Meta-Blog

SEARCH QandO

Email:
Jon Henke
Bruce "McQ" McQuain
Dale Franks
Bryan Pick
Billy Hollis
Lance Paddock
MichaelW

BLOGROLL QandO

 
 
Recent Posts
The Ayers Resurrection Tour
Special Friends Get Special Breaks
One Hour
The Hope and Change Express - stalled in the slow lane
Michael Steele New RNC Chairman
Things that make you go "hmmmm"...
Oh yeah, that "rule of law" thing ...
Putting Dollar Signs in Front Of The AGW Hoax
Moving toward a 60 vote majority?
Do As I Say ....
 
 
QandO Newsroom

Newsroom Home Page

US News

US National News
Politics
Business
Science
Technology
Health
Entertainment
Sports
Opinion/Editorial

International News

Top World New
Iraq News
Mideast Conflict

Blogging

Blogpulse Daily Highlights
Daypop Top 40 Links

Regional

Regional News

Publications

News Publications

 
Thoughts about the probability of an Obama future
Posted by: McQ on Sunday, October 12, 2008

What's the old saying - "it is better to have tried and failed than never to have tried at all". Except in politics, apparently:
The nation's economic crisis triggered Obama's sharp rise in what had been a tight race. But Obama hasn't tried to seize the kind of central, national leadership position for which Sen. John McCain grasped, and fell short. Nor has he been touting — Bill Clinton-style — a highly detailed plan for what he'll do the moment he takes office.

The result is that while virtually all observers agree that he has benefited from the crisis, his allies and critics alike remain a bit hazy on what exactly he would do if he takes office Jan. 20, 2009.

"He's certainly laid out all the right elements that are needed for an economic recovery, but nobody's sure at this point which ones will be at the very top of his priority list when he takes office," said Thea Lee, the chief economist for the AFL-CIO.

"To my knowledge, he's said absolutely nothing about what he would do," said Glenn Hubbard, a former chairman of President Bush's Council of Economic Advisers who is now the dean of Columbia Business School.
Now there are those who will argue," hey, he's not the guy behind in the race, so why should he expose himself to criticism of something which might be unpopular".

Well, yeah, I mean who ever would expect a president to make unpopular decisions. And it may also mean he just hasn't got a clue and sees no reason, at this point, to prove that.

Other than him being a very liberal Democrat, this is one of my major problems with Obama. And I won't belabor the point, but the guy has never, ever, in his entire life, made an important and/or controversial decision. In fact, for the most part, he's practiced avoiding them. That's because he's never done anything which required him to do so.

If you think about it, one of the reasons he's is still popular is he really has no record of accomplishment which can be examined and critiqued. And that which he has done, he or his supporters seem to go to great lengths to hide - or deny. I frankly have never seen a more ill-prepared candidate for the office of President of the United States in all my years - and that includes Jimmy Carter.

Essentially we have a state senator (who certainly didn't distinguish himself there) with 147 days experience in the US Senate getting ready to take the most powerful office in the world - and the left is worried about Sarah Palin's lack of experience.

To his credit, Barack Obama has deployed a tool used by many marginal politicians who haven't much to offer - he's thrown out nebulous terms, like "hope" and "change", and allowed voters to project on him what they want those two words to mean. And while that may be a very smart way to get elected, it is also a very good way to completely disappoint those who end up voting him into office.

One cannot be all things to all people, and when the ruse is finally discovered, payback is going to be a bear.

As I've been saying to others - and I believe this - I'm not so sure I'd want to win this election, regardless of which party I represented. I know that some will say, "well you're just saying that now because Obama may win.".

No. Not at all. I mean it quite sincerely. In the situation this economy and the world are going to be come January 20th, whoever takes the office of the presidency is going to be a 4 year president. I believe that because I believe the financial and economic side of this is going to last longer than 4 years (and depending on their actions during the next 4 years the government could make it an even longer event).

