What do we expect now?

[Jack Springer]

The man is "an idiot" because he supports what is right.

He is "unstable" because he brings what is right to public discussion.

He is "the city fool" because he has done so much to make the lives of so many Americans so much better.


Would that I could be so idiotic, unstable, and foolish. What America desperately needs is more of these qualities that Republicans despise and mock.

He's an idiot for making statements like this . . .



Wonder who the 3 guys are? I'm guessing Obama, Carter, Clinton

[dutchmaster]

It does seem like Biden does say some things that he doesn't think through, but that is a bit extreme calling him an idiot. He has helped us, and saying intimately is an ok way to say that, right? Maybe I've confused my own English.

[JayHawk]

If the parties agree on what a secretary of defence should look like, how does that make Democrats any more or less qualified than Republicans on defence issues? And don't forget that Obama was more or less consulted in the proposed handling of the 2008/2009 financial crisis; he owns the economic decisions to begin intervention as much as the Republicans do.

And don't forget the Democrats with decades of skillful economic acumen going back to Clinton's days when the economy was growing robustly and the budget was actually balancing… I'm hard-pressed to think of anything that Republicans can do better for your country than Democrats, other than blame women for failing to appreciate the gift of rape babies and blaming gays for causing hurricanes. (We get a pass on global warming though).

I guess what I'm wondering is, how would "a substantial conservative party," that would deserve a shot at power, differ from "a substantial Democratic party" other than in their attitudes towards the rest of humanity?

The point is those republican players stayed operating in the democratic administration instead of Obama ousting them for political appointees who would be less versed on the current and quite imminent issues: War and Financial collapse.

I think what I am saying and what I have very thoroughly convinced many of my cohorts is that Obama is carrying on most of the same values that were normally considered republican ideas. Low taxes for the most of us, strong military and effective employment when provoked internationally. While at the same time embracing gay marriage, equal rights, healthcare, equal pay for women, accepting those 11 million illegals who live here anyway, immigration reform to keep it from happening again like after Reagan accepted all the illegals that were here. Essentially Obama looks like a moderate republican or a Socially liberal conservative.

I think for this country to go forward we need a progressive party that is leaning left and pushing for outrageous ideas about how much the government does for the people while at the same time having a sane conservative party that keeps it fair minded. That is not what we have but it is what I would desire.

Ask any true liberal and they will agree Obama is much more conservative than they would have guessed and it is not just because of the republican house or the crazy ass tea party. That is just the way Obama believes things should be in many instances.

[rareboy]

The point is those republican players stayed operating in the democratic administration instead of Obama ousting them for political appointees who would be less versed on the current and quite imminent issues: War and Financial collapse.

I think what I am saying and what I have very thoroughly convinced many of my cohorts is that Obama is carrying on most of the same values that were normally considered republican ideas. Low taxes for the most of us, strong military and effective employment when provoked internationally. While at the same time embracing gay marriage, equal rights, healthcare, equal pay for women, accepting those 11 million illegals who live here anyway, immigration reform to keep it from happening again like after Reagan accepted all the illegals that were here. Essentially Obama looks like a moderate republican or a Socially liberal conservative.

I think for this country to go forward we need a progressive party that is leaning left and pushing for outrageous ideas about how much the government does for the people while at the same time having a sane conservative party that keeps it fair minded. That is not what we have but it is what I would desire.

Ask any true liberal and they will agree Obama is much more conservative than they would have guessed and it is not just because of the republican house or the crazy ass tea party. That is just the way Obama believes things should be in many instances.

Truly.

[TX-Beau]

HA! All the conservatives are Democrats these days!

[TX-Beau]

All Hail the Green Party!

http://www.gp.org/index.php

[JayHawk]

HA! All the conservatives are Democrats these days!

Huh!!! I dont know if your making a funny but that isnt what I was saying.... so either it is over my head or over yours.... lol

All Hail the Green Party!

http://www.gp.org/index.php

No way... fruit loops ... I would lgo with a Libertarian Party before the great unwashed (literally) masses out hugging trees and recycling their pee.......

[TX-Beau]

I was being funny, but there is no universe in which Libertarians are progressives. A lot of them are pissed off Republicans and they have been known to nominate virulent homophobes for president.

[TX-Beau]

Say what you will about tree huggers, but they always support your right to be you and equal.

[JayHawk]

I was being funny, but there is no universe in which Libertarians are progressives. A lot of them are pissed off Republicans and they have been known to nominate virulent homophobes for president.

