Network News

X My Profile
View More Activity

How will Obama react to GOP gains?

Michael Crowley digs up President Clinton's 1994 press conference reacting to the GOP takeover of Congress, and asks whether Obama will replicate Clinton's call that Republicans meet him in the "center."

Clinton, on November 9th, just days after the 1994 bloodbath:

With the Democrats in control of both the White House and the Congress, we were held accountable yesterday. And I accept my share of the responsibility in the result of the elections.

When the Republican Party assumes leadership in the House and in the Senate, they will also have a larger responsibility for acting in the best interest of the American people. I reach out to them today, and I ask them to join me in the center of the public debate from where the best ideas for the next generation of American progress must come.

What's striking about this is how dated, and even quaint, it sounds. As Ronald Brownstein has noted, a conspicuous move to the ideological center isn't really something we should expect from Obama after the election, even in the event of major GOP gains, because such a gesture wouldn't really be relevant to our politics today, which are even more polarized now than in Clinton's time.

What's more, Clinton had consciously cast himself as a centrist "New Democrat" before taking office. Obama has always preferred to cast himself as a uniter more in terms of temperament than ideology, and has presented himself as transcending the old ideological categories, rather than adapting within them.

So look for him to seek the moral high ground by calling on Republicans to meet him on some sort of ideologically undefined but temperamentally soothing "common ground," rather than calling on them to meet him in the "center." Of course, what really matters is what Obama and Republicans actually do next year, not what they say they're going to do. And they're going to be at war.

Meanwhile, the entire transcript of Clinton's 1994 presser is worth reading as a reminder of how little things change.

By Greg Sargent  | November 2, 2010; 12:49 PM ET
Categories:  2010 elections, House GOPers, Senate Republicans  
Save & Share:  Send E-mail   Facebook   Twitter   Digg   Yahoo Buzz   Del.icio.us   StumbleUpon   Technorati   Google Buzz   Previous: Palin palling around with Tancredo's extremism
Next: Sharron Angle: We shut out the media because they're unprofessional

Comments

Jonathan Cohn has a piece out today saying that Obama is cool and calm


YEA RIGHT


Obama has no idea what just hit him, - everyone told him to avoid this situation and Obama was so arrogant he didn't listen to anyone.


The affirmative action guy didn't measure up.

That is the truth the democrats have to face.

Posted by: MyHairLooksFantastic | November 2, 2010 12:54 PM | Report abuse

Everytime someone says "politics are more polarized today"


You can translate that into "politics are more childish today"


I think most of the problem is that the democrats during Bush's tenure - perceived the Republicans as unreasonable - so the democrats made a collective decision to be just as unreasonable.


Well - that is not an adult response - it is the maturity of a 7-year-old girl.


In addition, if that is the approach of the liberals to governing, the liberals have no business even setting foot on government property. Governing is for those who have the best interests of the people in mind, no matter what the differences.


If the democrats are hell-bent on agenda-politics and group-identity politics which are by their very nature DIVISIVE, they really should not be a part of the government.

That attitude is inappropriate.


.

Posted by: MyHairLooksFantastic | November 2, 2010 12:59 PM | Report abuse

By the way, Obama did not run in the democratic primaries in 2008 "from the left"

At every turn, Obama's campaign insisted that Obama's positions were "virtually identical" to Hillary's positions.


The deceptions of Obama started early on - and only accelerated.


.

Posted by: MyHairLooksFantastic | November 2, 2010 1:03 PM | Report abuse

Screw that. A lot of help that did.

They tried to throw him out of office for 8 years.

Obama should raise his hand and extend to them his middle finger then ready his veto quill and hunker down until 2012 when he's on the ticket.

Posted by: mikefromArlington | November 2, 2010 1:04 PM | Report abuse

By 1996 Bill Clinton said the era of big government was over, he sure was wrong.

So I think we should focus on these areas of bipartisan agreement (once they run the White House), on growing the power of the federal government the Presidency in particular, playing politics with the SCOTUS, banking and monetary policy, free trade, Guantanamo, targeted killing and a host of other issues. Kumbaya, kumbaya.

Posted by: shrink2 | November 2, 2010 1:09 PM | Report abuse

Mike from Arlington

In a search to try to get something done, this is what Clinton did


- Clinton signed the Free Trade deals, which ended up throwing millions of people out of work

- Clinton made trade deals with China

- Clinton made trade deals with Indonesia

- Clinton decided to have Hillary run for the Senate in New York

- Because Hillary was running in New York, Clinton was going down the Wall Street fundraising lists.

- All of a sudden Glass Steagall, a depression era law protecting the public from stock market abuses - DISAPPEARED.


- All of a sudden Clinton DEREGULATED DERIVATIVES

How did that work out???


- Then Clinton pushed through his SubPrime Mortgage program - 2 trillion dollars which inflated the overall real estate market


Cuomo and Gillibrand were working on the SubPrime Mortgage programs under Clinton


Mike - WHAT GOOD CAME OUT OF ANY OF THAT ???


It was nothing but one disaster after another.


.

Posted by: MyHairLooksFantastic | November 2, 2010 1:12 PM | Report abuse

The fundamental disconnect is clear: if the democrats can not admit that Clinton's policies (listed above) led directly to today's Economic Crisis, how can the democrats come up with the Economic Solutions?

The whole "blame Bush" idea leads to ZERO confidence in the abilities of Obama and the democrats to come up with a Viable Economic Plan.

Obama has been a COMPLETE FAILURE on the economic front.


The democrats fail to realize that the health care plan IS AN ECONOMIC POLICY, and a horrible one.


That is the problem - the democrats refuse to admit the economic aspects of Obama's health care plan - it IS OBAMA'S ECONOMIC POLICY.

