I love the smell of napalm in the morning...

[Okla-homey]

especially this kind of scorching :D


This would hurt any president under any circumstances; for Barack Obama, whose allure was based almost entirely on his ability to convince the public that he embodied a “new politics,” it has been doubly damaging. It was Hillary Clinton of all people who understood Obama best when she said during the campaign, “We have to make people understand that he’s not real.”

Not real indeed. Obama’s stirring call for Americans to reject the “politics of cynicism” was itself deeply cynical. Perhaps none of this should come as a surprise. After all, Heilemann and Halperin write, Axelrod was “a master of the dark arts of negative campaigning.” The first major profile of him, more than 20 years ago, was titled, “Hatchet Man: The Rise of David Axelrod.”

Obama and Axelrod might have been able to get away with this if Obama’s presidency had been viewed as successful and skilled. But it’s not. And when combined with the growing realization that Obama is not up to the task of governing, that he is pursuing policies that exacerbate our problems and takes us down a wrong and even perilous path, it is poison. The toxicity is such that what was once unthinkable now seems more likely than not: Democrats losing the Senate seat held by Ted Kennedy for almost half a century.

And even if they don’t, 2010 is shaping up to be a perfectly awful year for Democrats. It’s a safe bet that in response they and their allies will lash out in rage, angry at the perceived injustice of it all, furious at the fate that has befallen them. They will blame Obama’s predecessor, Republicans in Congress, the conservative movement, angry white males, Fox News, Sarah Palin’s tweets, and the wrong alignment of the stars. It won’t work.

Having created a myth, they must now live with its unmasking.

http://www.commentarymagazine.com/blogs/index.php/wehner/218526

[StoopTroup]

I'm sure that's how 2010 is perceived by the Pubs but as a voter...I'm going to vote for every independent I can find. I did that back when GHB ran a 2nd time and I have wavered one way or another since then in an attempt to try and balance the power as a moderate. I'm done with them both until I can see someone who can lead.

[walkoffsooner]

I'm sure that's how 2010 is perceived by the Pubs but as a voter...I'm going to vote for every independent I can find. I did that back when GHB ran a 2nd time and I have wavered one way or another since then in an attempt to try and balance the power as a moderate. I'm done with them both until I can see someone who can lead.

agree 100%

[Okla-homey]

I'm sure that's how 2010 is perceived by the Pubs but as a voter...I'm going to vote for every independent I can find. I did that back when GHB ran a 2nd time and I have wavered one way or another since then in an attempt to try and balance the power as a moderate. I'm done with them both until I can see someone who can lead.

IMHO, the problem is, "real" people have great difficulty getting elected to national office nowadays. We have a system that elevates professional politicians with the requisite pedigrees who have been carefully developed in the party laboratories to be palatable to the folks with the checkbooks, aided and abetted by the "drive-by" media who love to tout anything unattractive in a guy's background. Those lab-rat candidates, who too often have no practical experience in life, are the folks who get the party bank-rolling necessary to afford phenomenally expensive national campaigns. In fact, I can't remember the last viable third-party or "independent" national candidate.

[StoopTroup]

This lab rat must have took some real work to polish up.

NSFW

http://blog.newsweek.com/photos/thegaggle/images/1135766/original.aspx

[SoonerJack]

IMHO, the problem is, "real" people have great difficulty getting elected to national office nowadays. We have a system that elevates professional politicians with the requisite pedigrees who have been carefully developed in the party laboratories to be palatable to the folks with the checkbooks, aided and abetted by the "drive-by" media who love to tout anything unattractive in a guy's background. Those lab-rat candidates, who too often have no practical experience in life, are the folks who get the party bank-rolling necessary to afford phenomenally expensive national campaigns. In fact, I can't remember the last viable third-party or "independent" national candidate.

And Homey takes another one out of the park.