Meh I have never paid ten seconds of attention to one of their candidates. I posted about the non competitive candidate debate but I didn't watch it because it would be a waste of my time. The idea that the government should get the fuck out of my way if I am not harming anyone else - marijuana use, hot gay man sex, gay marriage, and so many other issues are what makes it appeal to me...

Say what you will about tree huggers, but they always support your right to be you and equal.

Yeah but the rest of their policy make it unlikely we would last long as a country so that really doesnt work out well for me.

[Centexfarmer]

No not become democrats. Not in the least. Honestly if there were a substantial conservative party that did not believe I was less than human or that women should thank god when raped then i might vote for them again..... might.

If you recall Obama kept the Bush financial team and Fed and he kept the Secretary of Defense.

Or more specifically Goldman Sachs.

There are things long standing democrats are simply not qualified to do for this nation. However the republican party is voting off hate vice a new path.

I think they will either evolve or a libertarian party will begin to eclipse them as a party....

I read recently that the Libertarian Party is giving up Presidential Politics and will be focusing on local elections from this point forward.

I tried to find a link to support my statement, but they're still all over the place...even when "googled."

If the parties agree on what a secretary of defence should look like, how does that make Democrats any more or less qualified than Republicans on defence issues?

Maybe, unlike Republicans, Obama was more focused on Domestic Issues, rather than to get into a "cat fight" with Republicans over a Cabinet Seat.

And it was (is?) entirely possible to serve in a President's Cabinet (Even if you were an opposing party's nominee). Last I check.

And don't forget that Obama was more or less consulted in the proposed handling of the 2008/2009 financial crisis; he owns the economic decisions to begin intervention as much as the Republicans do.

I differ in the semantics somewhat, in that Obama asked for the consultation because he was just as in the dark as the rest of America.

And don't forget the Democrats with decades of skillful economic acumen going back to Clinton's days when the economy was growing robustly and the budget was actually balancing…

You gloss over the fact that Obama wasn't speaking to the Clinton's, his election team, his wife's election team, or having anything to do with President Clinton beyond a few tired campaign warriors who got Democrats elected, and needed a job.

Just trying to keep it real.

I'm hard-pressed to think of anything that Republicans can do better for your country than Democrats,

Except to fuck each other over, and to toss one of your caucus bases under a bus for "political expediency."

Sounds a lot like Republicans in a way, except they'd rather do it on a broader scale, while not having to make a commitment unless you're a hair on fire Right Wing Evangelical, our a tin foil hat wearing Tea Party Member.

other than blame women for failing to appreciate the gift of rape babies and blaming gays for causing hurricanes. (We get a pass on global warming though).

And that.

I guess what I'm wondering is, how would "a substantial conservative party," that would deserve a shot at power, differ from "a substantial Democratic party" other than in their attitudes towards the rest of humanity?

Oh! Oh!

First off it would make a few heads explode to discover that many of us aren't as "far apart" as either the Democratic Party or the Republican Party would have us to believe.

Secondly, neither of the political parties, or their "media owners" (regardless of their political leaning) are eager for us to know that truth.

Let's face it!

Compromise, reconciliation, and Bipartisanship doesn't sell!

It doesn't help to raise campaign funds.

it doesn't keep us hating on each other as groups, or as Americans.

So yeah!

The sooner we get on THAT bandwagon, the sooner we might actually start seeing some change.

I'm must saying.

[JayHawk]

First off it would make a few heads explode to discover that many of us aren't as "far apart" as either the Democratic Party or the Republican Party would have us to believe.

Secondly, neither of the political parties, or their "media owners" (regardless of their political leaning) are eager for us to know that truth.

Let's face it!

Compromise, reconciliation, and Bipartisanship doesn't sell!

It doesn't help to raise campaign funds.

it doesn't keep us hating on each other as groups, or as Americans.

I have thought for quite some time that the push was to keep it balanced and close because it sells. I really do think it is the case. That is why Chris Christie acting above the fray was so abnormal in a election cycle...

[Centexfarmer]

I have thought for quite some time that the push was to keep it balanced and close because it sells. I really do think it is the case. That is why Chris Christie acting above the fray was so abnormal in a election cycle...

So are you suggesting that he might have "gone off script?"

[JayHawk]

So are you suggesting that he might have "gone off script?"

No I think he is a genuine guy. I think that is also the reason he did not align himself with Romney overtly. He would have said something truthful that destroyed Romney.