And this leads all reasonable people to have total and complete zero confidence in the ability of Obama and the democrats to deal with the number one issue: the economy.


The liberals on this blog CONFIRM ALL OF THIS.


.

Posted by: MyHairLooksFantastic | November 2, 2010 1:23 PM | Report abuse

Comments removed...5.

Man, someone drank WAY too much coffee this morning.

Slow down there hero.

Posted by: mikefromArlington | November 2, 2010 1:26 PM | Report abuse

Comments removed...5.

Man, someone drank WAY too much coffee this morning.

Slow down there hero.

Posted by: mikefromArlington | November 2, 2010 1:28 PM | Report abuse

Ready the veto pen.

"Hey, Boehner . . . not just 'no' but 'hell no.'"

If the Republicans think the American people are voting for them out of love of the Republican Party or their policies, they are delusional.

The Republicans will not meet Obama in the center, and if Obama frames the next two years as an effort to achieve Glorious Bipartisanship, the Republicans will just use the absence of bipartisanship as proof that the failure belongs to Obama.

Make John Boehner the face of the Republican Party for the next two years. Boehner, Boehner and more Boehner.

Posted by: bearclaw1 | November 2, 2010 1:30 PM | Report abuse

From a discussion from yesterday - in 1994 the pundits did get it wrong directly before the election.

However, over the summer the Republicans were projected to have big gains.

Then Clinton was projected as coming back, and the democratic spin machine went out. However, the election actually proved that the predictions from the summer were correct - the "come back" of Clinton never really materialized.


Important to note - Clinton made a gesture toward the moderates by agreeing to drop the health care plan in August.

So by the time the fall came, Clinton's democrats were not running with the health care weighing them down. Obama and the crew today have the perception of arrogance of pushing through a plan no one wanted.

Posted by: MyHairLooksFantastic | November 2, 2010 1:38 PM | Report abuse

@bearclaw: "If the Republicans think the American people are voting for them out of love of the Republican Party or their policies, they are delusional."

Meh. They're all right. It's not love, exactly . . .

"Make John Boehner the face of the Republican Party for the next two years. Boehner, Boehner and more Boehner."

That might work. Republicans will make the Veto Pen the face of the Democrats, I'm betting.

Posted by: Kevin_Willis | November 2, 2010 1:38 PM | Report abuse

Mike

There is actually a surgery available that will enable you to permanently close your mind.


.

Posted by: MyHairLooksFantastic | November 2, 2010 1:43 PM | Report abuse

SPEAKER OF THE HOUSE Boehner to you!!!

Also, I heard that Obama is planning to address the election results tomorrow at 1:00 pm. The transcript above says that was Bill Clinton's 78th press conference. How many press conferences has Obama done as of this point?

Posted by: JakeD2 | November 2, 2010 1:47 PM | Report abuse

"SPEAKER OF THE HOUSE Boehner to you!!!"

Agent Orange to me. But, don't worry, I'll be sure to show AO the same respect you afforded Nancy Pelosi.

Posted by: wbgonne | November 2, 2010 1:49 PM | Report abuse

Bill Clinton is far more narcissistic than Barak Obama. Too much work to make the point in detail, but in general narcissists get discouraged when they are not being attended to by others. Convinced of their special gifts and their individual exceptionalism, there is no such things as too much exposure.

Posted by: shrink2 | November 2, 2010 1:53 PM | Report abuse

Obama won't react like Clinton because he isn't an executive nor is he as intelligent.

Clinton was one of our best Presidents in recent history. Obama is in no way qualified for the position. And, it shows.

Posted by: illogicbuster | November 2, 2010 1:54 PM | Report abuse

It smells much better in here without all those extraneous hair products.

Posted by: suekzoo1 | November 2, 2010 2:01 PM | Report abuse

The Tea Party will not allow Boehner and McConnell to work with President Obama, so that leaves the huge moderate middle available to Democrats. They better woo the hell out of it, because when Republicans win one third of centrists, they win elections.

Obama should find out what will appeal to almost all moderates, and pursue only those objectives.

"Politics is the art of the possible". JFK

Obama has to capture almost all moderate voters in 2012, in order to be reelected. His opponent will only have to capture one third of those swing voters.

Truth may be a bitter pill to swallow, but it still remains The Truth.

There are almost no additional votes for President Obama to find, by moving further to his left, but there are an awful lot of centrist votes to be lost, by doing so.

I am a life long liberal, but I am also realist.

If Liberals were anywhere as large in numbers, as Conservatives and right of center moderates are, all the progressive legislation, that we would like to see enacted, would have been easy to pass, and would already have been passed, years ago.

I support full equal rights for gay people, including the right to marry, but almost every time it gets put on state referendums, it gets defeated; often by wide margins. In Russ Feingold's Wisconsin; 70% voted against legalizing gay marriages.

Where are all those Liberal numbers, that some liberals keep claiming to have. They just aren't there. We are 20% of the voters, at best, and that will not get anything passed, so we must hitch our wagon to the moderates, who outnumber us two to one, and we will have a chance to stay in power, and keep the perfect from being the enemy of what is possible and must be accepted.

Posted by: Liam-still | November 2, 2010 2:01 PM | Report abuse

wbgonne:

I referred to her as Speaker Pelosi.

shrink2:

You think that 78 press conferences in less than two (2) years is "narcissistic"? I thought you didn't diagnose on-line? Besides, those like "illogicbuster" think that Bill Clinton was one of our best Presidents in recent history.

