« BACK  |  PRINT

RS

MEMBER DIARY

Running Against Presidents: Obama Concedes 2010 To The GOP

By: Dave Poff (haystack) (Diary)  |  August 10th, 2010 at 01:15 PM  | 

RESIZE: AAA

[update-I just saw this LA Times piece which actually explains why the Dems aren't running on their record of accomplishments...heh]

There’s no other conclusion to draw. President Obama, on the heels of so many historic legislative accomplishments, continues instead with his strategy of hoping to inspire the Democrat base with the energy and verve he thinks they’ll derive from the steady drumbeat of hammering on history.

Obama’s recent speeches and weekly radio addresses are clear indicators that he has not only conceded 2010 to the Republicans…but that he’s actually begging them to take back Congress before it’s too late. Obama knows he is in over his head, if the numbers of Democrats that are peeling away from him like dead skin from a bad sunburn are any indication, and he understands that November 2 is exactly the sort of life preserver he’ll need if he is to have any chance at a second term in office.

Despite the fact that George Bush is 2 years gone, and 4 (technically) from having had much GOP-style impact on legislation, Obama just can’t seem to quit him. We, the People, know from personal experience however that George Bush has had nothing to do with the pain and suffering of the current American collective; blame for that rests solely at Obama’s feet.

Today’s party of “NO” might be the Republicans…and they’ve said NO with good cause… but our NO warnings have gone unheeded and Obama has gotten all that he has asked for. Unfortunately for him, most of the rest of us remember that it was the Democrat party that was the party of NO before it reinvented itself into the party of “YES WE CAN.” Funny what a being the majority will do for the collective memory of our Political Heroes, ain’t it?

Obama went to the Lone Star State to tell Texans the American economy…his economy…is still hometown boy George W. Bush’s fault. Eight days earlier he told DNC faithful their troubles were to be blamed on the entire Republican party. Granted they paid him $500K to say it but facts fly in the face of Obama’s altered reality.

Obama’s economic policies have failed, his pomposity and arrogance and complete disconnect with the American people has ripped the country into two huge and wholly separate pieces, his leadership is out of control, and even his own cheerleaders are telling him to duck for cover until the blood bath of the midterms is over.

As Estrich points out, while Obama might be running against George Bush on ballots without either name, Democrats are running from him. And all the while, Republicans will be running against Obama and everything his party has done TO us over the last 2 years.

Meanwhile Obama runs away from himself and his record, hoping it will be enough for his party to retain power. It’s not going to work.

Tags: , , , , ,

COMMENTS

POSTING RULES  |  LOGIN TO COMMENT  |  REGISTER TODAY
  • Death_of_the_Donkey

    We, the People, know from personal experience however that George Bush has had nothing to do with the pain and suffering of the current American collective; blame for that rests solely at Obama?s feet.

    Last time I checked, 5.1 million jobs were lost while Bush was still president and the national debt increased by roughly $4 trillion dollars.

    Obama is definitely to blame for not getting the economy moving again in his almost 2 years at the helm, but it is disingenuous to blame him for the mess itself. Let’s be honest here, Obama is now facing two potential outcomes 1) he gets lucky and the economy dramatically improves in the next two years (ala Reagan 1983-4) and he wins ’12 in a landslide or (and much more likely) 2) the economy continues to stagnate and he becomes Carter part II.

    But let us not pretend that Bush wasn’t responsible for some of this mess so as not to repeat the mistakes of the past.

    • http://theminorityreportblog.com Repair_Man_Jack

      Where has the CBO scored GWB’s spending proposals as leading the US to a debt to GDP ration of 433% by 2060?

      How does the current economic team intend to restart the credit market with a near-zero Fed funds rate and rising Treasury Interest rates to pay for the keynesian Stimulus already attempted? The further we debt finance, and the more lucrative treasuries become, the more stupid a bank would have to be to lend to a private enterprise while Treasury paper remians available.

      I don’t see Obama facing two potential outcomes. I see him facing only 1. He has ruled out possibliity number 1 as a direct result of his governing policies.

      • Death_of_the_Donkey

        Treasury rates are definitely NOT rising and are actually near record lows (the 2-year is around .5%).

