Republicans winning 60+ seats is a blow-out. It should be and is a repudiation of Obama and his ultra-left, big government policies that took a divided country and turned it into one far less divided. There is now quite a bit of unity that what this guy is selling ain't what people want.
It is clear to many that Obama is not competent and, even worse, is just fundamentally wrong about what makes America strong economically, culturally, and internationally. If the Republicans had run better candidates, they would have won the Senate too.
This is not a surprise to me. I predicted something similar after Obama was elected. My November 2008 post Will Obama Be FDR, Carter, or Sell-out? seems pretty darn accurate.
- The hard left here at OS perceives him as a sell-out who wasn't left enough.
- His FDR-like big government policies have prolonged the recession.
- His incompetence and weakness have him well-placed to be as bad or worse than Jimmy Carter.
- He has already started the Republicans back on their path to being a majority party. Better yet, they are likely to be more conservative than they were before, having learned the lesson of prior losses.
I summed up my previous post with:
"So, there it is. The Republicans again screwed up by becoming the “me too, only smaller and dumber” party and now it’s just a question of how far and fast the pendulum swings. I don’t really have a punch line for this."
It still applies. There is no punch line here. The pendulum swung fast and far but I am not enjoying this victory. I am melancholy. I would much have preferred that the country not be enduring this. Too many businesses struggle and too many people are out of work. The government is overloaded with debt. Investors can't figure out where to invest. Our foreign adversaries do not fear us.
This is a sad situation. We will need more victories by conservatives to get the ship righted (positive pun intended) and people will still suffer until that happens. But, the good guys did win this election. 60+ steps in the right direction.
TIP:
Enter the amount, and click "Tip" to submit!
E. Magill
T.S.
old new lefty
rwnutjob
Max Frank
thatsright
Salon.com
Comments
First, you suggest that Obama offers “ultra-left, big government policies” but later admit “The hard left here at OS perceives him as a sell-out who wasn't left enough.” You pretty much refute your own point here. If ultra is to mean anything in this context, it should mean at-the-edge. I know a lot of people (including myself) who think Obama is way too far center, and I don't consider myself to be at the far left either. I think any fair assessment would say that Obama has tried in good faith to compromise and in many cases has offered proposals actually made by Republicans on previous years. It may play well as political rhetoric to portray him as ultra-left, but he's just not. He even took on advisors like Gates from the opposing team.
You also remark that he's incompetent. I would reserve such words for the likes of Bush, Palin, and O'Donnell and not use it lightly for others. I'd not have objected to words like “green” (and I don't mean in the Climate Change sense, where I don't regard him as green in the environmentally friendly sense) or even “inexperienced.” I wouldn't agree, but I'd still call that within scope of legitimate opinion difference. But “incompetent” really connotes a special ability to screw things up, a sense that left unattended he would not do the right thing. You might not agree with him on policy, but his policy isn't just made-up. He has good judgment about when to consult others and how to form teams. He pushes policies that are the same policies as acknowledged experts would push.
I'm with people like Stiglitz and Prestowitz in thinking he's taken the wrong approach on the recovery. (They're not strong on Bush but they don't give Obama a much different/better rating.) However, I don't think his positions are incompetent. I think that's different. I think use of the word may play well with your base, but it distances us unnecessarily and makes it hard to have civil debate. And, in fairness, we aren't in a depression, which many saw as a real possibility.
What makes me sad is that the Republicans have so increased the incivility of the divide by adopting the Party of No approach of filibustering nearly everything with the intent of sabotaging Obama's effectiveness. You would have probably seen a lot more moderate positions from him if any compromise were allowed. I'd probably be madder at him. I'm not that happy, but my main unhappiness is that he didn't go farther left. I strongly disagree on the idea that what the Left offers is as irreconcilable or unambiguously wrong as you think, but I'd understand the criticism leveled at the party. I think you're wrong to level it at Obama.