Of the two who are running, the guy with the highest level of voter expectation built upon his ascendancy into that office is Barack Obama. There's absolutely no argument about that. Are they probably unachievable expectatoins?

Absolutely.

But that doesn't matter one whit. They're expectations he and his campaign have very purposely built. If he doesn't deliver - and he won't, he can't - the disenchantment with him and the Democrats is going to be quite bitter.

How bitter? Prediction time - Republican Congress in 2010. Republican president in 2012. That bitter.

Of course in 2012 (again depending on the level of government intervention in the next 4 years) we ought to be beginning to pull out of this mess, for which a Republican Congress will take credit (none of which will be deserved, but this is politics and that's how it works) and the next president will receive credit for the then booming economy and be reelected handily in 2016.

That's the secenario, and it is built on a bit more than "wishful thinking". If I'm still around for the dates above, it will be interesting to revisit this and see how right - or wrong - I was.
 
TrackBacks
Return to Main Blog Page
 
 

Previous Comments to this Post 

Comments
If Obama wins and gets a filibuster proof majority in the Senate than I doubt we will recover at all.

The only thing stopping him would be the Supreme Court. With a filibuster proof majority in the Senate look for the dems to increase the number of Supreme court justices in the name of diversity (Art 3 of the Constitution states that the number of judges on the supreme court is determined by congress). With an increase of say 4 justices (for adequate diversity) the US will never recover from the Socialist policies that will be passed and approved by Congress and the courts.

 
Written By: retired military
URL: http://
great post, I agree 100%
If Obama wins and gets a filibuster proof majority in the Senate than I doubt we will recover at all
.

then that will lead to only one thing
 
Written By: capt joe
URL: http://
Also there is redistricting in 2010. That will surely go the dems way. And with the courts behind them nothing will stop them.

In addition, if you think ACORN is cheating now look at what will happen with the courts in their favor. Sorry any elections in 2010 and 2012 are mostly likely to be shams. As long as you can continue to give 50-60% the fruits of other folks labor without them working that hard then you will have things sewn up.



 
Written By: retired military
URL: http://
The next two years will be "team building" years for the RNC. As I blogged recently, the Republican party has been a stop-gap measure against complete ruin at least since I started voting. An Obama presidency would give us the chance to regroup.

And maybe the next time we take the power back, we’ll do some good with it.
 
Written By: Ronnie Gipper
URL: http://
But that doesn’t matter one whit. They’re expectations he and his campaign have very purposely built. If he doesn’t deliver - and he won’t, he can’t - the disenchantment with him and the Democrats is going to be quite bitter.

How bitter? Prediction time - Republican Congress in 2010. Republican president in 2012. That bitter
I’ll tell you right now, if we were in a room together, I’d laugh out loud when you said this.

You severely underestimate how little so many of his voters actually care about what he can deliver. You can see it now- the current Dem congress caved in to Bush on every single thing they so railed against when they were the minority, and it hasn’t cost them an iota of electoral support.

You know how they’ll skirt it for the next few years?

Show trials. A 3-ring circus of show trials.

They’ll find and destroy a host of boogeymen. The GOP and the Bushies will be first. Following that, eeeevil corporations such as big oil, big pharma.

And of course, racists. Lots and lots of racists. Someone mentioned that the Obama approval ratings were going to morph into the national racism index, and I’ll wager that isn’t too far off what they’re going to try to do.

And failing that, there’s always ACORN. Do you really think an Obama DOJ is going to investigate them at any level more than a perfunctory "there, I looked and it’s all good so get off my back"? Couple that with the "fairness doctrine" and the internet regulations Nosferatu Pelosi will try for (not to mention the SCOTUS with their new lefty members) and you’re staring at incumbents with very little dangers facing them.



 
Written By: shark
URL: http://
You know how they’ll skirt it for the next few years?

Show trials. A 3-ring circus of show trials.