        • eburke
          • Death_of_the_Donkey

            the 10-year is at 2.76% and the 30 is at a whopping 4%.

          • GT350

            I agree with ‘DotD’ here. Banks can make free money by playing the carry trade. Why make business or consumer loans when a great many of those borrowers will go bad due to the bad economy?

            It’s easier to do the carry trade and make riskless 30% ROE.
            – Borrow for free (Deposits are basically “Zero’)and LIBOR is 0.4%.)
            – Invest in 10yr or 30yr Treasuries (2.88% and 4.03%)
            == Make a risk-free spread of ~3.0%. Risk-Free as in “no risk”.
            If you’re levered 10:1, that means a risk-free return of 30%.

            If rates continue to go down, bond prices go up, so that helps the Carry Trade even more. The risk is if rates reverse, and go up, it would be catastrophic to the bank. Obama’s policies of stagnation will ensure that won’t happen.

      • wingnut43

        that something from out of the blue will change the subject, and save The Great Obama. Hell, it might even be engineered. Can you say “wag the dog”?

    • http://www.hickpolitics.com Dave Poff (haystack)

      He promised us all these wonderful things, and that everything he pushed for and got in Congress would solve our problems. Had he gotten NO legislation passed, we could discuss how much of this was Bush’s fault…still.

      Bush inherited a mess from Clinton, and made things better in SPITE of 9/11. Yup, things got bad again, and he owns those.

      Obama refuses to own how much worse things have become since he took office…but HE owns them, all the same… not Bush..

    • SoulEspresso

      … didn’t Reagan’s tax cuts phase in over time and pick up steam in ’83?

      • http://theminorityreportblog.com Repair_Man_Jack
        • Death_of_the_Donkey

          “American Economic Policy in the 1980s by Feldstein et al.

      • Death_of_the_Donkey

        The biggest contributor to the boom of 83/84 was lower interest rates and lower inflation. The Reagan tax cuts were already in effect by then and actually taxes were raised (by about 1% of GDP) in 1982 in order to shore up the deficit. The next wave of Reagan cuts didn’t take place until 1986.

        • eburke

          lower interest rates?

          Where in the world did you get your education in economics?

          • Death_of_the_Donkey
          • Death_of_the_Donkey

            Do you even have an education in economics? Tax policy in the early 80s had virtually no impact on either inflation or interest rates. And if you want, you can read the book I linked to (it might be a bit much for you at almost 800 pages of econ), which happens to be written by the guys who had the ball during the decade.

          • aesthete

            and given your past comments, I doubt that you do. Regardless, it’s disingenuous at best to deny the various monetary policies that were in place at the time, which Pres Reagan supported. Some of these policies were enacted by his predecessor, Carter (every heard of Paul Volcker?), but many of them were recommended by Milton Friedman and put into place by the Reagan administration.

            Saying that Reagan lucked his way into avoiding a longer recession is only true if you ignore the monetary policy that was in place, and expanded upon, and it makes you look like a hack when you try to say otherwise.

          • aesthete

            A lot of other people on this board do, too (I know that Mike “Gamecock” and Repair_Man_Jack have at least some, and GC has more than I do). Don’t assume that we’re just a bunch of uneducated rubes, or that economics is meant to cater to progressives.

          • Death_of_the_Donkey

            I wasn’t trying to say Reagan got lucky, but that Obama would have to. I agree that Reagan had a dramatically positive impact on the economy post 1982, as he encouraged Volcker to kill inflation regardless of the immediate economic/political costs (something Carter was reluctant to do).

          • aesthete
        • Rob_McEwen

          Here is what happened… First, one must understand that the scope of the Reagan tax cuts dwarfed the Bush tax cuts. And in the very short term, tax cuts are going to cause revenues to the gov’t to dwindle because the economic activity from having that additional money stay in the pockets of those who earned it takes SOME amount of time to cycle through the system, generating additional economic activity and… additional tax revenue. But, in the short time, a large across the board tax cut and scare the crap out of elected officials.

          So they freaked out soon after Reagan’s tax cut and turned around and raised taxes. Probably, they should have been a little more patient and it would have worked itself out.

          So liberals all the time like to point this out all the time, saying, “But Reagan raised taxes” (thinking that this refutes claims that Reagan’s tax cuts fixed things.