Posted by: JakeD2 | November 2, 2010 2:03 PM | Report abuse

GREG.....GREG.....GREG....GREG....GREG

THIS IS THIS IDIOT'S FIFTH SOCK PUPPET IN AS MANY DAYS. EITHER FIX THIS PROBLEM OR I'M OUTTA HERE. I'M NOT A TECHIE LIKE MIKE AND KEVIN!!!! HAVE YOUR TECHIES CONSULT THEM AND INCORPORATE THEIR TROLL WACKER SOFTWARE SOLUTIONS OR ELSE....IT'S GETTING DISGUSTING!

Posted by: rukidding7 | November 2, 2010 2:04 PM | Report abuse

I'm not sure why so many are pointing to the veto pen - the Dems will control the Senate so no need veto anything.

This article points out a lot of potential areas of compromise and bipartisanship:

http://www.boston.com/news/politics/articles/2010/11/02/results_may_shrink_presidents_agenda/?page=2

If not in lame duck then the parties will *have* to cooperate on tax relief.

"The growing budget deficit may be the biggest issue the two parties can agree on... A bipartisan commission appointed by Obama is set to make recommendations next month on how to reduce the deficit.

"... On the war in Afghanistan, for example, Obama could get significant Republican support if he decides to maintain large numbers of troops there.

"There are also a series of pending trade agreements — one with South Korea and another with Colombia — that have the support of both the White House and the GOP.

"... Republicans might support a smaller-scale package of investments in public infrastructure along the lines of what the White House has proposed.

"... Another area for compromise may be on improving the country’s education system. Boehner worked closely with the late Senator Edward M. Kennedy in passing the No Child Left Behind Act in 2001... Obama last month also said he wanted to push for more charter schools, longer school years, training 10,000 more math and science teachers, and increasing pay for teachers.

"Boehner... has said he agrees with most of the president’s plans for education."

Posted by: sbj3 | November 2, 2010 2:07 PM | Report abuse

@bearclaw: "If the Republicans think the American people are voting for them out of love of the Republican Party or their policies, they are delusional."

So true.

REGISTERED VOTERS still favor the Dems handily.

Last I checked, REGISTERED VOTERS are still Americans.

Posted by: Ethan2010 | November 2, 2010 2:09 PM | Report abuse

U.S. to spend $200 mn a day on Obama's Mumbai visit

http://www.ndtv.com/article/india/us-to-spend-200-mn-a-day-on-obama-s-mumbai-visit-64106

I think it's time to de-fund the Executive branch.

Posted by: JakeD2 | November 2, 2010 2:09 PM | Report abuse

He will react with aplomb and pragmatism. I can say that because the words are too big for tea partiers and they will think I am agreeing with them.

Posted by: Capn0ok | November 2, 2010 2:09 PM | Report abuse

The good news and the bad news--

The good news--Troll Hunter has been installed 168 times.

The bad news--Troll Hunter had to be installed 168 times.
----------------------------
Have to go vote now.

Posted by: 12BarBlues | November 2, 2010 2:10 PM | Report abuse

"I am a life long liberal"

Methinks thou doth protest too much.

Posted by: wbgonne | November 2, 2010 2:11 PM | Report abuse

Ethan2010 said: "Last I checked, REGISTERED VOTERS are still Americans."
----------------------------------------
Really? If that is the case, Dems will pick up seats today. Otherwise, you are delusional.

Posted by: illogicbuster | November 2, 2010 2:13 PM | Report abuse

Liam,

I don't disagree about pursuing moderate objectives, but how do you propose that Obama attempt that if the House will say "hell no" to everything, and even the Senate lacks enough votes to move anything moderate?

Posted by: bearclaw1 | November 2, 2010 2:13 PM | Report abuse

Greg


rukidding7 at 2:04 should be banned for Capital letters.

It is a rule, you know.

Posted by: MyHairLooksFantastic | November 2, 2010 2:14 PM | Report abuse

Liam is advocating that Obama and the Dems move even further right even though tacking Right as they have done for 2 years will likely prove disastrous today. What is that thing about insanity and doing the same thing over and over?

Posted by: wbgonne | November 2, 2010 2:14 PM | Report abuse

rukidding7:

Don't let the door hit you on the way out.

For the rest of us who need to decide want government spending to cut:

DO WE NEED TO WASTE OVER $2 BILLION TO RUN WHITE HOUSE?

http://whitehousetransitionproject.org/resources/briefing/Patterson-Cost%20of%20WH.pdf

P.S. to everyone who still gets a paycheck and wants to join Santelli's "Chicago Tea Party" -- print out a new W-4 form and max out your allowances to 9 -- that will send a HUGE message to Obama and the Dems:

http://www.irs.gov/pub/irs-pdf/fw4.pdf

Posted by: JakeD2 | November 2, 2010 2:15 PM | Report abuse

Maybe Obama should shut up for the next two years and just do whatever Joe Lieberman wants. Because, you know, without the Republicrats the Democrats are doomed. Please ignore today's election results if they suggest otherwise.

Posted by: wbgonne | November 2, 2010 2:19 PM | Report abuse

@ruk: "I'M NOT A TECHIE LIKE MIKE AND KEVIN!!!!"

It's not a matter of being a techie. It's very easy, and the Troll Hunter even puts the name of the commenter above the comment, just like you always said you wanted.

Using Firefox? Go here:

https://addons.mozilla.org/firefox/addon/748

Press the "Add to Firefox" button to install.

Then go here:

http://userscripts.org/scripts/show/89140

And press the button to install. It's not complicated or technical, and no more complicated that signing in and posting to the Plum-line.

For Chrome, it's just the one "Install" button at userscripts. Go back periodically and hit the install button (at userscripts) again for any new sock puppets, which I will add as soon as I see them.