They’ll find and destroy a host of boogeymen. The GOP and the Bushies will be first. Following that, eeeevil corporations such as big oil, big pharma.

And of course, racists. Lots and lots of racists. Someone mentioned that the Obama approval ratings were going to morph into the national racism index, and I’ll wager that isn’t too far off what they’re going to try to do.

And failing that, there’s always ACORN. Do you really think an Obama DOJ is going to investigate them at any level more than a perfunctory "there, I looked and it’s all good so get off my back"? Couple that with the "fairness doctrine" and the internet regulations Nosferatu Pelosi will try for (not to mention the SCOTUS with their new lefty members) and you’re staring at incumbents with very little dangers facing them.

I disagree completely.

They’ll probably start with the fairness doctrine with an internet add-on or followup.
 
Written By: jpm100
URL: http://
I think the voters will be willing to buy the "Bush caused all these problems, and its going to take 8 years to clean them up." FDR got re-elected, twice.

The general public’s mental model of the world distrusts markets and believes government to be a force of good. The media and academia have helped this along. And its psychologically useful to be able to blame one man and his party for your investment’s plummeting value.

I don’t think you will see a Republican majority Congress (maybe Senate though) for many, many years.

The only way out of this scenario is for McCain to constantly push the Fannie Mae, Freddie Mac, ACORN, Frank, Dodd story out into the public consciousness. Otherwise the meme will be "greedy Wall Street fat cats took my 401K money." If McCain could succeed in just this, even if he loses the election, people might, just might remember in 2010/2012 that government was part of the problem.

Otherwise its going to be the "solution."

 
Written By: Harun
URL: http://
I think the voters will be willing to buy the "Bush caused all these problems, and its going to take 8 years to clean them up." FDR got re-elected, twice.
And Jimmy Carter lasted 4 with the same sorts of problems following an extremely unpopular president. The public has a very short memory, especially where their well-being is concerned.

Fix it or forget it, because you won’t get a second chance.
 
Written By: McQ
URL: http://www.QandO.net
The only way out of this scenario is for McCain to constantly push ...
I think its too late for a McCain push to do much.

The only thing that might help is if the Bradley Effect among Democrats if moderately strong. Which may not be that far fetched though.
 
Written By: jpm100
URL: http://
I’d bet about $100 you won’t see a Republican majority in either house of Congress by then. Could be done via Paypal. You haven’t looked at the details of what you’re suggesting. You’re also in total denial about Barack Obama’s policy agenda: he’s gone into great detail about his health care plan, his Iraq plan, the tax plan, the infrastructure plan, the alternative energy plan, and so on. It only takes about 10 minutes his website to figure that out. You don’t see what you avoid looking at. As for the economic crisis, he supported both the mediocre Paulson plan as described and the direct equity purchases now being suggested. And they’re both good decisions. The first one had to be supported because it was that or nothing (that’s Bush White House "negotiations" for you) and the second one because it might actually reassure the credit markets, i.e. work.

Meanwhile, as I look around at the commentariat, it’s worth noting that the Democrats waited until *after* losing the election to start constructing elaborate fantasies about voter fraud costing them the election (well, the fraud probably happened, but it didn’t cost the election). You folks seriously need some education on ACORN: start here:

http://yglesias.thinkprogress.org/archives/2008/10/more_fraud.php

If you register me three times to vote, the registrar will see two new registrations of an already registered person and the ones won’t count. If I successfully register Mickey Mouse to vote, on election day, Mickey Mouse will still be a cartoon character who cannot go to the local voting station and vote. Logically speaking there’s very little way a few phony names on the voting rolls could be used to commit vote fraud. And much more importantly, numerous studies and investigations have shown no evidence of anything more than a handful of isolated casing of actual instances of vote fraud.