          But here is the kicker–even AFTER the tax increase, a full two thirds of Reagan’s original tax cut remained in tact… and that amount of a tax cut STILL dwarfed the Bush tax cuts. So there was a VERY large across-the-board tax cut STILL in place AFTER this tax increase.

          Personally, I think that what happened is that a bunch of zero-sum-gainer RINOs panicked… but would have been very happy with the outcome had they just been patient and watched the recovery flourish.

          Basically, after Reagan took office, the economy continued downward… and the media tried to pin this on Reagan right away (hey got amnesia about Carter)… and thinks really sucked in about ’82. And it was unheard of to do “simulus” bills mid-year back then.. or send “rebate checks” back then. For one, they didn’t have the information systems technology to “turn on a dime” with that stuff like we do now! So Reagan couldn’t make an impace until the ’82 budget, which was voted on in the summer of ’81. (and I’ve heard that some of this was further backloaded–but I don’t have the fact on that)

          But by ’83, the tax cuts had time to cycle through the system, and things were really kicking into high gear. So much so that a Reagan who had bad poll numbers in ’82 due to an increasingly worse economy… was… just two SHORT years later… able to campaign on “are you better off now than you were four years ago?”.. and win a landslide victory.

          So, hell yes.. the Reagan tax cuts made a dramatic difference. And we should know by now that things like low interest rates are NOT enough. If businesses and jobs and consumer spending are killed by high taxes… then what good do low interest rates do if no one has money to pay the monthly payments?

          If low interest rates and low inflation is all that was needed, then our economy would have been booming that past couple of years. These past couple of years should have been the best on record.

          • Death_of_the_Donkey

            It isn’t the low level of interest rates that matters as much as the change in them (we have been at low rates for so long that most of their benefits have been realized). And you seem to completely be forgetting about the victory Reagan/Volcker had on inflation, which probably had an even more dramatic positive impact on the economy than either interest rates or tax cuts. The economy did almost turn on a dime from the point the Fed started to ease policy in late 1982 through the recovery. Tax cuts were a nice bonus to growth, bt were hardly the driver of it.

        • wingnut43

          Just plot the long term Treasury bond rate for the last 80 years. (Data is available on Fed and Treasury web sites) Rates peaked in 1979-1981, and it was the slow, steady decline in interest rates over the next 25 years or so that fueled all the economic growth of that time. Essentially, the debt service costs steadily dropped, so that more debt could be taken on with the same service cost. However, we have now hit a wall. Short rates are at the zero bound, and while long rates are still dropping, they can’t drop too much more. The current era resembles the Great Depression era better than anything else. While TARP and Bernanke’s monetizing have contained the Depression, it is still a “contained depression”. If history is any guide, we have at least a decade of depressionary low interest rates ahead of us, followed by a steady climb as the next cycle begins. Which party is in power may affect things at the margins, but the general trend is inexorable. Pelosi’s pork-filled stimulus was so bad that it gives pork a bad name, and ObamaCare is one of the most economically destructive pieces of legislation ever passed. Better leadership will help reverse this nonsense and bring sanity to government. But the best we can hope for is to keep the depression sufficiently contained that the worst parts of history do not repeat. The last thing we need is a third world war.

          • Flagstaff

            if you consider prosperity in the US to be productive.

            He started by forcing through legislation that was both disliked by the majority of the public and promoted dishonestly to get it through the Senate. The result was a quadrupling of the deficit, for two consecutive years, something that would be difficult to handle economically in good economic times. But he did it after coming into office with a significant economic problem already in place.

            Had this been a case of a couple of years with high deficits, followed by a return to the possibility of balance, it would have just been bad. But since it came with a built-in guarantee that the deficits will continue until something crumbles, it is terrible. There is now an expectation in place that taxes will go up, the economy will stagnate, and the national debt will will top 20 trillion dollars within 10 years. That’s $20,000,000,000,000. Furthermore, there is uncertainty that it won’t be worse! With jarring regularity, the CBO or some other government office informs us that the original estimates, on which ObamaCare was passed, were too low. Deficits will be bigger, the debt will grow faster, and the economic outlook is even worse.

