Out hoping the great hoper
Obama Obama Obama. A name that evokes passion (and divides) so many.
Not even a year has passed since he stepped into the Circular Office and everywhere you read, everyone and their dog has a bone to pick with the President. “Why is Gitmo still open? Why are we still in Iraq? Why are we still in Afghanistan? Where are the jobs? Where’s our rights?”
There is also an interesting narrative that is starting to creep through into mainstream media suggesting that Obama will be a one term President – really?
“This isn’t the change we voted for”- insert blog author/ TV pundit/ Politician name here.
For a man that has managed to save America’s economy which was on the brink of flat lining, committed to closing Gitmo in his first week and is in reaching distance of health care reform, he’s really not getting any slack. And why should he.
I have stated many times that I think Obama is quite frankly the most talented politician of my time (23 years old) – but the times we are living in are impatient ones. My generation wants everything yesterday, we want our news 24/7, on the move, we want to get rich without breaking a sweat – so for us, closing Gitmo, solving the economic problems, fixing healthcare, giving gay people their equal rights, an energy bill and reducing the deficit needed to be done a long time ago…say in his third month.
What is clear is that the GOP still hasn’t addressed its leadership problems or its strategy to effectively combat Obama. Let’s be honest, if health-care passes Obama is a two term President and goes into top 10 presidential material. More importantly the GOP will lose a generation of voters because of a lack of ideas and leadership to suit the times.
For example – Obama’s decision on troop numbers in Afghanistan. GOP says: “He is divering. He isn’t protecting our troops. He is losing the war. He is putting America in danger. Military knows best. Win at all cost.” This is the same Vietnam mentality which has haunted the elephant party since the 60s. But I submit to you that people of my generation are more than happy for a President (or a Prime Minister) to carefully consider his strategy for war (I also don’t see an issue with a President saluting a dead soldier or allowing a nation to witness the true cost of war). I don’t see anything wrong with Obama not committing troops until his generals give him a clear exit strategy. That isn’t showing weakness that is showing smarts, and this way of thinking will only strengthen his grip on the coalition he managed to put together for his election victory.
As for the economy, the Republican Party are damaged goods in this department. If Obama can combine the recent recovery with falling unemployment by 2010 then I truly worry for the party of The Gipper. Moderates are not ideology, they have a comprehension of history and I don’t believe they will vote in the same people who caused the economic downturn.
In short, the GOP need to start again. They need to look further than 2010 and see that the world is changing around them. They need to dampen down on Reagan and reclaim Lincoln. More Snowe and Christ and less of the two leaders they have in both houses. Less “no”, less party protesting, less anger, less fear, less guns, less war and more hope.
Even shorter, the GOP need to out hope the great Hoper.
opinions powered by SendLove.to
18 Responses to “Out hoping the great hoper”
ROTFLMA… That has to be the funniest line I have ever read…
Moderates are people whose ideology is that of not having an ideology, as such they are easily manipulated, and the republican party has mastered the art of doing so. As for knowing history, we are talking about Americans here, people who have a hard time remembering what happened last week and have completely forgotten what happened in the last decade and have never known what happened prior to it. While you may believe that they would not vote for the people who caused the downturn, I will point out that they elected GW Bush after he was selected by the Supreme Court, lost a major NY Landmark, let Osama Bin Laden slip though his fingers and started a war with the wrong country based upon obvious lies. Let me also point out that all of these events occurred with the full and complete support of the so called liberal press.
I don’t see anything wrong with Obama not committing troops until his generals give him a clear exit strategy.
What is wrong is that the current plan is not working (by McChystal's admission) and doesn't have a good exit strategy either. Obama's slowness on this just gets Americans killed in a war they currently can't win. It is not just the hawks that think Obama is dithering – I believe the best course is to get out of Afghanistan. If Obama can't bring himself to do that then let's a least have a plan that works.
From the article, “I have stated many times that I think Obama is quite frankly the most talented politician of my time ….”
There is a difference between being a talented politician and being a talented executive. Obama has one of those qualities, but not the other.
Further from the article, “Let’s be honest, if health-care passes Obama is a two term President and goes into top 10 presidential material.”
It might get him re-elected, but only if people fail to understand what the plan does and give him credit for “doing something”, but top 10 presidents, not likely. Sooner or later the real impact of the health care plan will hit home, and it won't be fun. There's a reason the D's and the Obama adminstration don't want it to take effect until 2013, and that reason is reelection.
