ones, probably played a huge role in them changes too, and thats what Im trying to focus on.
But these things are either going to happen or not. Its kind of down to History and fate. Why i think they are likely soon is the Pluto Uranus conjunct coming up this June that will last for six years, and especially after what i saw it do last summer when it got only as close as one degree.
Its probably going to come with some kind of breakdown or problem first though, who knows, that could be Iran (effect on oil prices hiting the roof after an attack), it could be the Euro, who knows, Uranus is unpredictable. Who really saw the Arab Spring coming ? not me, not the way it happened. Im certain this summer for the next 6 years there is going to be a lot more of that kind of thing, and not just in the Muslim world. Probably happened there first because they need change more than anyone !
<yeah i dont disagree, dont take my comparison too literally or in too specific a way. .>
What...what? You have spent...oh..six or more posts making an argument, and now we shouldn't take your "comparison too literally or in too specific a way"? Seriously?
<i really dont care if the Obama that backs that kind of change is completely different to FDR at all and has a completely different style. Thats not important to my point.>
Oh my goodness gracious.
<i don't really put much stock into presidential comparisons for many reasons.>
Y'r spot on. 1 & 2.
<I am sure the Republicah party and their plans to set back Women's rights, gay rights, minority rights, and their intention to stack the Supreme Court, ultimately resulting in the overturning of Roe vs Wade (just to name a few) will thank you for voting Republican. Not only will Obama continue to progress these rights, at a time when we have an aging supreme court we should be thinking about who and what kind of justices we want sitting on the bench. For these reasons and many others I will be voting for the person who I am in agreement with on about 80% of the issues facing our nation, President Obama.>
Good goddamn. You said it right.
<Sure, if you ignore the virtually hundreds of differing views and positions between Bush and Obama on the issues that face our nation.>
lol, 3 of the 4 experts on that discussion were Pulitzer prize winning historical writers of US presidents, I think they are well aware the historical context and differences in which these presidents worked, they were NOT making the comparison in the way that you guys are talking about.
But these kind of childish comments are adding about zero to a conversation that has so far been pretty constructive. Anyway, i thought you were heading out of this conversation ?
<right, now theres an intelligently spelt out argument.>
Ha. Oh, the irony.
<For a start Larry Summers, Timothy Geithner, and Robert Rubin where some of the principle architects of the Financial system the last 20 years, a system that Obama had promised to change. Yet he put them three people into some of the most key influential postions ,>
So what? We're both wrong - who the fuck knows how "influenced by his peers" he may be. I don't know...can you admit that you don't know?
<like they were really supposed to help him change the system that they thought was so good that they created in teh first place ?>
Strawman. My point the whole time had nothing to do with changing the system. My point - which you quoted - was, "He is not "influenced by his peers" at all". What does any influence that may have been put on him have anything to do with changing the system? Maybe they did, maybe they didn't, but I never opined on that.
<But i would know nothing about that.>
<FDR was both progressive and left, not only did he win four elections, one with the biggest majority in History, also and a group of leading academics voted him Americas best ever president.>
You just said, "if you just throw out stuff like you havnt a clue, you know nothing about this stuff, or your an embarrassment every-time someone has a different opinion that just sinks the debate." Elo, you really think that FDR of 67 years ago is the same as today's politics? First of all - he was dealing with WWII. Second, AFTER WWII, he had millions of soldiers that were coming back to the country - and pretty much EVERY family had someone involved in the war. So - he had pretty much unanimous support behind him. He won WWII, he had a congress that was with him and the people that were with him.
Obama has none of this. SO! When you say, "if you just throw out stuff like you havnt a clue, you know nothing about this stuff, or your an embarrassment every-time someone has a different opinion that just sinks the debate.", all I can do is remind you of that statement.
<Its a bit much saying he is about incremental change when he promised big change.>
Different times need different measures. The reality of walking into the office changes the man. Clinton in his firs term tried a few things that were pet issues - and the office broke him. That's the reality. You guys favor fantasy over reality - Obama is a pragmatist...as was Clinton. He is going to win slowly...but he'll win. BUT! He can only win if he's in the office, and if the stupid Far Left would rather cut off their nose to spite their face (again, a'la Nader in Florida), then that's what they're going to do. But...those are the same people who many are turning to Paul. What the fuck does THAT tell you?
<can you admit that you don't know? >
you just said you knew before. Ok then you said you were wrong. I can have an opinion without claiming to be100% sure that people like Lary Summers, who in my eyes are not far off being a crook, influence Obama way too much. <As director of the White House National Economic Council, he emerged as a key economic decision-maker in the Obama administration,>
Be surprising then if he didnt influence Obama wouldn't it ? At least he is gone now. Not so the next one.