[TX-Beau]

Before we blow too much sunshine up Christie's ass:

"I'm a guy who tells the truth all the time," Christie said Wednesday after visiting a volunteer fire department on Long Beach Island, which is still under a mandatory evacuation order. "If the president of the United States did something good, I'm going to say he did something good.

"But it doesn't take away for a minute the fact that I was the first governor in America to endorse Mitt Romney, that I traveled literally tens of thousands of miles for him, raised tens of millions of dollars for him and worked harder than any other surrogate in America, other than Paul Ryan," Christie said.

"I'm extraordinarily disappointed," he added. "I put a lot of time and effort into the Mitt Romney campaign from last October when I went to New Hampshire until my last trip for him the Friday before the storm when I went to North Carolina."

http://www.sfgate.com/news/article/N...#ixzz2BgSvIuWK

I don't remember this non-partisan Christie who didn't toe the party line either.

[JayHawk]

I can't name a democrat that didnt carry water for their party. That is what it is to align yourself. He still spoke genuinely and truthfully instead of complaining. If Christie had complained that Obama was ignoring his needs or being less than resourceful then the two million votes could have turned.

The two issues that could have toppled Obama if the republicans had a viable alternate was Benghazi and Sandy.

[TX-Beau]

Whatever dems may or may not have done it's CERTAIN that Christie supported a hateful liar wholeheartedly. He wasn't forced and he's not recanting, in fact he himself says exactly that.

So lets not canonize the man just yet shall we.

[JayHawk]

I havent cannonized him sweats just a single compliment. Good lord.... the election is over. Please exhale.

[TX-Beau]

Sugarpie, I'm not the one getting catty.

[Rolyo85]

He's in my black book for the gay marriage veto. The difference between 9 states and a FIFTH of the country is so much bigger than NJ...

[JayHawk]

You appear to be getting all a fluster about me saying Christie says some honest things and he didn't have to.

[TX-Beau]

There's not fluster to be found around here. Christie is a Republican, he's going to stay that way, he had no problem with the platform or the Romney train wreck - he was extremely supportive. Yes he said some nice things about Obama, yes he had to.

He's not Governor of Georgia, what would happen to his career if he came out saying nasty things about Obama and FEMA?

Toast. That's what would have happened. Is he sincere? None of us know really - but as long as he WHOLEHEARTEDLY supports the Republican agenda, he is no friend to me.

[JayHawk]

Oh I never claimed he was a friend. I don't think any of these people are my friends. They court power and power alone. I am a stepping stone on their way. Obama executive ordered no deportations to solidify his Latino vote and he endorsed same sex marriage to grab our vote. It really is quite that simple.

There were plenty of horrible stories on the shore that could have been used to vilify a federal response. He saw a effective response and said so and he did not have to do that. He could have simply let it occur and said no kind words at all. None. He was genuine and I like that.

[BostonPirate]

Why wasn't Christie's Veto overridden? There are gays everywhere, and local politicians are always the most pragmatic.

[TX-Beau]

Well, I'll give you that he's not venal like Romney, stupid like Bush or a total loon like Bachman, but those are the people he chooses to run with.

There is no way on earth he didn't completely understand that to come out swinging at Obama in that situation was political suicide. Kudos for not being an idiot, there are some of his fellow Pubs who would have done just that.

Doesn't mean it wasn't good for Obama, but he didn't do it because his politics are somehow more palatable than they were back in September.

[JayHawk]

Well, I'll give you that he's not venal like Romney, stupid like Bush or a total loon like Bachman, but those are the people he chooses to run with.

There is no way on earth he didn't completely understand that to come out swinging at Obama in that situation was political suicide. Kudos for not being an idiot, there are some of his fellow Pubs who would have done just that.

Doesn't mean it wasn't good for Obama, but he didn't do it because his politics are somehow more palatable than they were back in September.

See the thing is he did not have to come out swinging. He could have just answered questions.

"How has the federal response been Governor"

"The President has allowed FEMA to adequately respond to New Jersey"

Then a few days later as the power outages continued make a demonstrated show of getting support to places getting less than adequate FEMA resources. It would have been easy as pie.

Christie was thoroughly behind the Party so he had their blessing in 2016. he knows the real math behind campaigns.

[TX-Beau]

I hope you're right about Christie thinking there will be moderate Republicans in 4 year, I hope if that's the case that he's right. I'm not going to bet on it though.

Whatever his level of actual altruism. He was smart to do what he did politically speaking. Doing otherwise would have cost him.