As for war policy, DaGoat said it. No need for me to repeat it.
Mr. Njolinjo contradicts himself. To say “I have stated many times that I think Obama is quite frankly the most talented politician of my time (23 years old)” in one breath, then emphasize the President has only been in office a few months in the next, indicates a pre-disposed opinion. I agree that to say the President is a one term President at this point is purely argumentative and not based on any fact – his personal popularity numbers continue to reflect the people's vote last November. It has been said that a great (not good) leader takes the people where they want to go (i.e. John Kennedy and the space program). Mr. Obama's current difficulties appear to be convincing the majority of Americans that they want to proceed in the direction of his far-left political base. A quick review of the American culture and its history will reveal the difficulties the President faces. Since his DNC speech in 2004 (?), the far left leaders of the Democratic Party had Mr. Obama in a holding pattern waiting for the right time. The Republicans lost their connection with fiscal responsibility and gave Mr. Obama's backers the opportunity and the time was right for Mr. Obama. Mr. Obama is a delivery vehicle for is backers (read the recently released W.H. visitor list. If the Republicans are in disaray, it is because Mr. Obama and his backers are on the right track. If the Republicans begin to organize, the opposite is true. I applaud Mr. Njolinjo's entry into the political fray and encourage he continues. If he is 23 years old, what Mr. Obama is trying to achieve will impact his life greatly. Engage, engage, engage.
Republicans are doing everything they can to block Obama's efforts. Given things like the supermajority requirements of the Senate, they're enjoying some success. But being the party of no isn't enough.
If they had a positive agenda–if, for example, they were pushing a sensible plan of spending cuts–I'd be ready to take them seriously. But Republicans didn't cut spending when they held power–just the opposite, they raised spending. They weren't concerned with the CBO numbers when they passed Medicare Part D. And a whole bunch of them voted for the Bush stimulus back in September of 2008. I don't see myself voting for the party that blew its chance to fix these problems.
I think we should withdraw from Afghanistan. (And I think we should already be out of Iraq.) But I recognize that whatever policy decision is made, there will be awful consequences. The current awful consequences–getting American soldiers and Afghan civilians killed–predate Obama. I don't like what Obama is doing in Afghanistan. But I believe his deliberations are sober in face of having no good choices. And I don't see myself voting for the party that got us into that quagmire.
I spent the summer watching video of gray-haired people shouting their opposition to government health care. I'm pretty sure none of them are planning to give up Medicare. I don't see myself voting for the party of Glenn Beck.
Republicans are the party that worries about birth certificates and death panels and breaking Obama. I'm sorry I don't have a better choice in the next election. But my choice does seem pretty clear.
“If they had a positive agenda–if, for example, they were pushing a sensible plan of spending cuts–I'd be ready to take them seriously.”
Exactly right. And I'll take this as another opportunity to point out that no right leaning TMV writer, nor any of the commenters have written a word about the GOP health care reform plan, which their entire party (save one dissenting vote) supported. Is it great? The GOP agrees that THIS is how they would reform health care. How about a post about that? Give all our right tilting commenters a chance to praise the ideas of the Republican party and tell us how their plan is really the way we should be going on health care.
Obama is obviously a talented politician. I think he's a lot less liberal than most people want to think, either on the left or the right. In many ways, I think he's cut from the same cloth as GHW Bush.
If he is elected for a second term, it will be the second time in history that the US has had three consecutive two-term Presidents. The last time was Jefferson-Madison-Monroe, which were not only members of the same party, but members of each others' cabinets.
I don't know if Obama can win a second term or not. I think the odds on it are long. His appeal the first time around was that he was something new. Now he can't claim that. No matter what he does on any issue, half of the people are going to hate him.
[...] This post was mentioned on Twitter by Jim Davis, Fmr Rep Chris Norton. Fmr Rep Chris Norton said: RT @NewEarth4Energy: Save Energy! Out hoping the great hoper http://bit.ly/4eKEZv [...]
Social comments and analytics for this post…
This post was mentioned on Twitter by TMV: Out hoping the great hoper: Obama Obama Obama. A name that evokes passion (and divides) so many.
Not even a year ha… http://bit.ly/1VSo5v...
Honestly, I haven't read the thing: it has no chance of passing and both sides know it, so the plan can, at best, be a white paper defining which special interests they feel like courting, and to what extent they'll court them. That doesn't mean that the Democratic plans are worth considering.
