Dog Brothers Public Forum
Return To Homepage
November 28, 2014, 07:32:41 PM
Login with username, password and session length
Welcome to the Dog Brothers Public Forum.
Dog Brothers Public Forum
Politics, Religion, Science, Culture and Humanities
Politics & Religion
Topic: Politics (Read 163308 times)
Re: Politics: Cognitive Dissonance of the American People
Reply #1050 on:
September 12, 2014, 08:34:42 AM »
Quote from: DougMacG on September 12, 2014, 08:12:04 AM
Americans are demanding economic growth from a President whose entire economic focus throughout his political career prior to being President was on anti-growth policies and rhetoric.
Americans are demanding military action in the Middle East from a President whose rise to power was based on promising to ignore these risks an just remove us from all military involvement in the Middle East.
Wouldn't it have been better to have chosen a President who had prior interest, experience, and/or expertise in these areas?
Most voted for Obama because they thought they were gonna get free sh*t.
POTH puff piece justifying Dem fund raising practices
Reply #1051 on:
October 05, 2014, 05:56:19 PM »
Reply #1052 on:
October 05, 2014, 06:18:35 PM »
Working the inner city today on a Sunday afternoon I once again witnessed the Democrat political machine working up close and personal. They asked me if I was Eugene. I wouldn't confirm. They asked me if I was going to vote Democrat, and I said, that's personal, isn't it? Then she accused me of being the landlord because I was (white and) working on the front step. I said, a friend of the family. Then she started asking little kids who lives in this house, does your mama live her? The kid said no but my grandma does. I told the kid her Grandma (on kidney dialysis) is sleeping. They dragged her out anyway, and started asking, who else lives in this house and started working on getting absentee ballots out so people wouldn't wait to learn something before voting the party line now.
My point unfortunately is that, as chair of a Republican town elsewhere, I know the Republicans have nothing at all like this operation n place - a paid, assertive, don't take no for an answe,r block worker on every block.
By the way, Eugene passed away. I wonder if he got a ballolt anyway.
Last Edit: October 05, 2014, 06:20:25 PM by DougMacG
Reply #1053 on:
October 05, 2014, 06:21:42 PM »
Now I understand why you have Al Franken.
The bullies are Democrats.
Reply #1054 on:
October 05, 2014, 10:36:38 PM »
Quote from: ccp on October 05, 2014, 06:21:42 PM
Now I understand why you have Al Franken.
The bullies are Democrats.
Yes. And we have Obama. This lady identified herself as working for the [Keith] Ellison campaign and was most certainly working the entire ticket including Sen Franken and Gov Mark Dayton.
Horowitz: Hold Obama & Democrats Responsible for National Security...
Reply #1055 on:
October 06, 2014, 01:48:08 PM »
Republicans Should Frame National Security as Issue #1.
David Horowitz @ RedState.com - 10-06-2014
Since 1945 Republicans have not won the popular vote unless national security was the primary issue. But security issues were virtually absent from the 2008 and 2012 elections. This gave victories to Barack Obama, the most anti-military president in American history. Fortunately, the prospects for 2016 are looking marginally better because Republicans are now actually focusing on the fact that an anti-military presidency has ominous consequences for the 300 million Americans whose safety is the primary responsibility of the commander-in-chief.
That said, there is much to be desired in the Republican message, which is tepid, diffuse and easily missed. When Politico wrote a story about the recent change in Republican strategy it was all about the shift away from the tax-cutting emphasis of recent years, rather than towards the national security issue.
So let me describe the reality we are actually facing, which is a necessary preface to the way the Republican Party should be framing its strategy and should be emphasizing the dangers of having a Democratic president like Barack Obama or Hillary Clinton – or for that matter a Democratic Congress – leading us in wartime.
I will leave out of this wartime equation the threats from Russia and China, which Obama and the Democrats have done so much to foster. I will focus only on the threat posed by Islamic jihadists, who at this moment can easily penetrate the borders that Obama and the Democrats have done so much to wreck. And carry with them chemical and biological weapons, and – if Iran builds the bombs which Obama the Democrats have made almost inevitable – nuclear weapons as well.