Right. To repeat what I wrote before, what’s always missing from these allegations of voter fraud is instances of fraudulent votes being cast. But if conservatives are really concerned about the integrity of the registration process, the thing to do would be to make registration much simpler and easier. With same-day voter registration, for example, there’s little need to mount registration drives at all. Everything just becomes standard get-out-the-vote.


Registering fake people to vote amounts to defrauding ACORN - they pay for voters who don’t exist and will never actually vote. It’s not a plan to create fake voters, it’s ACORN being scammed. That’s why multiple federal investigations have found fake registrations but no fake voters. You’re living in a conspiracy theory based from ignorance.

By and large they do not rely on volunteers to register voters. They hire people — often people with low incomes or even the unemployed. This has the dual effect of not only registering people but also providing some work and income for people who are out of work. But because a lot of these people are doing it for the money, inevitably, a few of them cut corners or even cheat. So someone will end up filling out cards for nonexistent names and some of those slip through ACORN’s own efforts to catch errors. (It’s important to note that in many of the recent ACORN cases that have gotten the most attention it’s ACORN itself that has turned the people in who did the fake registrations.) These reports start buzzing through the right-wing media every two years and every time the anecdotal reports of ’thousands’ of fraudulent registrations turns out, on closer inspection, to be either totally bogus themselves or wildly exaggerated. So thousands of phony registrations ends up being, like, twelve.

I’ve always had questions about whether this is a good way to do voter registration. And Democratic campaigns usually keep their distance. But here’s the key. This is fraud against ACORN. They end up paying people for registering more people then they actually signed up.


http://www.dallasnews.com/sharedcontent/dws/dn/opinion/points/stories/DN-hasen_10edi.ART.State.Edition1.436da28.html

Suppose I want to swing the Missouri election for my preferred presidential candidate. I would have to figure out who the fake, dead or missing people on the registration rolls are, then pay a lot of other individuals to go to the polling place and claim to be that person, without any return guarantee – thanks to the secret ballot – that any of them will cast a vote for my preferred candidate.

Those who do show up at the polls run the risk of being detected and charged with a felony. And for what – $10? Polling-place fraud, in short, makes no sense.

The Justice Department devoted unprecedented resources to ferreting out fraud over five years and appears to have found not a single prosecutable case across the country. Of the many experts consulted, the only dissenter from that position was a representative of the now-evaporated American Center for Voting Rights.

The arguments against vote fraud were built on a house of cards, a house that is collapsing as quickly as the U.S. attorney investigation moves forward.


It’s worth noting that some of the Republican U.S. Attorneys were canned at the request of paranoid Republican lunatics who insisted that said Republican attorneys were refusing to prosecute Democratic voter fraud of which neither attorneys nor activists had no hard evidence whatsoever.
 
Written By: glasnost
URL: http://
I don’t know...my business has me talking to people all over the country and everyone I talk to thinks it’s all in the gutter and they’re getting screwed. And everyone, without exception is storing food and arming to the teeth.
 
Written By: Brown
URL: http://
glassy baby, I bet you could outspin my washing machine. No one cleans Obama’s dirty laundry better than you.
 
Written By: capt joe
URL: http://
McQ, I hope you’re right about the public.

jpm100, I mean spin it even if you lose, to get the meme out. That’s what I think the internet is really helping, letting counter-memes live and thrive instead of MSM monoculture.

Glasnost, I used to get paid to register votes as well. I do agree that at least in some cases, ACORN is probably getting defrauded, but is it government money they are spending?

I think Dem voter fraud is probably done in primaries in full dem areas, though there will be some double voting, dead voting (via absentee) etc. Still, if this was no big deal, then why not agree with GOP demands to show ID?
 
Written By: Harun
URL: http://
retired military is dead right. Between a media that is nothing but a democrat (spit) cheerleading section and national cheating courtesy of ACORN, it will be a long time (if ever) before we see a GOP majority again.
 