After the first few months of Clinton, I felt pretty sure that he was never going to get re-elected, but he turned around rather quickly.
At this point, this whole second-term debate sounds a lot like the preseason debate about which team will win the Super Bowl; it's more a matter of what you want, than what you know.
[...] Not even a year has passed since he stepped into the Circular Office and everywhere you read, everyone and their dog has a bone to pick with the President. “Why is Gitmo still open? Why are we still in Iraq? Why are we still in Afghanistan? …Read Original Story: Out hoping the great hoper – The Moderate Voice [...]
ThurmanHart said, “I think he's a lot less liberal than most people want to think, either on the left or the right. In many ways, I think he's cut from the same cloth as GHW Bush. “
I agree wholeheartedly with the first sentence. Obama is much less ideologically driven than people try to paint him. I think he likes being liked, and likes being president more than he is wedded to ideology. On previous threads, I've commented that he is nowhere near as liberal as the likes of FDR, HST or LBJ.
But, cut from the same cloth as GWB? You're on your own on that one.
Prof, the point isn't about whether the GOP plan could be enacted. There has been 8 months of blaring rhetoric about the Democrats' plan. Now finally, we get to see how they'd handle health care reform. None of the commenters here have linked to it here, saying “see? now THAT'S more like it. That's what Obama should have done.” Further, I haven't heard any of the House Republicans pushing it in the media. This bill had almost unanimous support of GOP legislators. It IS their plan. No one has read it? (yes, I have) Or is it the embarrassment to that party that it appears to me to be?
The point is everyone has criticized the Dems for their plan, going as far as “Hitler” and “Stalin” comparisons. So? What does the other side want to do? What's their solution? They have posted it and voted for it.
The text (pdf) is here: http://rules-republicans.house.gov/Media/PDF/Re…
” I haven't read the thing: it has no chance of passing and both sides know it, so the plan can, at best, be a white paper”
We have known all along (at least, some of us have) that the GOP has been sidelined and won't get its reform efforts passed. We have also had plenty to do listing the elements of reform, which are not hard to grasp, as well as addressing the numerous defects of what the Democrats have been seeking.
DLS, you dodged the question. How do you like the GOP plan. You've been highly critical of the Dems' effort. What about the GOP? Is their plan, which they have now completed, worthy of 99% GOP support?
I can't look at their proposal as “the other side”, because all issues have many sides, and I'm sick of being told to choose between dumb and dumber. However, maybe I am getting a little cynical in my old age. So I will look at GreenDreams' Rep. plan, but I won't like it Sam I am.
Please give me a day or two look.
Okay, GD, here's what I got out of a quick review. It wasn't as bad as I thought, but certainly nothing earth-shattering.
General comments:
The amendment says that it won't
1) raise taxes
2) cut Medicare
3) add to the deficit
4) interfere with the doctor-patient relationship
5) institute a government takeover of health care
The Health Secretary determines a lot of state compliance issues. That's a good thing, but there has to be some backup to prevent the blindness that hit financial regulators recently.
Section 101:
a) Forces all states to run a qualified health care program.
Implements price controls (p8: pool premium is limited to 150% of average)
States must contribute funds to such programs.
So, it doesn't raise federal taxes, but it does impose on the states to raise their taxes.
b. Helps with the small group market, which helps get around the current restriction that groups can't organize for the sole purpose of getting larger group health insurance.
c. preserves the option of Health Savings Accounts (HSAs).
d. preserves the option of Medigap policies.
e. authorizes education and outreach services, and disease prevention and management
f. lots of illegal alien checking.
Section 102:ELIMINATION OF CERTAIN REQUIREMENTS FOR GUARANTEED AVAILABILITY IN INDIVIDUAL MARKET.
I have to trust them on this. It modifies another bill. This also raises the “wait until I'm sick to get insurance” problem.
Section 103: NO ANNUAL OR LIFETIME SPENDING CAPS.
Great. So do we pay $300,000 to extend everyone's life by 3 months?
Section 104: PREVENTING UNJUST CANCELLATION OF INSURANCE COVERAGE.
A good deed done wrong. They should have just killed the laws that currently prevent normal lawsuits. Instead it allows some unspecified third-party review.
Title II. Section 111: Has complex formulas to pay states more if they reduce the total number of uninsured and the comparitive cost of insurance per capita. This actually makes some sense, since the the states are the most in control of costs, under McCarran-Ferguson.