There is as easy a solution as you are likely to get right in front of you, dude. But you're stubborn, so I'm guessing you haven't even tried it yet. ;)

Don't have to be a techie to hit an install button. ;)

Posted by: Kevin_Willis | November 2, 2010 2:22 PM | Report abuse

What a good idea--just jack up your deductions to the max, then at the end of the year, calculate your taxes due, and then what? Send in another form that says you refuse to pay your taxes? Jake, do you have the form for that?

Wait--don't feel that you have to answer that question. What a dork--a lawyer telling people not to pay their taxes.

Folks, people who follow the advice of internet "lawyers" to not pay their taxes, end up paying their taxes anyway, after paying a lot of legal fees. Think about that!

Posted by: 12BarBlues | November 2, 2010 2:22 PM | Report abuse

@illogic-buster: "Ethan2010 said: 'Last I checked, REGISTERED VOTERS are still Americans.'
----------------------------------------
Really? If that is the case, Dems will pick up seats today. Otherwise, you are delusional."

***

Are you saying that registered voters *aren't* Americans?

:P

Posted by: Kevin_Willis | November 2, 2010 2:24 PM | Report abuse

If Obama turns into Clinton Triangulation Redux the Dems are toast. Stand and fight for Liberalism and Government. Government is how civilized people come together to solve their common problems. The GOP is wrong. Conservatives are wrong. The American people know it. The Dems aren't providing a coherent alternative because they're too busy trying to pretend they're Republicans. That is a LOSING strategy. Just how much evidence do the Democrats need?

Posted by: wbgonne | November 2, 2010 2:25 PM | Report abuse

That's pretty slick how the names show up on top.

I can whack-a-troll much quicker now.

Posted by: mikefromArlington | November 2, 2010 2:26 PM | Report abuse

Kevin_Willis:

So, now you ADMIT that "Troll Hunter" was not aimed at 12BarBlues?!

Posted by: JakeD2 | November 2, 2010 2:29 PM | Report abuse

ruk

Please follow Kevin's advice, I'm not a techie either, and it was sooooooo easy and it's so much less frustrating to follow the conversation and not get distracted by all the nonsense posts of SavetheFantasticHair guy.

BTW, I'm back from voting and had to wait in line for about 10 minutes for a booth to open, then made 3 trips back and forth with seniors voting. I don't ask party affiliation or discuss politics with them, but judging by the conversations in the back seat, it was a mixed bag.

Posted by: lmsinca | November 2, 2010 2:30 PM | Report abuse

"the Dems will control the Senate so no need veto anything"

Posted by: sbj3
+++++++++++++++

"Control of the Senate" may belong to Joe Lieberman and/or Ben Nelson, depending on the issue. "The Dems" have demonstrated that they can't "control" the Senate even when they have 60 votes.

Posted by: bearclaw1 | November 2, 2010 2:30 PM | Report abuse

@RUK: You know, it took me almost eight hours this weekend to write the bit that puts the posters name over the comment, instead of under it. And I did that specifically with you in mind. "Well, Ruk will love this," I thought to myself.

Little did I know you were a little whiny-baby and couldn't be bothered to click two-or-three times for blissfull Troll freedom. :P

Man-up, Ruk. Do your duty. If you served your country in Vietnam, you can install one extension and a user script, or Chrome and a user script. I've done both. Chrome is done in under ten minutes, Greasemonkey takes 20 seconds or so (depending on the internet connection, and the WaPo Troll Hunter is instantaneous.

The Good Lord helps those helps those that help themselves. That's Benjamin Franklin, Ruk. From Poor Richard's Almanac. I think. Anyway, the point is, are you going to disgrace the memory of our fattest and baldest and randiest founding father? On election day?

And here I thought you were a true American.

Dude. It'll take 5 minutes even if you have no idea what you're doing. Just try.

:)

Posted by: Kevin_Willis | November 2, 2010 2:31 PM | Report abuse

@JakeD2: "So, now you ADMIT that 'Troll Hunter' was not aimed at 12BarBlues?!"

Hey, if you aren't going to try and call out SaveTheHairForest's performance art schtick, you've got nothing to say to me about mine. ;)

It's available to him, and he's perfectly capable (I have no doubt) of editing it to protect him from 12Bar's harassment. If he chooses not to, he has no one to blame but himself. But it's entirely open, and anybody can use it anyway they want to. Including just to display comment names a little bolder over the comments instead of under them.

Posted by: Kevin_Willis | November 2, 2010 2:35 PM | Report abuse

"that will send a HUGE message to Obama and the Dems:"

Jake, what message, that you're going to have a huge unpaid tax bill on April 15, 2011? Yep that's really playing the system alright.

Posted by: lmsinca | November 2, 2010 2:35 PM | Report abuse

"I support full equal rights for gay people, including the right to marry, but almost every time it gets put on state referendums, it gets defeated; often by wide margins. In Russ Feingold's Wisconsin; 70% voted against legalizing gay marriages."

I think the solution to the problem isn't changing voters minds, but eliminating state support. Why even have the government involved at all? The state shouldn't have a say in who I make a life with. And it certainly shouldn't promote/encourage what it deems to be favored relationship or children through the tax code.

Posted by: NoVAHockey | November 2, 2010 2:36 PM | Report abuse

"Man-up, Ruk."

Kevin dreams of hearing those words spoken by President Palin. I'm sure Putin will quiver.

Posted by: wbgonne | November 2, 2010 2:38 PM | Report abuse

12Bar:

"The good news and the bad news--"

I find it kind of remarkable that, even after disappearing his posts, you (and not just you, but many people) still find it seeingly impossible to simply ignore him, and you choose instead to continue to make him the object of attention. It's a very strange phenomenon, and I suspect a psychologist could have a field day here on this board.

Posted by: ScottC3 | November 2, 2010 2:38 PM | Report abuse

@lms,

Why is a lawyer on this blog, so he says anyway, giving tax advice to any and all to avoid having enough withholding?