Frankly, I think your doing so make it look like you're listening too much to the spin. And I actually find that hard to believe, based on what I know of you. I just can't find a rational reason why you'd have this perception of him.
Ah well. I'm glad you offered an opinion, and that it was civil. As someone said today, it wasn't that the public elected Republicans, they elected non-Democrats (or was it they unelected Democrats). They were just angry and flailing. It would be a mistake to take that for an endorsement of policy and push it too far.
Thanks McGarrett50.
Thats why you are so pissed as a group that you actually go after health care first instead of passing jobs bills- true colors shining!!
btw, that wave in your profile broke blue Tueday, Obama's home district ran the board replacing tea bagging congressman Djou with our good sister Hanabusa, and finally voting out our Bush years, 8 long years of Republican incompetence in Honolulu that nearly broke the state- ALL VOTED OUT!!! we are totally blue again, just like your wave amigo! As the Islands go so goes the nation! btw, been watching the new mcgarrett? scotty caan's great too ...
And so, I anticipate that the cons will get a huge bunch of what they actually want. And you should be afraid, as I personally think that your prescriptions will ultimately make things worse rather than better. But we shall see, won't we? And I only hope that your side takes full credit and responsibility for what follows in the years to come from this 2011-2012, etc. period. Whatever happens, don't blame Democrats if balancing the budget and cutting taxes without providing extra stimulus programs proves to be a mixture of snake oil and Hoovernomics.
Fundamentally, a major part of this country is that we're suffering from the end of empire syndrome. Our decline economically and internationally is baked into the cake. And the more we engage in military adventures overseas while we ignore our needs at home, the quicker we'll be pushing that sled down hill and putting grease on its treads.
Kent, I use the word incompetent because it is what I thought and critiqued while he was a candidate and I haven't seen evidence that his actual behavior differs from my low expectations. I do not believe he knows at all what he is doing and that counts to me as incompetent. So, I am not believing in recent spin. I thought the guy was in way over his head before he was ever elected. I've seen his type many times in my career in large corporations. He's an empty suit.
But, to prompt some thought on his competence:
-Did his policies make the economy better?
-Did he appear smart when he 1 year later admitted that his shovel-ready job stimulus was flawed because there are no such things as shovel ready projects?
-Does the federal budget situation look better or worse than when he took office?
-Is Afghanistan better?
-Is the situation with Iran better?
-Did he bridge the gap between the parties or make it worse?
-Did he bring more integrity and transparency to the legislative process?
-While I oppose it, did he keep successfully implement his policy to close Guantanamo?
Other than passing a flawed healthcare regulation bill that brought Americans out in 1 year's worth of protests and then led to the largest mid-term defeat in ~70 years, what has he done?
Given that the Democrats had huge majorities in the House and Senate, to blame any of his failures on Republicans reflects a bias equal or worse than my own biases. The supposedly dumb Reagan got far more done even when Democrats were in charge of the House.
Worse, Obama is so thin skinned and arrogant that he blames the American people for not understanding him. Worse again, he labels someone like me an enemy for using my free speech and voting right to oppose him. Regardless of whether he believes it or not, it is incompetent to say it.
ONL, for all the hatred of the Regan years and Bush 2 at OS, I bet most unemployeed folks would be thrilled to have the 1984 and 2004 economies again. I can recall some people here at OS who almost seemed happy that the recession came because it was more important to them to repudiate a consumer society than it was that people live comfortable lives. While I do not believe you mean it that way, your last paragraph can be read that way... as pride in stoically accepting an alleged inevitable decline.
If conservatives do what conservatives should, then they will get out of the way of the free market and let people build their own wealth again. As I've said here before, some simple "get out of the way" policies will have us back growing fast again in 18 months.
Thanks to all who read and to those who also rated.
No, you haven't. Ever. As near as I can tell you couldn't tell us a thing about the Buf n' Blu, unlike the real mcgarrett. Too bad, so sad.