Written By: docjim505
URL: http://
I predict Obama will do an FDR, prolonging and magnifying an economic downturn into a protracted and severe depression. We’re see the classic cycle (already under weigh) of State intervention causing economic crisis, causing more extreme State intervention, causing bigger crises, etc., etc. WWII got us out of the Great Depression, what will get us out of this one, I shuddder to think. Somewhere the ghosts of Hayek and Von Mises are saying, "I told you so," and regarding the stupidity of the electorate (thinking a socialist is going to restore prosperity—like thinking Dr. Kevorkian is goign to cure your headache), the ghosts of Nock and Mencken are having really big horselaughs.
 
Written By: Bilwick
URL: http://
And I won’t belabor the point, but the guy has never, ever, in his entire life, made an important and/or controversial decision.
Well, his hardest decision was his opposition to the war. Of course, since he was only a state senator at the time, it was a decision with consequence.

What a joke.
 
Written By: Don
URL: http://
In my last post I intended this:

Well, his hardest decision was his opposition to the war. Of course, since he was only a state senator at the time, it was a decision without consequence.
 
Written By: Don
URL: http://
Drudge links to this:
More than 30,000 Florida felons who by law should have been stripped of their right to vote remain registered to cast ballots in this presidential battleground state, a Sun Sentinel investigation has found.

Many are faithful voters, with at least 4,900 turning out in past elections.

Another 5,600 are not likely to vote Nov. 4 — they’re still in prison.

Of the felons who registered with a party, Democrats outnumber Republicans more than two to one.
Glassy quotes this:
Suppose I want to swing the Missouri election for my preferred presidential candidate. I would have to figure out who the fake, dead or missing people on the registration rolls are, then pay a lot of other individuals to go to the polling place and claim to be that person, without any return guarantee – thanks to the secret ballot – that any of them will cast a vote for my preferred candidate.
Well Glassy, if you get a convicted felon or illegal alien, they may not vote but if they do they will likely vote Democrat.
 
Written By: Don
URL: http://
If I successfully register Mickey Mouse to vote, on election day, Mickey Mouse will still be a cartoon character who cannot go to the local voting station and vote.
So it is reasonable to ask Mickey for ID when he does show up to vote, right?
 
Written By: Don
URL: http://
I think Dem voter fraud is probably done in primaries in full dem areas, though there will be some double voting, dead voting (via absentee) etc. Still, if this was no big deal, then why not agree with GOP demands to show ID?

I’m not sure exactly what you’re implying here, but the problem is a familiar one - that both sides of the debate have a (for the sake of argument) good argument and, arguably, a nasty motive. Democrats don’t want people to be unable to vote - the good argument - especially because people too poor, disorganized and stupid to meet preparatory procedures - that still ought to have the right to vote - will disproportionately be Democrats. Republicans think this is also because Democrats want to make up fake people to vote.

Meanwhile, Democrats don’t want to let Republicans impose voting procedural restrictions, based on the good motive of preventing fraud, but also on the suspected bad motive of wanting to keep participation rates down as much as possible on poor minorities.


I personally wouldn’t have a problem with ID if some form of ID was provided to every living citizen, on an opt-out basis, that could be freely made available handed out along with, say, voter registration, all government-funded. Civil liberty concerns about ID have prevented this from happening, though. Right now poor people in cities who don’t have cars don’t have driver’s licenses, along with old and sick people. Passports cost a lot of money. Military IDs don’t work for nonveterans. Alternate ID forms are a pain in the butt, if available at all. If you want an ID system, make a government mandate, funded, that every citizen gets one, and you’d have a deal.


 
Written By: glasnost
URL: http://
because people too poor, disorganized and stupid to meet preparatory procedures
Too Poor? Do you want to get into that? Since last time it was discussed the ’poor’ were offered id’s for nothing, they just had to get to where they needed to to get them (yeah, I know, they’re too poor to do THAT too).