[StoopTroup]

And this one here looks OK till she starts to talk...lol

http://www.wcfonline.org/page/-/Candidates/martha.jpg

I think I'd start firing the folks working in the labs....lol

[soonerbrat]

that guy is not even good looking

[TUSooner]

I hate that we seldom seem to have a choice between a good presidential candidate and a bad one. We usually just get to choose between a bad one and a worse one. And it's usually hard to tell which is the worst because they are both bad in different ways.

[StoopTroup]

I hate that we seldom seem to have a choice between a good presidential candidate and a bad one. We usually just get to choose between a bad one and a worse one. And it's usually hard to tell which is the worst because they are both bad in different ways.

Couldn't agree more.

We do however expect miracles from Presidents too....so it's not surprising that we may have trouble finding someone to run until things are so bad that it looks like they have no other choice.

I think we're pretty close to that day. If not in 2010...2014 let's hope.

[yermom]

it's a touch premature to deem Obama a failure. he's got a good two years to win over the public somehow

[Okla-homey]

This lab rat must have took some real work to polish up.

NSFW

http://blog.newsweek.com/photos/thegaggle/images/1135766/original.aspx

Not so much. See, like Colbert quipped last night, Massachusetts isn't as Donk-ey as we've been led to beleive. They just like to elect handsome men. E.g. JFK, RFK, Mitt Romney, now this guy.;)

[StoopTroup]

I'm gonna go ahead and call it though. He's had a great start and I'm hopefully he'll rise to LameDuck status soon.

[StoopTroup]

Not so much. See, like Colbert quipped last night, Massachusetts isn't as Donk-ey as we've been led to beleive. They just like to elect handsome men. E.g. JFK, RFK, Mitt Romney, now this guy.;)

It was Jon Stewart first....then Colbert...lol

[Okla-homey]

It was Jon Stewart first....then Colbert...lol

I have no explanation for the un-handsome Thomas P. "Tip" O'Neill. He was just a Boston Irish tough.

[Okla-homey]

I'm gonna go ahead and call it though. He's had a great start and I'm hopefully he'll rise to LameDuck status soon.

Brown or BHO?

[StoopTroup]

BHO.

[soonerscuba]

IMHO, the problem is, "real" people have great difficulty getting elected to national office nowadays. We have a system that elevates professional politicians with the requisite pedigrees who have been carefully developed in the party laboratories to be palatable to the folks with the checkbooks, aided and abetted by the "drive-by" media who love to tout anything unattractive in a guy's background. Those lab-rat candidates, who too often have no practical experience in life, are the folks who get the party bank-rolling necessary to afford phenomenally expensive national campaigns. In fact, I can't remember the last viable third-party or "independent" national candidate.It's never been easier for what you define as a "real" person to be elected to national office in this country. Every since the abolishment of the convention system and introduction of the critical primary it allows people with no business whatsoever of being in power positions to make their case based on public appeal. I miss the convention system, basically between the last 3 elections, I have no faith that the primary systems are capable of consistently providing us with capable leaders, regardless of party.

Also, there's is too much focus on the curtains and not enough on the foundation in political reporting. Scott Brown will win because of 10% unemployment and an unresponsive market. If things were going well, Dems would coast with anybody. I'm sure Republicans will paint this as some great awakening, and they should for the votes, but it's not born out of a policy function regarding health care, taxes, or any other bullet point you can think of; things suck, and when they do people flip parties, hell, people tend to flip midterm even if things are going well.

[JohnnyMack]

Scott Brown will win because of 10% unemployment and an unresponsive market. If things were going well, Dems would coast with anybody. I'm sure Republicans will paint this as some great awakening, and they should for the votes, but it's not born out of a policy function regarding health care, taxes, or any other bullet point you can think of; things suck, and when they do people flip parties, hell, people tend to flip midterm even if things are going well.