            He insisted upon a “stimulus” plan, chop chop, hubba hubba, mach schnell, do it NOW! Then, when it was passed, it has been either mis-spent or not yet spent at all. The result–over 10% true unemployment after about 30 years with unemployment continuously under 5%. And all $800 billion plus of it borrowed.

            A consequence has been to give us an L-shaped “recovery,” with no job creation. This in turn has further depressed tax receipts, increasing the deficit even more. Social Security is now predicted to deplete the trust fund (please, no arguments about the reality of the trust fund) about six year sooner than had been anticipated back when Bush was trying to get something done about its problems, several years ago. And now SocSec expenditures will exceed receipts in 2011, not 2017.

            He’s grown the size of the federal payroll, creating the “need” for even more tax receipts.

            And he’s in favor of raising tax rates, which will make things worse as it drags the economy down more, reducing tax receipts. Again, creating the expectation that things will get worse.

            Last but not least, he engages in fanciful rhetoric. He’s “saved” millions of jobs. America “loves” ObamaCare and it’s going to save billions of dollars. He’s tightening his own belt (as his wife takes a birthday trip on AF 2 to Spain). He tells us that GM has “repaid its loan,” neglecting to mention it isn’t repaying it from profits, but from money extracted from taxpayers via his administration. If he thinks anybody but the slobbering sycophants in his fan base believe this he’s not only wrong, he’s destroying the public’s reasonable expectation that its President will tell it the truth at least about events that they can see for themselves. A democratic republic depends on trust in the government to succeed.

            To sum it up, he’s greatly expanded the deficit and he’s INSTITUTIONALIZED it, by adding a GIGANTIC NEW ENTITLEMENT through federal law. Repeal of ObamaCare isn’t just necessary to save our health care system, it’s necessary to save our economy.

        • JSobieski

          http://old.nationalreview.com/nrof_bartlett/bartlett200405030812.asp

          Not taking away the importance of lower interest rates and lower inflation (Volcker deserves credit, the best decision Carter made was appointing Volcker), but blatantly mistating when the impact of the Reagan tax cuts were felt is either bad faith or gross negligence.

          • Death_of_the_Donkey

            You are citing Laffer and I am citing Feldstein. There is no misstatement here, just a difference of opinion. I believe (with statistical support) that the reduction in both interest rates and inflation had a much greater impact on our immediate recovery in the early 80′s than the Reagan tax cuts. I am not saying that the cuts had no impact or that they were a bad idea, just that they weren’t the driving force of the recovery.

          • JSobieski

            They were phased in. If someone says they weren’t phased in, that someone is incorrect.

            Your very words were:
            “The Reagan tax cuts were already in effect by then [1983]”

            This statement is incorrect regardless of which economist you cite.

          • JSobieski

            Volcker had been taking steps to stamp out inflation going back to the Carter administration. Yet, the recovery didn’t kick in until 1983, which “coincidentally” is the year that the economic growth kicked in.

            You can say that the growth wouldn’t have happened without Volcker, but there are good reasons to conclude that the growth wouldn’t have happened with Reagan.

            The idea that people with money are smart enough to respond to incentives shouldn’t be controversial. Any economist who doesn’t understand/agree with this basic concept is clearly an ivory tower egghead who has never actually had a position in the business world, much less been responsible for decisions involving the purchasing of equipment, hiring employees, etc.

          • http://theminorityreportblog.com Repair_Man_Jack

            It is, if you don’t believe that the average person is particularly smart. This seems to be the default setting in a lot of academic and governmental Zeitgeist at the present.

          • Death_of_the_Donkey

            In which Volcker himself wrote an entry, the fed didn’t succeed because it was either behind the inflation curve (ie the late 70s) or backed off way too early (the first 80s recession). It wasn’t until the 1981-2 rates hikes/tightening that the Fed actually stayed the course and risked a severe economic downturn in order to finally defeat inflation. Reagan’s biggest contribution to the eventual recovery was not his tax cuts, but his determination to back the Fed and its efforts since he understood what an economy killer inflation is.

          • JSobieski

            but am glad to see that you stopped asserting that the tax cuts had gone into effect in1981.

            Never met a liberal so focused on monetary policy. Milton definitely gave the Reagan tax credits significant credit, and he is person in the academic world who spoke alot about monetary policy.

