How’s that hippie-punching working out?

"I got impeached and I'm still more popular than you"

The factious left dogs Obama

President Obama is learning the hard way that you can’t please all of your fans all of the time.

After riding a wave of liberal support into the White House three years ago, Obama has found that some of those same supporters are now among his most vocal critics.


Complicating life for Obama, GOP leaders – particularly those in the Senate – have adopted a strategy of opposing the White House even on some legislation Republicans support. Senate Minority Leader Mitch McConnell (R-Ky.), for instance, raised eyebrows at the start of the deficit-reduction debate when he helped kill a bipartisan bill – a proposal he’d previously characterized as the “best way to address the [budget] crisis” – after Obama endorsed it.

“The single most important thing we want to achieve is for President Obama to be a one-term president,” McConnell told National Journal last year.

The GOP’s rigidity has forced Obama to the right in order to pass anything through Congress, which in turn has only heightened the backlash from the left.


Still other observers maintain that, despite their grievances with some of Obama’s positions, liberals will come out for him at the polls when faced with the Republican alternative.

“I don’t think that Obama has fractured his base,” Henry Brady, political scientist at the University of California, Berkeley, said in an email.

“The truth is that its members have no place to go other than to him right now.”

Who says they have to go anywhere? Lots of them will just stay home.

Stop blaming the GOP for Obama’s “right turn.” He had supermajorities in both houses of Congress for two years. All we got out of that was a bad stimulus and a national version of Romneycare.

This entry was posted in Uncategorized. Bookmark the permalink.

29 Responses to How’s that hippie-punching working out?

  1. So this “political scientist” Brady- in his Ivory Tower- thinks Obama hasn’t fractured the base huh?
    Note to poli-sci guy- perhaps you are correct. But not in the way you think.
    The DNC and the Roolz Committee fractured the base. And
    All the king’s horses and the king’s men, can not put the party together again.

  2. DNC was bought by TPTB to install someone who would blow the D brand to bits. And the whole country in the process. remember when it was the common wisdom that Democrats always fix the economy? (that’s when we had Democrats)

  3. WMCB says:

    There are two kinds of spin for Obama in this article. There is the obvious one that you’ve touched on: you liberals have nowhere to go. Then there is the second one, which is reinforce that it’s the dirty (racist) R’s who made Obama be bad.

    Senate Minority Leader Mitch McConnell (R-Ky.), for instance, raised eyebrows at the start of the deficit-reduction debate when he helped kill a bipartisan bill – a proposal he’d previously characterized as the “best way to address the [budget] crisis” – after Obama endorsed it.
    “The single most important thing we want to achieve is for President Obama to be a one-term president,” McConnell told National Journal last year.

    Malarkey. a) the bill that was finally presented for vote bore little resemblance to the general ideas that McConnell had voiced “support” for, and b) the article just baldly assumes that the only possible reason for him killing that bill is to make Obama look bad. Obstructionism just for the (racist) hell of it. Which is bullshit.

    Whether you or I think it was a good bill or not is immaterial. The R’s wouldn’t pass it because THEIR BASE didn’t want them to, period. But the author can’t tell that particular truth, because then the article becomes a contrast in how the R’s treat their base vs. how Obama is treating his, now doesn’t it? Pointing that out might raise some uncomfortable questions and some curious “one of these things is not like the other” ideas within the article.

  4. DandyTiger says:

    How dare the Republican’s do what they do, supporting TBTB and their base at the same time, all the while showing Obama to be supporting TBTB and not the Dem base. That’s evil.

    • WMCB says:

      Obama has been supporting his base, actually. It’s just that the college kids think that they and their lunch money donations were his “base”. Nope. Obama is supporting who elected him (GE, Goldman Sachs, BOA, the larger unions, govt employees, wealthy “green” venture capitalists, etc) just fine.

      • Dario says:

        It’s not just the college kids who believed their money had elected Obama. I know of someone who gave money to Obama’s campaign. He told me that “they owned Obama”, not the lobbyists. No amount of evidence that the man was lying could convince him that he was wrong. I don’t talk to him about Obama, but I think he’s now into “the Republicans are worse” meme.

  5. Dario says:

    Obama’s problems are not just with the left. Obama’s main problem is that he’s a failure as president. He doesn’t please the left, the center or the right because he’s done a horrible job, none of his policies worked. We have a bad economy, a bad war in Afghanistan, and troops are still in Iraq. He’s foreign policies are a continuation of Bush’s policies.

    During the 2008 primary debates he explained that he didn’t do his job as senator because he was campaigning, and Hillary almost rolled her eyes, but that’s what’s happening now. We have an economic storm that may be equal to the financial crisis of 2008, and he’s busy campaigning telling us that he stopped our economy from a catastrophe, and how terrible the Republicans are.

    • WMCB says:

      Yup. He thinks that randomly selecting blue pieces and red pieces of policy and sticking them together in any old fashion is “sanely centrist”. Nope. It’s just stupid. And clueless. And unlike Clinton’s “triangulating”, it is done with no real understanding of how the pieces work, and when, where, and how to compromise to get a desired result. He is a failure because he has never understood anything about governing, only optics and speechifying. Red pieces, blue pieces.