I stand by my assertion that had BHO come out and attacked the economy and jobs instead of healthcare he wouldn't be in the pickle he's about to find himself in. BHO couldn't resist the 60 seat supermajority and thought he could get healthcare pushed through more quickly than he did. If he had unleashed the dogs as fervently towards a WPA-like initiative that showed him as being more interested in getting people back to work and moved towards reasonable reform of healthcare starting in '10 I think he would have been in better shape. As it stands I think this MA Senate race could be the beginning of the end. If he's having this tough of a time getting things accomplished with 60 of his own in the Senate, imagine what will happen when the "flip" you mentioned takes place.

[StoopTroup]

That's all just crazy talk....

Plus...if he'd a done this or done that...blah blah blah....

He hasn't. He's no different than any other we've ever had as President. It's been a year. That's where I set the bar for him. No excuses...he's blowing it.

[JohnnyMack]

That's all just crazy talk....

Plus...if he'd a done this or done that...blah blah blah....

He hasn't. He's no different than any other we've ever had as President. It's been a year. That's where I set the bar for him. No excuses...he's blowing it.

You're......crazy......

[StoopTroup]

Sometimes.

About an awful President? I think I'm right on the mark.

[soonerscuba]

I stand by my assertion that had BHO come out and attacked the economy and jobs instead of healthcare he wouldn't be in the pickle he's about to find himself in. BHO couldn't resist the 60 seat supermajority and thought he could get healthcare pushed through more quickly than he did. If he had unleashed the dogs as fervently towards a WPA-like initiative that showed him as being more interested in getting people back to work and moved towards reasonable reform of healthcare starting in '10 I think he would have been in better shape. As it stands I think this MA Senate race could be the beginning of the end. If he's having this tough of a time getting things accomplished with 60 of his own in the Senate, imagine what will happen when the "flip" you mentioned takes place.I agree, I will however wait to put a nail in Obama's coffin until '11. In the Senate, Obama was something of a consensus builder, if he can actively engage Republicans and play the game he could have a great presidency (like Clinton). The question is will Dems and Republicans work with each other even with Obama trying to push, I have my doubts. I also blame the internet and cable news which has made people mistake poltical opinion with political science and the candidates are starting to reflect that.

[StoopTroup]

Here's why he's getting the nails from me.

G.H. Bush. Got my vote after Reagan. Campaign promise? NO NEW TAXES

B.H. Obama. Elected on his promises too. Close loopholes in the corporate tax deductibility of CEO pay. Not gonna pull that one off. End income tax for seniors making less than $50,000. This should have been a cupcake compared to Healthcare. End no-bid contracts above $25,000. Not gonna happen...at least in this term it would seem.

Take all of the others and there is a huge list that might be in the works....but if he doesn't get Healthcare and Haiti quickly together, The Economy, Iraq and Afghanistan will crush his ability to get anything done.

It's just an opinion I have.

I think he's gonna blow it. I'm calling it as the folks behind him will lump it on his shoulders and start resigning just as folks did at the end of Bush's 2nd term.

[JohnnyMack]

I agree, I will however wait to put a nail in Obama's coffin until '11. In the Senate, Obama was something of a consensus builder, if he can actively engage Republicans and play the game he could have a great presidency (like Clinton). The question is will Dems and Republicans work with each other even with Obama trying to push, I have my doubts. I also blame the internet and cable news which has made people mistake poltical opinion with political science and the candidates are starting to reflect that.

Obama got into the WH on a promise of being a consensus builder but once he got into office he has been nothing more than a partisan, party-line hack. He's hid behind the Democrat controlled Congress and after a year of it I don't imagine he's gonna be able to sit at the table with a bunch of R's and act like the last 12 months didn't just happen.

[StoopTroup]

Obama got into the WH on a promise of being a consensus builder but once he got into office he has been nothing more than a partisan, party-line hack. He's hid behind the Democrat controlled Congress and after a year of it I don't imagine he's gonna be able to sit at the table with a bunch of R's and act like the last 12 months didn't just happen.

Another reason I'm calling it. You crazy ***. :D

[swardboy]

Obama got into the WH on a promise of being a consensus builder but once he got into office he has been nothing more than a partisan, party-line hack. He's hid behind the Democrat controlled Congress and after a year of it I don't imagine he's gonna be able to sit at the table with a bunch of R's and act like the last 12 months didn't just happen.