            Reagan’s tax cuts altered the trajectory of the US economy since they were enacted.

            There was quite a bit of literature out in the 1970s talking about how the European Common Market countries were gaining ground on the US in terms of per capita GDP. Ever since the Reagan tax cuts, the trend has consistently been the opposite. Unemployment has at several points in time gone below the level considered to be full employment as well.

            You can dance around the Reagan tax cuts if you choose, but at some point the number of coincidences is no longer coincidental.

          • Death_of_the_Donkey

            I hope you aren’t libeling me with that derogatory title.

            I was never intending on debating the benefits of the Reagan tax cuts, since I think they have greatly helped the economy (mostly along fairness lines by, at the time, getting rid of much of the favorable treatment of certain industries/investments). As a matter of fact, Reagan’s biggest contribution to tax policy came in 1985/6 when brackets were finally indexed for inflation. I have am merely arguing that the impact of the initial cuts were not the primary cause of the recovery in 1983.

    • msctex

      There is no “luck” in economics, short of perhaps being in the right place at the right time in order to claim credit. (See Clinton, B.)

      Nothing happens without a reason. So given the unbelievable root-level damage Obama has done — where possibly for the first time in our history, no one is making money — there is no possibility of the “dramatic improvement” you consider. Things will only get worse, until what he and this malevolent Congress have done is reversed.

  • clintonformccain

    Heck, let’s blame Herbert Hoover.

    • wrenhal

      the Franklin one that is…. :D

      • tomswifty

        Didn’t the whole big government mentality really start with good ol’ Woodrow?

  • http://theminorityreportblog.com Repair_Man_Jack
    • http://www.hickpolitics.com Dave Poff (haystack)

      .

      • http://theminorityreportblog.com Repair_Man_Jack

        to be one of God’s Little Old Rays of Sunshine :)

  • spainishirish

    Ask any parent of small children. And apparently the American electorate grasps that fact.

  • Common_Cents

    Obama is throwing all DEMs under the bus in the midterms. It might be a good strategy for his own re-election, the self important narcissist he is.

    He gets to shift or add blame to a REP congress as the BushSucks theme gets real old after 4 freakin years. “Don’t blame me, I’m just the president!” We’ll hear non-stop from Obama and the lame stream media that R’s aren’t cooperating and are doing damage. We have to be ready to respond to the spin and propaganda.

    Americans have short memories and short attention spans. Look at how much “Rock Star” Obama faded in less than two years. Guess what? they’ll have that same short attention span during the 2nd- 2 years too unless REPs can really do something w/ this crap sandwich. Obama didn’t start the fire but he sure poured millions of gallons of gasoline on the fire and will “hand” it to Reps telling them to put it out.

    the risk is REPS not turning around this crap show before 2012 in order not to be blamed once again for not achieving results.

    • NoDoze

      If they take control of congress and pass laws that restart the economy, DEMs (Obama especially) will, with the full help of the LSM, take full credit for the improvements. But, if the REP congress fails to make a positive difference in the economy, DEMs will blame them for not fixing the problems.

      Solution? REPs need to go in and clean house, and do it with such flair and showmanship that everyone will know who is making the change. Repeal OC, repeal porkulus pass legislation cancelling O’s Executive orders. Clean house right out in front of God and everyone!

      Even if that doesn’t help them keep control of the congress, it will take the Progressives a long time to ever get their mess in place again.

      • Common_Cents
  • usadying

    The GOP will be the perfect fall guys for him to blame. “My solutions are not working, because the GOP didn’t allow me to finish what I started.” He wants to be a one-term president. He already passed the Holy Grail of health care. Why else did he, Pelosi and Reid resort to the tactics that they did if it wasn’t the first, foremost, and ultimate item on the progressive agenda? After one term, Obama and Michelle can go back to what they do best–divide and conquer community organizing. They can yell racism and blame every GOP office holder for the next 20 years. Plus the government is already hiring for HHS and IRS jobs mandated by the health care bill. Once they are on the payroll, we will never be rid of them. Mission accomplished. Big government is here to stay. Unless, of course, the US goes bankrupt.