Secretary of the Treasury, Timothy Geithner, obviously is going to influence the president else he wouldnt be in that position.
<What does any influence that may have been put on him have anything to do with changing the system? Maybe they did, maybe they didn't,>
I cant belive your for real with that, like would the Secretary of the Treasury have any influence on changing the system, i could go into Geithners history here, and what he done previous to this, as I think you need to learn more about this.
not trying to be sarcastic, try this out -
you can download as a torrent on the net or rent from your local blockbuster Im sure. Well worth it, seriously, you might understand a lot more how i feel if you watch that.
obviously there is much more info in the film.
<<But i would know nothing about that.>
lol, getting just like Dustin. Chill out Andrew seriously, when you show your sense of humor we see a better side to you. So we disagreed about Israel and Saudi, cant you leave the bad feelings on that behind you, or do you need to be permantly this aggressive ? It doesnt raise the standard of debate.
< FDR of 67 years ago is the same as today's politics? >
no I did not say that.
What I do think is that
1 it disproves the idea that a progressive have no chance of getting in the white house as you say, FDR was in four terms, and other progressives later like Johnson were too.
2 yes it was a different time, just as the 1920s and 1980s were a different time to now. So what ?
Again your not getting the concept of change.
Just because for the last 30 years America has had only the right and center, does not mean that an opening is not and cannot be made again to have change once agaain, like it has many times in Americas recent past, in the 1960s, in the 1930s and 40s, . A change in the opposite direction obviously occurred from 79-83 too.
3 My whole reasoning is that we are starting to go through change now, and we can expect more change over the next few years.
If thats so, then the 1960s or the 1930s. could be about as relevant to this as the last 30 yeas, change, big change, means different to what has just come before. And obviously that takes into account of the different historical context, change will happen in a different way, sure, but big change is still possible non the less.
<First of all - he was dealing with WWII.>
Nine years and two elections terms of dealing with the great depression before he entered the war in 1942.
<Obama has none of this.>
never said he did.
What he did and does have though is huge economic changes, the biggest financial crash since the 30s, a huge global environmental threat that could be a bigger threat to the world than Hitler - all be the last threat longer off.
Beside the point it is you now comparing too literally different historical times. In the 1960s, after the bay of pigs anyway, there wasnt that much drama compared anyway to FDR times.
Yet, non the less huge changes were implemented in America.
Anyway non of this is really relevant to whether or not Obama can drive through big change. Gerbil and Jeff have made better reasoned points on that score, and my thinking has developed after a constructive debate - yes I can understand term 1 of Obama not being shall we say so revolutionary, to some extent i cand understand it. Maybe too much instability right then would have been too much and poltical conditions might have been too tough in some ways.
Maybe this change needed and needs time to build. I dont even expect all of it to play out in eight years anyway.
But term 2, needs to be and should be full of much more change. Jeff certainly seems to agree with that. Yet as ive said, if thats to happen its not all down to Obama, though partly for sure it is, it is also down to the American people, also to media makers, economists, and others, even film makers and artists. Change in a country often happens all over the place, not just at the top or in politics.
<Different times need different measures.>
Maybe. Maybe term 1. I can just about let that pass that too rapid change may not have been all good, or possible.
But with equality growing so rapidly in the world and the problems its causing (see graph in posts above) a huge environmental threat looming over us that time is rapidly running out on, I want change, and like a growing amount of people in the world, i dont want excuses just change.
Thats not just down to Obama, but quite a big part is.
This time demands change. Yes there big obstacles to that change. but they must be overcome. You seem to be desperatly arguing for people not to try and climb over the obstacles. I dont take that view.
<BUT! He can only win if he's in the office,>
Of course. Yet on many of these issues like income inequality and taxation the American public are already at last half sold. A great politician can lead that, and again, i keep emphasizing that the country and public opinion need to move and change to, llike it has been to some extent the last six months, Im hoping for and expecting more of that. we will see.
Again, thats exactly what happened on the race issue from 61 - 65 in the space of only 4 years. To me and to a growing amount of people the problems im talking about are just as urgent. So there is no reason to suppose that cant happen again.
Im certainly not giving in on big change. And I do believe that some Americans also have a "can do" attitude.
Of course change doesnt just need to happen in America, but right now thats what were talking about. Certainly started in the Muslim world too. A bit in Isreal might be nice also, dont you think ?