^ Thank you.

[StoopTroup]

Again....failed empty promises. We haven't had a President come through in a long long time.

Hope and Change?

Hope is gone.

[SunnySooner]

IDK...Clinton got hammered in the '96 midterm elections and somehow managed to turn it around and get re-elected. Of course, he was helped immensely by the internet bubble and the false boom it gave our economy (remember the surplus?). My point is, ya just never know. Personally, I hope BHO goes quietly into that good night, and we elect someone in 2012 with some actual experience to pull us out of the various messes in which we find ourselves mired, but I never underestimate the power of the media, the spin machines that exist in today's politics, and the gullibility of a large portion of the American electorate.

[soonerscuba]

Obama got into the WH on a promise of being a consensus builder but once he got into office he has been nothing more than a partisan, party-line hack. He's hid behind the Democrat controlled Congress and after a year of it I don't imagine he's gonna be able to sit at the table with a bunch of R's and act like the last 12 months didn't just happen.The Republicans won't, but I don't know if you noticed, the public is dumb as ****. It's about debate framing, if they can paint the Republicans as obstructionist and do so effectively, then they can garner public sympathy like '96 and '98. What I imagine might happen is that the Republicans read too much into the tea leaves and Brown overplays his hand. Coakley ran a campaign that would make Bob Shrum proud, and if a nuke, torture and tax cut they're *** Republican gets up and brings up the usual talking points, he isn't making past his 3 years in that state.

As a Democrat, I fully expect the party to completely implode and snatch defeat from the jaws of victory, yet again.

[StoopTroup]

The Conservative Talking Heads aren't helping the Pubs much either IMO.

People want to see relief at the middle class level and they aren't getting it. People want to know they can start their own business and someday retire comfortably. People want to see Corporations give compensation to Execs who run the Corps in the black instead of seeing them get bonuses for hacking them into pieces for bonuses and/or getting a bonus for laying off America Workers in lieu of sending their jobs to India or China.

[King Barry's Back]

I hate that we seldom seem to have a choice between a good presidential candidate and a bad one. We usually just get to choose between a bad one and a worse one. And it's usually hard to tell which is the worst because they are both bad in different ways.

Real good post, and one I really agree with -- and speaking as a sometimes political professional.

I think part of this is just the simple fact that human beings run for president, and we expect presidential candidates to be more than human -- and they are not.

Also, a big part of it is candidates simply can not afford to say what they really feel, believe, or what they would really do in hypothetical situations. That kind of stuff starts to push voters out of your camp.

Obama was a master at saying nothing that would make anybody angry, or to even disagree with him.

I mean, who is against "hope"? And who doesn't want "Change we can believe in"?

That's the kind of talk that inspires people, but governing is not usually about inspiration -- it's about perspiration. Hard work, thousands of decisions -- all of them hard -- and there's little glamour in it.

[King Barry's Back]

I stand by my assertion that had BHO come out and attacked the economy and jobs instead of healthcare he wouldn't be in the pickle he's about to find himself in. BHO couldn't resist the 60 seat supermajority and thought he could get healthcare pushed through more quickly than he did. If he had unleashed the dogs as fervently towards a WPA-like initiative that showed him as being more interested in getting people back to work and moved towards reasonable reform of healthcare starting in '10 I think he would have been in better shape. As it stands I think this MA Senate race could be the beginning of the end. If he's having this tough of a time getting things accomplished with 60 of his own in the Senate, imagine what will happen when the "flip" you mentioned takes place.

Interesting analysis, and in retro-spect, seems right on.

But, i think BHO would defend himself by stating that he not only had the supermajority in the Senate (which he knew would be fleeting), but he also had unprecedented personal popularity (which he also knew would be fleeting). I think he felt he needed to get his really big leg priorities done before his assetts had weakened -- and I know that they thought these things had no real chance to get off the ground if we rolled into 2010 and everybody started looking to the election.