Is he then going to represent the gullible who might think that is a legitimate political protest, since it is coming from a right wing lawyer?

At the end of the year, when the gullible owe taxes, what are they going to do? Send a letter to the White House that they protest now much money the White House spends? Sure, we ALL know how well the IRS will respond to that. At least, they'll know where to find you from your return address.

No responsible lawyer, practicing or not, would give intentionally deceptive advice to the gullible.

Posted by: 12BarBlues | November 2, 2010 2:41 PM | Report abuse

I suspect a psychologist could have a field day here on this board.
----------------------------------
@scott,

Go for it. You can be the blog's psychologist. No one else is vying for the spot.

Posted by: 12BarBlues | November 2, 2010 2:46 PM | Report abuse

12Bar

Yeah the IRS is so forgiving. I overpaid our estimated taxes for 09 and applied the amount to 10's estimated rather than take the refund. However, since I paid late one time, or so they said, they took almost $180 bucks out of my "refund" which they kept anyway, LOL.

Posted by: lmsinca | November 2, 2010 2:48 PM | Report abuse

12Bar

Come to think of it Jake's little tax scheme reminds me of Glenn Beck begging for people to donate to the Chamber of Commerce, puhleeze.

Posted by: lmsinca | November 2, 2010 2:52 PM | Report abuse

Liam,

I don't disagree about pursuing moderate objectives, but how do you propose that Obama attempt that if the House will say "hell no" to everything, and even the Senate lacks enough votes to move anything moderate?

Posted by: bearclaw1 | November 2, 2010 2:13 PM

................

You both asked and answered the question. I said in my comment that The Tea Party will not allow Republicans to work with Obama on anything worthwhile, so Obama should ardently woo the moderate centrists voters who want to get things solved. Every time Boehner says no to some proposals that moderates overwhelmingly favor, then The White House needs to use The Bully Pulpit(When was the last time you even heard that mentioned) to frame the debate, and capture news cycles.

President Obama needs to go into campaign fighting mood, starting tomorrow. He needs to hit the trails, and show up all over the country, where ever swing districts are to be found. He is not going to get any legislation passed, if Republicans take the house, so he might as well force them to say no to everything that moderates will support, and keep taking those issues to the voters, in person. He should talk to all the local TV outlets, everywhere he travels, and beat up on Boehner, and McConnell. All he has to do is keep reminding people of their long history of passing spending bills without revenue offsets, and their long sordid history of being in bed with almost every lobbyist in the K Street Brothel.

He better go on the attack, or keep taking a beating. I can not believe that they ran this campaign the same way as the conducted the Virginia, New Jersey and Mass. losing campaigns. It appears that they did not learn a damn thing from those early defeats, and kept on doing the same thing, hoping for different results.

Regardless of how The Tea Party and Rove/Chamber Of Con Artists conducted theirselves; The DNC was missing in action. I sure wish I had not wasted all my money, putting Tim Kaine's picture on Milk Cartons. He has to go. Compared to his performance, Michael Steele looks like a miracle worker. Clean house, and bring in some people who know how to play hardball, and focus like a laser on taking it to the Republicans.

Posted by: Liam-still | November 2, 2010 2:54 PM | Report abuse

12Bar:

"You can be the blog's psychologist."

No, I would first have to be a psychologist before becoming this blog's psychologist. And that ain't happenin. Hence the word "suspect" in my last.

Posted by: ScottC3 | November 2, 2010 2:54 PM | Report abuse

Posted by: Liam-still | November 2, 2010 2:54 PM | Report abuse

Finally we agree. And I've said about all i have to say.

O&O.

Posted by: wbgonne | November 2, 2010 2:57 PM | Report abuse

"Control of the Senate" may belong to Joe Lieberman and/or Ben Nelson, depending on the issue. "The Dems" have demonstrated that they can't "control" the Senate even when they have 60 votes.

Posted by: bearclaw1 | November 2, 2010 2:30 PM
............

Then they better learn how to use the Filibuster and require 60 votes from the Republican side, just like they did to Democrats.

By the way: I think President Obama is dead wrong in calling for an end to the 60 votes required, filibuster, even if Democrats become the minority party. What the hell is he thinking? He would make it easier for Republicans to overturn what he had to get sixty votes to pass. That is crazy talk. Besides; he is not a member of the legislative branch, so he should stop trying to set their rules.

Posted by: Liam-still | November 2, 2010 3:03 PM | Report abuse

How will Obama react to GOP gains?

"And if Latinos sit out the election instead of saying, we're gonna punish our enemies and we're gonna reward our friends who stand with us on issues that are important to us, if they don't see that kind of upsurge in voting in this election, then I think it's gonna be harder - and that's why I think it's so important that people focus on voting on November 2,"

We're gonna punish our enemies.

Posted by: alance | November 2, 2010 3:10 PM | Report abuse

What will Obama do?

Spend $200 million per day of the taxpayer's money on his trip to India.

Posted by: thinker16 | November 2, 2010 3:11 PM | Report abuse

I don't know what the big deal is if Republicans take the House. For the next two years they will have to explain what policies they are for and not just what they are against. With Democrat control of the White House and a veto proof Senate their legislative agenda is not going to pass either. And in 2012 Obama will run against them not a government dominated by Democrats.

Posted by: sr31 | November 2, 2010 3:13 PM | Report abuse

How will Obama react? I expect him to pout like some kid who just had his game taken away from him for not listening to his parents.

Posted by: ahashburn | November 2, 2010 3:21 PM | Report abuse

did you ever write a column predicting how bush would react to anything? no, didn't think so.
wait til all the votes have been counted before you and the rest of the bagging racist have your celebration. let the sane people speak.