[BostonPirate]

[JayHawk]

I can agree with that to a point. He went above and beyond what he had to do politically.

[JayHawk]

Because in this country we have a two party system, in government. And the idea is supposed to be that the two sides both come up with ways to confront and fix the real problems facing our country. They both propose possible solutions to our real problems.

There are real knowable facts in the world. Let's accept those and talk about how we might approach our problems differently. Let's move on from there. If the Republican party, and the conservative movement, and conservative media are forced to do that by the humiliation they were dealt last night, we will all be better off as a nation.

That is the essence of the problem. the factual bubble the republican party and half the nation is living inside.

[JB3]

Utter baloney. That's not true at all. Republicans are demoralized. The democrats are energized. I don't agree with that statement at all. It's easy to dismiss him and not having a mandate, but he clearly does. I am sure a good part of the republican party will want to negotiate and compromise now considering many of their people in the Senate were defeated.

http://www.huffingtonpost.com/2012/1...n_2089819.html

And good old Joe thinks otherwise... they have a mandate and they will pursue it.

He does not have a mandate. Bush never had one either. The only president that's had a mandate since 2000 was Obama in his first term. IF he truly had a mandate, he would have received more support than he did, and the democrats would have closed the gap significantly in the house.

[JB3]

If you don't see how calculated his behavior is, sir, I'd say you're blind.

Joe Biden isn't smart enough to have calculated that. Happy accidents, as they say.

[JB3]

That's an easy fix. Next time, $12 billion.

Let's hope not.

[bankside]

Does the word "mandate" mean something different in american, like "to table a bill" or "liberal" or "poll tax" all mean different things to folks from the US.

He is there. He won most of the electricians in the electrical college. He has a mandate.

[TX-Beau]

Mandate is kinda fuzzy, but it basically means super-majority, that authorizes a president to pursue a more partisan agenda.

[JB3]

Does the word "mandate" mean something different in american, like "to table a bill" or "liberal" or "poll tax" all mean different things to folks from the US.

He is there. He won most of the electricians in the electrical college. He has a mandate.

No. That's not what it means.

Obama had a mandate his first term because he clobbered McCain in both the popular and Electoral votes, AND the democrats clobbered the Republicans in congress. In this election, Obama's election was a fair bit narrower, and dissatisfaction with his policies was still very high.

If he had won resoundingly in the popular vote, as he did the first time, he would have a mandate. But he didn't.

[TX-Beau]

See this is where the fuzzy comes in because mandate implies more than just a big victory, it implies that the president in question was elected to DO something.

People will argue with the above for a variety of reasons, there is no specific definition and whether or not a President has a mandate will depend on how many people believe he has one.

It's kind of a consensus thing.

[JB3]

If Obama has a mandate now, it is to attempt more bipartisanship (a mandate the republicans also received), and focus more effort on jobs and the US' economic situation.

Also, it would be hard for Obama (or Romney for that matter) to be elected on a mandate to do anything, since neither gave us any specifics about what they wanted to do. The only overriding theme for both was Jobs, but any mandate would end there.

[TX-Beau]

I don't think he does have a mandate, and if he does, I'd contend that it would be not to follow the right off the crazy cliff.

Scratch that, he has a negative mandate, a mandate not to be a whirling wing-nut asshat trying to drag us all back into the 1400's.

[JB3]

I won't take this seriously. It's simply not true. He does have a mandate. The way the house was gerrymandered prevented that...

One can rely on semantics all they want and declare he doesn't. But he won a big enough margin for it to be considered a mandate. It's ironic one joins in after the election to make comments about what they think of the President's CLEAR MANDATE. The republican party is totally demoralized.

A clear mandate was what he won by in 2008 AND the issues that he pledged to work on his first term. He does not have a mandate for his last term. I do agree with TX, though, that if he did have one, it would be to not get pushed around by republicans in congress on debt issues.

[Jack Springer]

Republicans are not demoralized.

It will take a while to recoup. But they will be back -- just like the dem's came back from 2010.

[rareboy]

Does the word "mandate" mean something different in american, like "to table a bill" or "liberal" or "poll tax" all mean different things to folks from the US.

He is there. He won most of the electricians in the electrical college. He has a mandate.

I'm old enough to think of this when I listen to arguments over Mandate.

[EastMed]

^ I used to read 'Latin Inches', more my type1

Mr Obama has a mandate, and I agree with Paul Krugman that he should not be blackmailed by them.

So President Obama has to make a decision, almost immediately, about how to deal with continuing Republican obstruction. How far should he go in accommodating the G.O.P.’s demands?

