January 6, 2012

Steve Benen: A Misguided Appeal For A Moderate Mitt

http://www.washingtonmonthly.com/political-animal/2012_01/a_misguided_appeal_for_a_moder034545.php

I agree with Benen's piece that argues against this odd notion that is apparently floating around among the punditocracy somewhere out there that if Romney were to win the GOP nomination and somehow manage to defeat Obama that he is somehow likely to govern as a moderate "Massachusetts Mitt" as POTUS. After witnessing the power that the Tea Party currently wields over the GOP in terms of being able to threaten and intimidate Republicans- even supposedly "moderate" and reasonable ones like the Maine twins and my own Senator Lugar- into totally refusing to cooperate with President Obama and the Democrats in Congress, there is nothing to suggest to me that, aside from teabaggers simply vanishing after November or the "moderate" Republicans (all 2 or 3 of them) staging a successful coup and grasping control of the party back from the teabaggers, a Republican in the WH in 2013 will be under considerable pressure to kowtow to the Tea Party agenda in terms of judicial appointments, appointments to federal agencies, and decisions about bills passed by Congress that land on his desk. Should the Republicans maintain control of the House AND capture the WH and Senate (a nightmare scenario if I ever heard one) in November, such pressure to cater to the Tea Party would only increase on a President Romney and he would risk severe alienation and loss of political capital if he disappointed them (though I'm sure he wouldn't). Put more simply, it would be a HUGE mistake to give Mitt, who has adopted increasingly harsh Tea Party rhetoric during this campaign, the benefit of the doubt that he might transform into "Mr. Moderate GOPer" if he were to win the WH. I'll take that one step further and argue that we MUST assume the worst of ANY of the potential GOP candidates if any of them were to win in November and work to ensure their defeat of their nominee in November.

January 6, 2012

I think that that's partly true

He might not have had to bend so much to Blue Dogs and Republicans had the Republicans not been so lockstep obstructionist and a few more Republicans had been willing to vote their consciences but there have been a few things that I haven't necessarily agreed with too - though nothing that I would consider a "deal breaker" and I'm not sure that there is anything that Obama could do that would ever be as horrendous as what the Republican Tea Partiers could and would do control WH for 4-8 years (with Congress to boot).
I think that this "strategy" (if you want to call it that) is mostly effective with the low-information voters whom don't fully understand how the federal government (WH & Congress) operate and believe that the President can just get what he/she wants and that if they don't, then they're somehow a failure as a leader. The way George W. Bush was perceived to have governed seems to reinforce this myth though a.)He didn't get absolutely EVERYTHING he wanted and b.)He got most of what he wanted due to Republican control of Congress for six of his eight years as POTUS and those Republican Congresses rubberstamped virtually his entire agenda, including the wasteful and ineffective Medicare Drug Prescription Plan, budget busting tax cuts before and during two simultaneous wars/occupations (one of which was clearly a "war of choice&quot . The Republican Tea Party essentially counts on most people being too ignorant and/or oblivious to realize that even though one party can technically control the Senate (i.e. the Democrats), the other party (i.e. Republicans) can actually gum up the works so badly that the body can't even proceed to a simple up-or-down vote on a bill (let alone ensure its passage) without a supermajority (which is not technically how it's supposed to work but most people aren't even knowledgeable enough to know THAT either).

January 5, 2012

As a politician

why waste your time and do the hard work of studying complex problems and coming up with solutions to those problems on your own when you can just plop down member fees and just get right-wing/crowd pleasing/corporate interest-tailored/cookie-cutter "model" bills from ALEC?

January 4, 2012

Wondering about Romney's feelings about Obama's moves on CFPB today?

Well, here you go: http://livewire.talkingpointsmemo.com/updates/3593?ref=fpa

Apparently, he believes the CFPB to be "the most powerful and unaccountable bureaucracy in the history of our nation" and his actions represent "Chicago-style politics at their worst". This should help further resolve just whom (and what) Romney stands for.

I will say this about Republicans and the right-wing in general: They have no equals when it comes to hyperbole.



But not all Republican Senators are upset about it: http://livewire.talkingpointsmemo.com/updates/3594

Brown even ADMITS that things are broken in the Senate! Elizabeth Warren must REALLY be throwing a scare into him!

January 4, 2012

The GOPers are so outraged

that they'll..............they'll.........they'll...........do the exact same things they've been doing ever since Obama was elected POTUS.

January 4, 2012

Would the court be willing to wade into what is essentially a political dispute?

Who would have legal standing to challenge this? Is this a fight the GOP is REALLY willing to pick? The optics are going to look horrid for them (not saying they really care much, of course but still). They can't have this fight with the President without the President being able to highlight the unprecedented GOP obstructionism that has dominated the Senate since he became POTUS not to mention the fact that the GOP is fighting against the CFPB. Let whomever has legal standing file a lawsuit if they want to kvetch about it!

January 4, 2012

Good luck, Mitch

selling Obama's moves to ensure consumer protection as "arrogant circumvention of the American people".


If he and his fellow Repubs don't like the CFPB let them make that case to the American people and get them to support repealing the agency by an act of Congress. They didn't have any real objection to Cordray anyway. They just were trying to circumvent the financial reform law because their corporate masters told them to (and because they hate Obama too). He needs to STFU about "the American people" and what he thinks they want b/c it's clear he doesn't know.

January 4, 2012

"Suspending" and "Re-Assessing" campaigns seem to be new preferred way

of GOP candidates to say that they're dropping out of the race- without actually dropping out of the race. So far, we know have three GOP candidates either suspending or "re-assessing" their candidacies (Cain, Bachmann, and Perry) but does anybody honestly believe that they still think that they have a chance and will keep running an actual campaign? Is this their polite way of saying that they quit but they don't know who they will endorse (if anybody) yet?

January 4, 2012

I agree

If somebody wants to complain about not getting single payer, that's fine and even if they want to criticize Obama for not supporting it, that's fine too but it is unfair to accuse him of breaking a non-existent promise. I also don't like to hear him criticized (a la Politifact) for "breaking promises" on something outside of his control (ie Gitmo) and isnt technically a broken promise since he never changed his mind on the issue. When the RNC starts in on their "broken promises" strategy, I'll bet most of them can at least be partially attributable to Republican obstructionism.

January 3, 2012

This sounds like part of the RNC strategy that was discussed here a couple of days ago.

They're already underway with it it would seem.


BTW Mitt has been making a lot of comparisons between Obama and various historical figures lately. Anybody want make a $10K bet that we don't make it to the end of October without Mittens (or the RNC) making an Obama/Hitler comparison?