Posted by: ninnafaye | November 2, 2010 3:30 PM | Report abuse

Democrats/Progressives have proven time and time again to be Socialists in lamb clothing. We must never ever forget!

Posted by: richard36 | November 2, 2010 3:40 PM | Report abuse

Obama will react the way he reacts to every other challenge thrown at him: By blowing away the competition.

This is a guy that was supposed to be totally and utterly destroyed after the Reverend Wright thing came out. Then after Sarah Palin was nominated. Then after everyone discovered there was a place in America called Appalachia. Then once HCR stalled in the Senate. Then because of the Christmas Day bomber. Then because Scott Brown won. Then once HCR passed the Senate. Then over Financial Regulation. Then because of the BP oil spill.

If the Republicans work with him, then they'll have a productive coupla years in the Congress. If not, they'll be looking for work in 2012.

Posted by: klautsack | November 2, 2010 3:41 PM | Report abuse

Democrats/Progressives have proven time and time again to be Socialists in lamb clothing. We must never ever forget!

Posted by: richard36 | November 2, 2010 3:45 PM | Report abuse

It's fascinating the way Greg studiously (and disingenuously) avoids describing Obama as a liberal or a progressive, instead stating that the President has "presented himself as transcending the old ideological categories, rather than adapting within them." That progressive label is poisonous, isn't it Greg?

Posted by: prosecutor1 | November 2, 2010 4:04 PM | Report abuse

klautsack wrote:

"This is a guy that was supposed to be totally and utterly destroyed after the Reverend Wright thing came out. Then after Sarah Palin was nominated. Then after everyone discovered there was a place in America called Appalachia. Then once HCR stalled in the Senate. Then because of the Christmas Day bomber. Then because Scott Brown won. Then once HCR passed the Senate. Then over Financial Regulation. Then because of the BP oil spill."

You're re-writing history. The Democratic nominee led wire to wire. No one ever wrote Obama off at any time. Once Clinton committed suicide, the Presidency was his in a walk.

What the????? Appalachia?

If HCR hadn't passed, Obama would be in a MUCH better position today. See my post on Greg's health care thread, where I proved that it was not even in the running among Americans greatest concerns in 2008.

Posted by: 54465446 | November 2, 2010 4:14 PM | Report abuse

Citizen 54465446-

I think the Dems were going to lose big this election either way. Having passed HCR at this point is better for the Dems and the country. There's no way anything remotely similar will pass in the forseeable future. The individual mandate may well go down thanks to our partisan Supreme Court, but then it'll be partly up to the Republican-led Congress to figure out how to reign in HealthCare costs. They don't exactly have a great track record on this.

Every single stone turned over by either Clinton or McCain was used as absolute proof that Obama could never, ever win in a general election. From Reverend Wright (add William Ayers to that) to the "discovery" that people in Appalachia weren't likely to vote for Obama - for undisclosed reasons, of course. To the "bitter" controversy. To the "lipstick on a pig" incident. People have underestimated this guy since 2007 when he was shown to be 30 points down to Clinton in the primary.

Honestly, I think a better question is how the Republicans will react. Endless inquiries into Obama's true identity? Show trials of climate scientists? De-regulating the financial industry? A push to return to the gold standard? Dismantling Social Security and Medicare? Dog catches car.

Posted by: klautsack | November 2, 2010 4:35 PM | Report abuse

I’m back. First returns start coming in at 7:00 pm. I can't wait!!!

P.S. to lmsinca:

I did donate to the U.S. Chamber of Commerce, but that's besides the point. Maybe a forced "tax holiday" -- penalty or not -- is just exactly what Obama and the Dems need to deal with right now (unless you think he's going to accept full responsibility tomorrow)?

Posted by: JakeD2 | November 2, 2010 4:35 PM | Report abuse

First thing we do in the Senate is get rid of the filibuster!

Posted by: JakeD2 | November 2, 2010 4:47 PM | Report abuse

Barrack Obama is no Bill Clinton. Clinton, while flawed, understood and loved his countrymen. He was a centrist at heart and only got into political hot water when his leftist wife tried to pass her version of Obamacare. Clinton was not interested in "redistributive justice". He was interested in growing the economy. This dichotomy in the Democratic Party is still with us and you can be sure that the centrists will try to reclaim the Democratic Party from the leftist clique that has brought it to the brink of ruin after the mid term carnage has ended.

Posted by: jkk1943 | November 2, 2010 4:50 PM | Report abuse

If his past is any indication Obama will take it poorly. His personality won't accept that voters don't like him or want his failed agenda. His egotistical personality dooms him to repeat his failures. Two years down, two to go.

Posted by: Desertdiva1 | November 2, 2010 5:01 PM | Report abuse

Talk about Obama. I just read this story: "The US would be spending a whopping $200 million (Rs. 900 crore approx) per day on President Barack Obama's visit to Mumbia.

"The huge amount of around $200 million would be spent on security, stay and other aspects of the Presidential visit," a top official of the Maharashtra Government privy to the arrangements for the high-profile visit said.

"About 3,000 people including Secret Service agents, US government officials and journalists would accompany the President. Several officials from the White House and US security agencies are already here for the past one week with helicopters, a ship and high-end security instruments.

"Except for personnel providing immediate security to the President, the US officials may not be allowed to carry weapons. The state police is competent to take care of the security measures and they would be piloting the Presidential convoy," the official said on condition of anonymity.

"Navy and Air Force has been asked by the state government to intensify patrolling along the Mumbai coastline and its airspace during Obama's stay. The city's airspace will be closed half-an-hour before the President's arrival for all aircraft barring those carrying the US delegation.

"The personnel from SRPF, Force One, besides the NSG contingent stationed here would be roped in for the President's security, the official said.