My answer is, not far at all. Mr. Obama should ... hold his ground even at the cost of letting his opponents inflict damage on a still-shaky economy. And this is definitely no time to negotiate a “grand bargain” on the budget that snatches defeat from the jaws of victory. ...

Why? Because Republicans are trying, for the third time since he took office, to use economic blackmail to achieve a goal they lack the votes to achieve through the normal legislative process. In particular, they want to extend the Bush tax cuts for the wealthy... So they are, in effect, threatening to tank the economy unless their demands are met. ...

http://economistsview.typepad.com/ec...ke-a-deal.html

[bankside]

See this is where the fuzzy comes in because mandate implies more than just a big victory, it implies that the president in question was elected to DO something.

People will argue with the above for a variety of reasons, there is no specific definition and whether or not a President has a mandate will depend on how many people believe he has one.

It's kind of a consensus thing.

No. That's not what it means.

Obama had a mandate his first term because he clobbered McCain in both the popular and Electoral votes, AND the democrats clobbered the Republicans in congress. In this election, Obama's election was a fair bit narrower, and dissatisfaction with his policies was still very high.

If he had won resoundingly in the popular vote, as he did the first time, he would have a mandate. But he didn't.

The trouble is, you didn't elect him to exercise some of the powers of the presidency. He's there for four years to do what he thinks right for the country, not to do what the Republicans would be comfortable with. By definition the job is about doing something. I don't think the concept of a mandate, as you put it, has got a mandate.

I'm old enough to think of this when I listen to arguments over Mandate.

Rareboy! You broke out the scanner for us to trip down memory lane!

^ I used to read 'Latin Inches', more my type1

I remember buying Mandate/Inches/Latin Inches, a French one called Tétu. All good. All 20 years ago when I was a new gay.

[BostonPirate]

It's going to take a bit of time to see if the Republicans decide to either change their world view to erode the Democratic Party's dominance in cultural diversity, or they are going to double down and seek an aparthied Gov't.

The reality is that either they accept what this election means, or they will continue to lose relevance. The new young voter is turning out to be far more reliable than pollsters believed. They and the Women, specifically the Latino women, are going to be the big swing voting block in the coming years. The engaged youth vote is computer savvy and communicates in a way that overrides special interest money.

No matter how you cut it, the GOP has some house cleaning to do.

1. It has to sever itself from Grover Norquist.
2. It has to stop engaging in morality legislation,... rape abortion
3. It has to stop fighting science.
4. It has to separate church and state.
5. It has to offer Attractive business legislation to small business in America.

One in six Latina's own their own business in America, and are conservative catholics. That they are out of the tent of the GOP because of papers please legislation, self deportation... blah blah.... That they are not part of the voting GOP block is incredible, and has everything to do with main street versus wall street, and legislation that affects their right to decide what to do with their own bodies.

Latina's are overwhelmingly anti abortion, yet pro choice. This nuanced change in the GOP position would make them more competitive.

There are ways for the GOP to ease into this, but either they do, or a new party will wind up being created to replace them. My intinct is that the GOP will survive, but to do so, it will have to shed the obstruction.

I guess I think that its about sixty percent possible that they can pull out of this and redirect.

I don't see how gay people will ever fit into their coalition, though. They have too much to lose if they disenfranchise the religious right.

[rareboy]

There's no question that if the GOp doesn't play to the religious right, the latter will form a 'party of God' or some suck nonsense as they try to drag America to Armageddon. Which would be a good thing. The US needs to marginalize the extreme right and the extreme left, but give them enough room to have a voice so that they hopefully don't just start blowing shit up.

[bankside]

The US needs to marginalize the extreme right and the extreme left, but give them enough room to have a voice so that they hopefully don't just start blowing shit up.

Which worked incredibly well in Canada before the downfall of the Liberal party. Centrist level heads need to dominate, with the left and right fringes shunted off to their own respective parties.

[Kulindahr]

A mandate is when enough of the people support the president that if a member of Congress is opposing the president's program, the words "The White House is calling" should cause a cold sweat.

[JB3]

A mandate is when enough of the people support the president that if a member of Congress is opposing the president's program, the words "The White House is calling" should cause a cold sweat.

Which I doubt to be the case after this election.

[JB3]

How so? The republicans are a mess right now. Some in the House are already saying they'll work with the President.

Because this election was much closer than the last, and dissatisfaction with the direction of the country was 55%. They have no reason to fear the president.