By the way, not sure if you got my comment on the Arab Spring before. I think were at where about Churchill said at in 1942 after the first Victory against Hitler -
"this is not the end, it is not even the beginning of the end, but it is probably the end of the beginning"
much more to be done, much more to be done in the Arab world, much more to be done in America, and maybe with the new anoucments on Tax, the "Buffet rule" that is the start, don't think id even call it the end of the beginning, but things might move fast.
< But...those are the same people who many are turning to Paul. What the fuck does THAT tell you?>
that tells me that in times of change many people get confused, dont tell me you havnt seen that with the tea party too.
Its all par for the course, but what i say is going to happen that this is going to start to get more focused. That the occupy thing, in one way shape or form, maybe in a completely different form in the media for example, and i have a little big insider trading info on that you could say, is going to gain power.
02/28<I can have an opinion without claiming to be100% sure that people like Lary Summers, who in my eyes are not far off being a crook, influence Obama way too much.>
Sure. But - Elo - NOW you say that you have this "opinion"...but if you look at what you originally stated, you DID NOT state that it was your "opinion". Now you are. More backstepping.
<Be surprising then if he didnt influence Obama wouldn't it ?>
Again, if you had used the word "surprising" before, then you'd have a case. More backstepping.
<Chill out Andrew seriously, when you show your sense of humor we see a better side to you.>
I'm always hysterical. I'm laughing right now.
<So we disagreed about Israel and Saudi, cant you leave the bad feelings on that behind you, or do you need to be permantly this aggressive ? It doesnt raise the standard of debate.>
<1 it disproves the idea that a progressive have no chance of getting in the white house as you say, FDR was in four terms, and other progressives later like Johnson were too.>
No, not at all. It disproves nothing. Times change. The country has changed in 67 years. The tools that worked 67 or even 7 years ago won't work guaranteed now. So, to say categorically like you have said that Obama is at fault for not doing the exact same thing and having the exact same effect as did a president 67 or even 7 years ago is folly & thoughtless.
<Just because for the last 30 years America has had only the right and center, does not mean that an opening is not and cannot be made again to have change once agaain, like it has many times in Americas recent past, in the 1960s, in the 1930s and 40s, . A change in the opposite direction obviously occurred from 79-83 too.>
But, that's not what you are saying. No one ever said that change is not constant. I am just proposing that your categorical statements of what Obama should be able to do based upon what happened 67 or 7 years ago is foolish.
<If thats so, then the 1960s or the 1930s. could be about as relevant to this as the last 30 yeas,>
ANYTHING "could be as relevant". But, that's not what we are talking about. You are blaming Obama for not being able to do what a president did 67 years ago. You never left in those "could be" statements, just as above, you never stated that it was your OPINION about those that may or may not have had influence on Obama. You are always backstepping. You make categorical statements and then have to backpedal... Maybe you should not make these categorical statements? Notice that I don't as a major manner of discourse.
<Anyway non of this is really relevant to whether or not Obama can drive through big change.>
Wait...you have stated that you think that he should be able to do it because a president 67 years ago did it...but now you say "non of this is really relevant"?
Anyway. I have to get on a plane. I'm out.
<<someone's going to be drafted in a republican brokered convention that's not romney or santorum or gingrich.
I predict that your prediction will fail. :)
<<<who to vote for in a obama vs. jeb bush race? at this point in time i would tentatively go with jeb bush. <<
I am sure the Republicah party and their plans to set back Women's rights, gay rights, minority rights, and their intention to stack the Supreme Court, ultimately resulting in the overturning of Roe vs Wade (just to name a few) will thank you for voting Republican. Not only will Obama continue to progress these rights, at a time when we have an aging supreme court we should be thinking about who and what kind of justices we want sitting on the bench. For these reasons and many others I will be voting for the person who I am in agreement with on about 80% of the issues facing our nation, President Obama.
Unsu...<<<someone's going to be drafted in a republican brokered convention that's not romney or santorum or gingrich.
<I predict that your prediction will fail. :) >
yes, Mr. Peace, Prosperity, Liberty vs Mr. War, Poverty, Tyranny
In the swing state of Ohio, it appears Texas Rep. Ron Paul's grassroots following has taken hold.www.usnews.com/news/blogs...ama-in-ohio
PRINCETON, NJ -- Republicans by a better than 2-to-1 margin would prefer that one of the four remaining GOP presidential candidates win enough delegates in the primaries and caucuses to secure the nomination, rather than having a brokered convention that could then choose another person to be the party's presidential nominee.