      I call him the Tinkertoy President. And he gets all pissy when neither side is very impressed with his “child genius” creations.

      • Dario says:

        That’s an excellent analogy, Tinkertoy President. There’s no overall policy because the man doesn’t believe in anything.

        • WMCB says:

          He doesn’t believe in anything, and he also has no clue how govt works, especially the economy.

          This is, to me, the biggest contrast to Clinton. Bill had both solid belief in liberal principles AND an understanding of how the economy works, and what drives job creation and expansion.

          His liberal principles drove him to try to do the most good for the most people. His understanding of how the private sector drives the economy enabled him to not kill the goose laying the golden eggs in the process. His compromises were tactical, and a balance of opposing forces in the real world, not random bipartisan gestures .

          I don’t mean to keep lauding Bill constantly, but the contrast is just so stark. No, I didn’t agree with every single thing he ever did, and no, he didn’t get it all right on every occasion. But he did a damn fine job, overall, of balancing “help people” with “stoke the engines of capitalism and get ’em going, because that’s what’s going to pay for it all.”

  6. Dario says:

    Obama is looking for something that will stick. It was just a few weeks ago that the Obama campaign was channeling Truman with the “do nothing Republicans”. I guess that didn’t work, and now Obama is going to channel Dubya.

    The Caucus: Obama Campaign Borrows From Bush ‘04 Playbook

    WASHINGTON — The last time an incumbent president faced re-election, George W. Bush exploited social and national security issues to offset his economic vulnerabilities.
    Over the next year, President Obama will try the same thing.
    Circumstances have changed drastically since 2004. America’s economic woes stand to dominate the 2012 dialogue no matter what — probably to Mr. Obama’s detriment.

    • votermom says:

      Obama will run against Al Qaeda. Predator strikes every month.

      • Dario says:

        For voters, domestic, economic policy rules. Americans vote with their pocket. They don’t vote on foreign policy unless there’s perceived imminent danger, like it was back in 2004. In situations like that, Americans tend to stay with the known quantity, that’s why FDR had a fourth term. I don’t see Americans seeing imminent danger to stay with a bad president simply because he’s the devil we know.

  7. Mimi says:

    I studied poli sci a looong time ago. I remember this phenomena called a whipsaw election. When voters are disgusted, extremely pissed off, and loath an incumbent, they will vote for a simpleton or town drunk to get rid of the sitting object of their ire. In the next election the voters whip back and vote in a reasonable candidate IF the local predominate party takes the hint and runs one. I believe that this occurred in several districts in 2010 and will swing back in the future if Dems run candidates that people want instead of Obama tainted flunkies.

    Obama is looking at this right now (and will never admit to it or allow allusions to it in the press) and his advisers are aware of it unless they are truly as ill educated as they seem to be. 2008 could be argued to have been a whipsaw presidential election which the Democrats managed to F up. Voters can be very unreasonable and do not like being told they have no choice, are stupid, and will just have to put up with it. They don’t and will bite incumbents in the ass.

    • WMCB says:

      Or, if you want to get back to Obama’s famous “car stuck in the mud” analogy, where he opined that the best thing is to put it in D for drive rather than R for reverse……

      Nope. I lived in the country and drove on plenty of muddy dirt roads. The best thing to do in that scenario is to start rocking that car back and forth between R and D until the wheels catch.

      I’ve got a feeling that the people are going to keep throwing them out until someone starts listening. “Are you LISTENING to us, or to your respective machines?” has become an even more important determiner of electability than party label.

      • Mimi says:

        Republicans who believe that they were elected because everyone turned conservative overnight (think Weiner’s seat in NY) are idiots. Obama is now trying to become a populist because his advisers told him to do so per Daily Beast story then he tested out his new spiel on the press and they thought it was wonderful.

        And OT but wasn’t Rick Perry still a Democrat when his father leased the hunting land with the racist rock? He switched parties in 1989 or so and all this happened in early 1980’s. So he was a racist Democrat?

    • Dario says:

      Yup. The voters were very disgusted in 2008, and voted for the empty suit. But the Democrats believed they had reached the promised land of politics and would be in charge for decades.

    • ralphb says:

      I think you’re right and whip saw elections will keep happening until someone actually get it right and people regain some confidence.

  8. Jeffhas says:

    Did anyone else catch MTP this weekend (I know)?… Well, Poor Peggy Noonan (I know, again) – did have something valuable to all the protectors of our beloved President: “Leaders, Lead… They convince the other side of they’re ideas, or the other side fears them. Leaders LEAD”.

    So much for ‘The Republicans are Obstructionist’.

    • Dario says:

      Leaders are not made overnight. Leaders are for the most part born. Sometimes circumstances put a person who’s not a leader to the task, and they bring out their leadership. I don’t believe a person can be made into a great leader if he doesn’t have it, and Obama doesn’t have it. He was in politics a long time and he never excelled at anything.

Comments are closed.