  • gwalt

    That’s why Hill took SecState. That’s why Hate-Whitey the Wife doesn’t care about where, how many or when she goers and vacations. That is why he is on a constant golf outing and the Presidency is a part time gig. They are living it up Snoop Dog style and then on to Royalty for the rest of their lives.

    One term. That’s all he ever wanted. Then on to billions awaiting the first Co-Racial president. DLTDHYOTWO.

    • Flagstaff

      “on to Royalty for the rest of their lives” is undoubtedly what will happen.

      How did the Clinton’s accumulate enough money that they can blow two or three million on a wedding?

  • teresakoch

    I mean, think about it – he’s poured millions of American taxpayers’ dollars into getting a spanking new Constitution written (which, coincidentally, was passed ON HIS BIRTHDAY), complete with abortion rights for all, and ensuring that anyone can run for President as long as at least ONE of their parents was a citizen of Kenya.

    He knows that he isn’t welcome back in Chicago – he was never part of the “inner circle” to begin with. Where in this country is he going to be able to settle after his term is over? He’ll have the stench of “Failed Presidency” all over him. NOBODY likes him by most accounts.

    However, in Kenya, he’ll be treated like a king. No pesky right-wingers blogging between each other, trumpeting his latest Marxist schemes. A populace that isn’t used to democracy, and most people with not much of a disposable income and/or higher education. It’s a population ripe for him to build his own little kingdom, and attempt to reclaim the legacy that he feels was denied to Dear Old Dad.

    It’s gonna be interesting…..

    • Flagstaff

      who has noticed this amazing confluence of events?

  • ralatredstate

    Obama probably wants Dems to keep Congress, especially if he can get credit for it, but, since if they don’t he can run against the do-nothing Congress, he is not willing to alter his behavior or the “progressive”/Marxist (or whatever you want to call it) thrust of his admin.

    Personally, I think he wants to be Supreme World Ayatollah.

    • wingnut43

      The last thing The Great Obama wants is Congressional investigations into his Administration. He doesn’t mind taking big losses, but he does not want to let the GOP have meaningful control. The best thing for Obama would be losing 37-41 house seats. That way he can blame the Republicans for bad economic news, but the Republicans won’t have enough clout to actually pass any legislation or investigate Eric Holder’s DOJ, etc…

      I have my doubts that Obama can calibrate his losses so finely, though. Either his Democrats will use their enormous financial advantage to retain comfortable control (~25 seat loss), or they will get metaphysically cleaned out (>60 seats).

  • http://www.suvstrategery.blogspot.com SoFiMil

    http://blogs.ajc.com/georgia_elections_news/2010/08/10/goprunoff/

    Update 10:46 p.m.: Handel spokesman Dan McLagan just held an impromptu news conference in a corner of the W Hotel?s ballroom.

    His spin? More than 3,700 absentee ballots have yet to be counted in Fulton County, and another 3,000 are uncounted in Gwinnett. They reasonably expect a good many of those to go to Handel.

    ?We had a robust absentee program in Fulton County,? he said. ?Deal didn?t have one at all.?

    McLagan said Handel will likely come speak to supporters around 11 p.m., but he said he has not spoken with her about the possibility of a recount.

    State law says that if a candidate loses by 1 percent or less, that candidate can demand a recount.

  • wrenhal

    Here is their question:
    “The question for 2010 is: Whose side are you on?”
    and response:
    “Democrats moving us forward, while Republicans take us back,” the card says.
    Here is what we Conservatives need to counter with:
    “Liberals moving us to destruction and slavery to a welfare state, while Conservatives taking us back to the greatness this country can achieve with small government, lower taxes, and controlled borders.”

    Simple and to the point. We need to fight them toe to toe on what they say and do. No longer should we sit back and let THEM control the message and then have our people say “That doesn’t even warrant a response…” Because we have done that TOO long and have gotten our behinds kicked for it. People want to see that we have the backbone to stand up to the bully. This isn’t about being as rude/crude as they are, but responding as an Adult would to a Child that is misbehaving and needs reality handed to them.

    And everytime one of them holds a meeting at a working place* and talks about trying to revive the economy and create jobs, a conservative should follow them in and ask the question “How many of their peers have LOST their jobs since Obama took office and these guys started playing loose with YOUR money?”.

    *non-union of course because we know their jobs have already been shored up by these money-grubbing liberals.