Previous 11 - 20 Next
Obama loves running for President; he doesn't love being President. He can campaign like nobody's business, but when it comes to governing, he's lost. So he evaluates all policy in terms of whether it will galvanize the Democratic base, or whether it's politically more expedient to court more moderate voters. Above all, he looks for opportunities to blast the Republicans, whom I think he flat-out hates.
In response to:

Memo To The Outgoing House GOP Conference

Ken6565 Wrote: Dec 02, 2014 7:38 PM
Absolutely right. The continuing resolution should be for about 6 months, long enough that we're not under the gun to get it right, but short enough that we're not stuck at those spending levels too long.
Scott Walker is the right man.
What we need is Scott Walker. The unions have thrown everything they've got at him--volunteers, money, even dirty tricks--and his margin just increases each time, in a state that was leaning Democrat until he came into the picture.
His experience with blatant attacks on the constitution has not been a favorable one. Mr. Holder and his justice department attempted to compel a Lutheran school in Michigan to rehire a teacher who had gone against the teaching of the church. The Supreme Court blacked Mr. Holder's eye by the tune of 9-0. He couldn't persuade even Ginsburg or Kagan to support what he was doing. The five Republicans on the Court will rule against him, likely joined by at least Breyer, maybe the others.
There is a more or less Deep South district that has fallen into Democrat hands, the Second Florida.
On that map, it gets worse than that for the Democrats. It shows the Democrats holding a pair of Louisiana House seats that the Republicans will almost certainly hold after the runoff elections in that state. These Democrats might have had a chance if there weren't a Senate runoff that will have Republicans who supported Maness going back to the polls to vote for Cassidy--but they're not going to stay home and let Mary Landrieu sneak back into another term.
This article does a good job of untangling the issues. Whether under some circumstances and conditions there ought to be some amnesty is a question on which Americans can disagree in good faith. Whether Obama can change the rules by decree is not--and if Ms. Lynch thinks he can is critical to her confirmation. My guess is that she thinks he can, that if she didn't, she wouldn't be getting nominated now.
Kristol shouldn't have been so nice. Carney is the single most notorious and shameless liar in America, and he should have been confronted about his viciousness and his dishonesty.
In response to:

A Clinton vs. Bush Race? Again?

Ken6565 Wrote: Oct 31, 2014 4:11 PM
Scuttled everything having to do with Ronald Reagan conservatism? George H.W. Bush's administration brought the Cold War to a successful close. When he stepped down, Israel and the surrounding Arabs were closer to making peace than at any other time in the last half century. He assembled the broadest international coalition for any military action involving the US since World War 2, and actually gave control of operations to his generals. He did not stop any domestic initiative to have been started by Reagan. Basically, what you're talking about is the only objection a conservative can have to him, namely that he went along with a relatively minor tax increase in 1990. Unlike Barack Obama, he didn't play "chicken" with the nation's well-being. He was a good president, and but for the third-party candidacy of Ross Perot, there would have been no Clinton administration.
The problem with your analysis is that the self-descriptions reflect people looking at their own views with what they think is the middle, namely the positions of the mass media. If they're more conservative than the New York Times and CBS News, they think they're conservative. Only those describing themselves as very conservative are really conservatives. In real life, conservatives make up about 40-45% of the people, moderates about 25%, and liberals/"progressives" about 30-35%. If you don't get some moderate-independent votes, you're not going to win. But of course that's a tricky proposition; if you go out too much looking for those votes, the conservatives stay home. That was what killed Mitt Romney in 2012. He ran a conservative enough campaign but his track record as a moderate-to-liberal Republican governor in Massachusetts persuaded conservatives that they could "teach the RINO's a lesson" by staying home. Oh, they taught the RINO's a lesson. They gave Barack Obama four years that he shouldn't have had. Poor turnouts in rural Ohio, Pennsylvania, Michigan and Virginia, and in northern Florida, made Obama's election a sure thing. Obama had seven million fewer votes in 2012 than he had in 2008. If Mitt Romney had gotten seven million more votes than John McCain had, he'd be president now. If he'd gotten only half of that, and gotten three and a half million of the people who were disillusioned with Obama, he'd probably be president now. But he actually got some eight hundred thousand fewer votes than McCain had gotten. So the trick is to be conservative enough to satisfy the conservative Republican base, but not so conservative to scare off moderates. Ronald Reagan and George Bush in 1988 had that balance. So Reagan absolutely swept the nation and Bush won convincingly. (If Ross Perot doesn't run in 1992, Bill Clinton, who didn't get as high a percentage of the vote that year as had Mike Dukakis in 1988, never becomes president.) One of the strange things is the disappearance of one kind of moderate Republican that used to exist. For years, my congressman was Silvio Conte, in the First District of Massachusetts. Conte tended to be liberal on economic and labor issues, but he was rock-solid on abortion and other social issues. Mark Hatfield, a senator from Oregon, and John Danforth, a senator from Missouri, were that way, too. Nowadays, moderate Republican means social liberal but generally against taxes and pro-business.
Previous 11 - 20 Next