"The area from Hotel Taj, where Obama and his wife Michelle would stay, to Shikra helipad in Colaba would be cordoned off completely during the movement of the President."

Why does Obama need to go there in the first place with our county in bad financial condition.

Posted by: tonyjm | November 2, 2010 5:01 PM | Report abuse

See www.drudgereport.com and tweet the story nationwide that Obama will spend $200 million a day and take 3,000 people on his Mumbawi trip. This guy has got to go, spending that kind of money when people can't keep houses and jobs are desperately needed, what is he thinking? Someone should put a halt to his free-wheeling spending.

Posted by: kat17 | November 2, 2010 5:04 PM | Report abuse

Obama should get out the veto pen. The first thing he should use it on is any attempt to extend the Bush tax cuts for the wealthy. He should also veto any bills larded with "earmarks" and any excessive spending and certainly any new tax cuts not targeted at stimulating the economy efficiently and not of limited duration.

Posted by: BTinSF | November 2, 2010 5:05 PM | Report abuse

BTinSF:

Assuming that he is even legally President, Obama sure is going to be busy with that veto pen. What if the GOP send one bill with BOTH the tax cuts for the "rich" and the rest of us? Should he veto that too? Wouldn't THAT send the message to voters that it is OBAMA who can't play nice?

Posted by: JakeD2 | November 2, 2010 5:18 PM | Report abuse

Desertdiva, tonyjm, kat17:

DO WE REALLY NEED TO WASTE OVER $2 BILLION per year TO RUN THE WHITE HOUSE?

http://whitehousetransitionproject.org/resources/briefing/Patterson-Cost%20of%20WH.pdf

P.S. to everyone who still gets a paycheck and wants to join Santelli's "Chicago Tea Party" -- print out a new W-4 form and max out your allowances to 9 -- that will send a HUGE message to Obama and the Dems:

http://www.irs.gov/pub/irs-pdf/fw4.pdf

Posted by: JakeD2 | November 2, 2010 5:22 PM | Report abuse

Obama should be quite brief: "Ok, you won. Elections have consequences and winning elections have conse4quences. You promised an agenda to produce jobs and improve the economy. Send me bills that will do that and I will sign them. You promised to reduce the deficit. Send me bills that do that and I will at least let them become law. "

"Send me bills that increase the deficit, especially tax cuts for the wealthy and I will send them back to you with my objections. Because I intend to hold you to your promises to reduce the deficit, and tax cuts definitely increase the deficit. We can work together, but not on cutting Socual Security, or running deliberate deficits for the purpose of running deficits so you can complain that Government is expensive. "

Elections have consequences. You now have the leadership in the House, demonstrate that you know how to lead. Start by sending me a budget on time. "

"But I won an election too, and I made promises that I intend to try to keep. If I have to go back to the American People and admit that I couldn't keep my promises because the Republican Party wouldn't let me, I will. You have two years. You said you can produce jobs. Produce jobs. Save the party posturing for after you have produced jobs. "

"The Nations Infrastructure is still in extreme disrepair. We tried to get to work repairing and rebuilding that infrastructure. You now hold the reins to that rebuild. Will you send the rebuild galloping on its way, or will you rein it and try to walk along, or just stand and watch others go by? Something needs to be done, and you are in the position to do it. "

"I listened to you for the last two years, and will listen for the next two. Come to me with bipartisan programs, I will welcome them. "

"You now have your chance, let's see what you do with it."

Posted by: ceflynline | November 2, 2010 5:32 PM | Report abuse

cflynline: ditto

Posted by: JoeT1 | November 2, 2010 5:49 PM | Report abuse

klautsack:

Ok, now I get the Appalachia comment. Thanks for the explanation.

R's won't have control of the Senate, so I think that it will be gridlock for 2 years. In the meantime, inflation proof your life because it will hit big time with any economic recovery at all.

Posted by: 54465446 | November 2, 2010 6:40 PM | Report abuse

"How Will Obama React to GOP Gains?" Its obvious--with his usual, unabating Arrogance. He cannot tolerate believing that he made any real mistakes in life...that his ideological knee-jerk method of "transforming America" left out ONE VITAL INGREDIENT--viz. CARING what voters (a.k.a. The American People) desire and wish for. Honoring their opinions rather than arrogantly and condescendingly delivering speech after speech telling them that "they just don't understand." My hope is that his figures will go down to single digits...even decimals would be great for the nation. This man was TOTALLY unqualified to enter the White House and his REAL war has Consistently been with the American People. He has had virtually no respect for the Will of the people or their wisdom. The sooner he is removed, the better. This is the first President who has an almost palpable hostility towards his own nation and his own people.

Posted by: marat1 | November 2, 2010 6:42 PM | Report abuse

I'm afraid Mr. Obama just isn't as big a man as Mr. Clinton was.

That's just something we are going to have to live with for the next two years.

Shame, really

.
.

Posted by: ZZim | November 2, 2010 7:08 PM | Report abuse

Battle lines being Drawn

Obama in the Bunker

“"We're gonna punish our enemies and we're gonna reward our friends who stand with us on issues that are important to us."

Obama on Univsion.

“Recently, Obama suggested that if Republicans gain control of the House and/or Senate as forecast, he expects not reconciliation and unity but "hand-to-hand combat" on Capitol Hill.”

Caddell/Schoen Op ed 10-30-2010 wash po

The REAL warning is NOT the Obama quotes. Every President has said similar things in PRIVATE. The real problem is Obama is now saying thises things in PUBLIC- Obama's self monitoring system is now short circuited by his delusions and psychosis and no one in the White House has the gravitas or courage to save obama form his own delusions.