Disorganized and stupid. Guess what, I’m not sure I WANT someone who is that disorganized or stupid to be making decisions about who ought to run the country.
Especially since registering to vote isn’t rocket science in the first place.
If you’re too damned dumb to register, you’re too damned dumb to vote, and I don’t care which party you’re affiliated with. Voting should be more than walking in to the booth and voting for who the nice man told you to vote for when he gave you the ride to the polling place and bought you a Big Mac, fries and a drink.
Democrats don’t want people to be unable to vote - the good argument - especially because people too poor, disorganized and stupid to meet preparatory procedures - that still ought to have the right to vote - will disproportionately be Democrats.
Course in your argument people who are mostly too poor, too disorganized and/or too stupid to get registered will vote Democrat. Super constituency. They’ll probably like the new tax plan giveaways too.

Typical high brow, liberal snob attitude Glassy.
Refreshingly counter to your normal view that many Republicans are gun toting, bible hugging, mouth breathing morons though (but I gather not too dumb to manage to register to vote without someone holding their hand or paying them off with cigarettes and a couple of bucks here or there).
 
Written By: looker
URL: http://
Democrats don’t want people to be unable to vote - the good argument - especially because people too poor, disorganized and stupid to meet preparatory procedures - that still ought to have the right to vote - will disproportionately be Democrats.
A right to vote?

Frankly, voting is just a means towards selecting our government. What matters is not that we all have an equal right to vote, what matters is the end result.

The EC system is an example of this; not everyone has the same effective vote, and this is OK, because your "voice" or your "right to be heard" isn’t important, what matters is getting reasonably good government. If that means a Californian’s vote is less than an Arizonian’s, so be it.

I see absolutly no reason why we should be encouraging stupid or apathetic people to vote. It isn’t about exercising a right, or anything noble. It’s just a process towards a result, and what leads to the best result is the best answer.
 
Written By: Don
URL: http://
Democrats don’t want people to be unable to vote - the good argument - especially because people too poor, disorganized and stupid to meet preparatory procedures - that still ought to have the right to vote - will disproportionately be Democrats.
A right to vote?

Frankly, voting is just a means towards selecting our government. What matters is not that we all have an equal right to vote, what matters is the end result.

The EC system is an example of this; not everyone has the same effective vote, and this is OK, because your "voice" or your "right to be heard" isn’t important, what matters is getting reasonably good government. If that means a Californian’s vote is less than an Arizonian’s, so be it.

I see absolutly no reason why we should be encouraging stupid or apathetic people to vote. It isn’t about exercising a right, or anything noble. It’s just a process towards a result, and what leads to the best result is the best answer.
 
Written By: Don
URL: http://
Your site is very interesting and useful
[URL=http://trump-taj-mahal.zeiter.info]trump taj mahal[/URL] trump taj mahal [URL=http://bergdorf-goodman.zeiter.info]bergdorf goodman[/URL] bergdorf goodman motel6 motel6 lumber liquidators lumber liquidators flagyl flagyl http://touro-college.zeiter.info touro college http://barnes-and-nobel.zeiter.info barnes and nobel http://taxact.zeiter.info taxact http://tila-tequila.schadez.info tila tequila http://nieman-marcus.schadez.info nieman marcus
 
Written By: trump taj mahal
URL: http://trump-taj-mahal.zeiter.info

 
Add Your Comment
  NOTICE: While we don't wish to censor your thoughts, we do blacklist certain terms of profanity or obscenity. This is not to muzzle you, but to ensure that the blog remains work-safe for our readers. If you wish to use profanity, simply insert asterisks (*) where the vowels usually go. Your meaning will still be clear, but our readers will be able to view the blog without worrying that content monitoring will get them in trouble when reading it.
Comments for this entry are closed.
Name:
Email:
URL:
HTML Tools:
Bold Italic Blockquote Hyperlink
Comment:
   
 
Vicious Capitalism

Divider

Buy Dale's Book!
Slackernomics by Dale Franks

Divider

Divider