Section 112: PLAN FINDERS (state exchanges)
Glorified insurance comparison websites, like those for car and life insurance, except that they would have to include information on Medicaid and SCHIP programs. It also has some good consumer protection provisions.
I see some opportunities for corruption, even though some obvious ones are addressed. They would still treat all states differently because they still operate under McCarran-Ferguson.
SEC. 113. ADMINISTRATIVE SIMPLIFICATION.
I skipped through a lot of this, but it looked liked a lot of standardization and electronic record and transmission mandates.
DIVISION B—IMPROVING ACCESS TO HEALTH CARE
TITLE I—EXPANDING ACCESS AND LOWERING COSTS FOR SMALL BUSINESSES
SEC. 201 RULES GOVERNING ASSOCIATION HEALTH PLANS.
A suprisingly long section that changes the way health insurance works under ERISA plans. It appears to give the states some control of these plans, including taxing authority.
SEC. 202 CLARIFICATION OF TREATMENT OF SINGLE EMPLOYER ARRANGEMENTS.
Seems to allow some other types of health insurance buying pools.
SEC. 203 ENFORCEMENT PROVISIONS RELATING TO ASSOCIATION HEALTH PLANS
Adds some more protections to ERISA health plans.
SEC. 204. COOPERATION BETWEEN FEDERAL AND STATE AUTHORITIES.
Even more ERISA changes.
SEC. 205. EFFECTIVE DATE AND TRANSITIONAL AND OTHER RULES.
Allows for 1 year to get the act implement and has some other implementation and grandfathering clauses.
TITLE II—TARGETED EFFORTS TO EXPAND ACCESS
SEC. 211. EXTENDING COVERAGE OF DEPENDENTS.
More ERISA changes. Extends the dependent age to 25 or more. Explicitly forbids states to require coverage of children.
SEC. 212. ALLOWING AUTO-ENROLLMENT FOR EMPLOYER SPONSORED COVERAGE
I guess some states didn't allow this. It sounds like a plus.
TITLE III—EXPANDING CHOICES BY ALLOWING AMERICANS TO BUY HEALTH CARE COVERAGE ACROSS STATE LINES
Allows you to buy clearly marked policies that are regulated by another state.
I would still rather they just repealed McCarran-Ferguson than do all these complex work-arounds.
TITLE IV – IMPROVING HEALTH SAVINGS ACCOUNTS
I'll take them at their word here.
DIVISION C—ENACTING REAL MEDICAL LIABILITY REFORM
Limits non-econonmic damages to $250,000 total, regardless of the number of people in the suit. Limits punitive damages. Limits some lawyer fees. Imposes some other limits. Juries can't be informed of the limits. Allows state to keep even tighter limits.
I've never liked this concept of “tort reform”. If there's a problem with the courts, then tweak it to protect all parties more fairly. This type of “reform” skews the courts unfairly towards corporations. I'd rather make the system as a whole work better than to favor a particular group.
DIVISION D—PROTECTING THE DOCTOR-PATIENT RELATIONSHIP
SEC. 401. RULE OF CONSTRUCTION.
Nothing in this Act shall be construed to interfere with the doctor-patient relationship or the practice of medicine.
Whatever that means.
SEC. 402. REPEAL OF FEDERAL COORDINATING COUNCIL FOR COMPARATIVE EFFECTIVENESS RESEARCH.
Effective on the date of the enactment of this Act, section 804 of the American Recovery and Reinvestment Act of 2009 is repealed.
I guess they didn't like this. I would think it would actually be a good thing, at least for intelligently controlling Medicaid and Medicare costs.
DIVISION E—INCENTIVIZING WELLNESS AND QUALITY IMPROVEMENTS
SEC. 501. INCENTIVES FOR PREVENTION AND WELLNESS PROGRAMS.
Allows premium differences for participation in wellness programs under ERISA plans. Sounds good.
DIVISION F—PROTECTING TAXPAYERS
Funds some fraud prevention programs and adds other fraud protections.
SEC. 602. PROHIBITING TAXPAYER FUNDED ABORTIONS AND CONSCIENCE PROTECTIONS.
The Hyde amendment, more or less.
DIVISION G—PATHWAY FOR BIOSIMILAR BIOLOGICAL PRODUCTS
Changes for biological technologies. I don't know enough about the technologies and their complications to be able to comment on this one.