Watch for 3 serious progressions:

1. Obama will shun advisors who knew him before he became the chosen one as they remind him of his own fallibility.

2. Obama will retreat into his own Delusional Bunker. This is a real danger since it is so easy for a President with the buffers of office and Obama’s narcissistic pathology.

3. Obama will say increasingly bizarre and divisive public comments.

Watch. Listen.

Posted by: ProCounsel | November 2, 2010 7:24 PM | Report abuse

Battle lines being Drawn

Obama in the Bunker

“"We're gonna punish our enemies and we're gonna reward our friends who stand with us on issues that are important to us."

Obama on Univsion.

“Recently, Obama suggested that if Republicans gain control of the House and/or Senate as forecast, he expects not reconciliation and unity but "hand-to-hand combat" on Capitol Hill.”

Caddell/Schoen Op ed 10-30-2010 wash po

The REAL warning is NOT the Obama quotes. Every President has said similar things in PRIVATE. The real problem is Obama is now saying thises things in PUBLIC- Obama's self monitoring system is now short circuited by his delusions and psychosis and no one in the White House has the gravitas or courage to save obama form his own delusions.

Watch for 3 serious progressions:

1. Obama will shun advisors who knew him before he became the chosen one as they remind him of his own fallibility.

2. Obama will retreat into his own Delusional Bunker. This is a real danger since it is so easy for a President with the buffers of office and Obama’s narcissistic pathology.

3. Obama will say increasingly bizarre and divisive public comments.

Watch. Listen.

Posted by: ProCounsel | November 2, 2010 7:25 PM | Report abuse

Battle lines being Drawn

Obama in the Bunker

“"We're gonna punish our enemies and we're gonna reward our friends who stand with us on issues that are important to us."

Obama on Univsion.

“Recently, Obama suggested that if Republicans gain control of the House and/or Senate as forecast, he expects not reconciliation and unity but "hand-to-hand combat" on Capitol Hill.”

Caddell/Schoen Op ed 10-30-2010 wash po

The REAL warning is NOT the Obama quotes. Every President has said similar things in PRIVATE. The real problem is Obama is now saying thises things in PUBLIC- Obama's self monitoring system is now short circuited by his delusions and psychosis and no one in the White House has the gravitas or courage to save obama form his own delusions.

Watch for 3 serious progressions:

1. Obama will shun advisors who knew him before he became the chosen one as they remind him of his own fallibility.

2. Obama will retreat into his own Delusional Bunker. This is a real danger since it is so easy for a President with the buffers of office and Obama’s narcissistic pathology.

3. Obama will say increasingly bizarre and divisive public comments.

Watch. Listen.

Posted by: ProCounsel | November 2, 2010 7:26 PM | Report abuse

Really, who cares how Obama will react.

Hey, high hopes for the man and all that, but remember how much a bunch of suckers are the American voters. Once upon a time, change we could believe in. Now, let's get even with change we could believe in.

You're all a bunch of morons.

Posted by: eezmamata | November 2, 2010 9:23 PM | Report abuse

The jug eared chango will pith a big fit and then press on with his efforts to destroy America. The basic problem is, some voters sent obozo to change Washington, not to change America. He still hasn't learned that. He won't.

Posted by: carlbatey | November 2, 2010 9:26 PM | Report abuse

procounsel:

You usually predict this end of the world stuff on Milbank or Krauthammer. What bring you here my paranoid friend?

Posted by: 54465446 | November 2, 2010 10:45 PM | Report abuse

Obama should stand his ground. What has been absent in this election cycle is what has been accomplished during this last 22 months despite resistance from republicans and the Blue Dogs.
Obama needs to bring his agenda to the public as often and as aggressive every chance he gets, and discuss what he is trying to do and the obstacles that are occurring.
Trying to improve public opinion re: those who think he is the "other" is not going to accomplish anything.
He has attempted to transcend partisan politics but that takes cooperation and to expect him to do it on his own is highly unrealistic.

Posted by: Peacefulmusing | November 2, 2010 10:57 PM | Report abuse


Just as I predicted would happen, Kelly Ayotte won the New Hampshire Senate race and slaughtered leftist Dim Rep. Paul Hodes, 63% to 34%. Basically a two-to-one landslide over Hodes the leftist weasel who voted for Obamacare and cap & tax. Good riddance to weasel Hodes who ran as a moderate and governed as a lefist. Or should I say "Citizen Hodes".

In Florida, Marco Rubio beat ex-RINO Charlie Crist 50 to 29. Rasmussen was correct on this race, as always. Rasmussen called it 50 to 30.

Whatisname the Dim got 20 percent of the vote. Pathetic.

Posted by: screwjob22 | November 2, 2010 10:59 PM | Report abuse

How did Obama react when he could lead? By selling out to Baucus and the rest of the Senate thugs. So, who cares how he reacts now.

Posted by: rusty3 | November 2, 2010 11:44 PM | Report abuse

Mike from Arlington:

You are the Prime Example for the type of person who we should be able to vote not have any say in how our country is run and is the prime example for people who don't care about our Country in the first place and had nothing better to say than put your finger up. You are the trash that gives our Country a bad name and bad rep and that we are trying to get rid of!

Posted by: mjem1636 | November 3, 2010 12:20 AM | Report abuse

Post a Comment

We encourage users to analyze, comment on and even challenge washingtonpost.com's articles, blogs, reviews and multimedia features.

User reviews and comments that include profanity or personal attacks or other inappropriate comments or material will be removed from the site. Additionally, entries that are unsigned or contain "signatures" by someone other than the actual author will be removed. Finally, we will take steps to block users who violate any of our posting standards, terms of use or privacy policies or any other policies governing this site. Please review the full rules governing commentaries and discussions.




characters remaining

 
 
RSS Feed
Subscribe to The Post

© 2010 The Washington Post Company