This is easily the greatest terrorist threat in our history, far greater than what transpired before and after 9/11. ISIS, al Qaeda, Hezbollah, Hamas and other Islamic terrorist armies now control territory (and attendant resources) from Afghanistan through Iraq Syria, Lebanon, Libya, Mali, Somalia and other regions of Africa, Asia and the Middle East.
Why has this happened? Because Obama and the Democrats have waged a ten-year war against the war on terror, against American military strength, against an American presence in Afghanistan and Iraq, and against the very idea that Islamic forces have declared war on us. For ten years Democrats have been determined to treat terrorists as individual criminals, arrest them and try them in American courts where they will have all the protections of the American legal system that they are seeking to destroy. So hostile has Obama been to the very notion of a “War on Terror” that he has purged the very term from the official government vocabulary and replaced it with “overseas contingency operations” which describes exactly nothing.
To create the power vacuum which Islamic jihadists have filled, Obama had to defy the advice of his Secretary of Defense and his intelligence advisers. He did this in part by absenting himself from nearly half his daily intelligence briefings, and in part by saying no to absolutely crucial measures that his military staff proposed for countering the threat from ISIS and other terrorist groups. Obama saw to it that America would relinquish its military base in Iraq (a country that strategically borders on Afghanistan, Syria and Iran) or to keep the 20,000 American troops stationed there as his Secretary of Defense and Joint Chiefs of Staff urged him to do.
Obama hated the Iraq War so much that he was willing to betray all the American soldiers who gave their lives to keep Iraq out of the clutches of Iran and safe from the terrorist threat. If Obama had just listened to the advice of his military staff, there would be no ISIS today. Obama’s deliberate, calculated surrender of Iraq (and soon Afghanistan) and failure to stop Syria’s Assad when he crossed Obama’s red line is the greatest and gravest dereliction of duty in the history of the American presidency.
And make no mistake, Obama was not alone. For ten years the Democrats have been sabotaging the war on terror, beginning with their disgraceful scorched earth campaign against President Bush and the War in Iraq and continuing with their full-throated cry for the abandonment of Iraq after Bush had won the peace and contained the terrorist threat. Their support for Obama’s appeasement of Iran and Hamas, his support for the Muslim Brotherhood, and his diplomatic assault on Israel, America’s only true ally in the Middle East, is not only a national disgrace but the heart of the crisis that is looming on the international horizon.
If Republicans fail to articulate the sources of this crisis, and specifically to indict Obama, Hillary and the Democrats for their betrayal of America’s interests and their failure to protect the American people then Republicans electoral prospects will be dim, and with them, their country’s future.
David Horowitz is the author of Take No Prisoners: The Battle Plan For Defeating The Left (Regnery 2014).
Last Edit: October 06, 2014, 01:50:59 PM by objectivist1
"You have enemies? Good. That means that you have stood up for something, sometime in your life." - Winston Churchill.
Reply #1056 on:
October 06, 2014, 02:44:17 PM »
A strong analysis there.
Reply #1057 on:
October 09, 2014, 10:02:17 AM »
GOP Senate Majority? Then What?
It's Time for New Leadership
By Mark Alexander • October 8, 2014
"If Congress can do whatever in their discretion can be done by money, and will promote the General Welfare, the Government is no longer a limited one, possessing enumerated powers, but an indefinite one, subject to particular exceptions." --James Madison (1792)
If you've been holed up in some alternate universe for the last six weeks, you may have missed the collective consensus of political pundits and prognosticators that, in the upcoming November 4th midterm election, Republicans will pick up at least the six U.S. Senate seats needed for majority control.
If the current polling trends are borne out by the only poll that really matters -- Election Day -- then Republicans will win enough Senate seats to claim majority status. Still, an old farmer would no doubt caution, "Don't count your chickens 'till they hatch."
Indeed, nobody should assume Republicans will control the Senate come January, and one need look no further than all the reputable polling ahead of the 2012 presidential election for the reason. Remember how the major polling firms, along with Karl Rove, Dick Morris, Michael Barone and others, were predicting a Mitt Romney win?
How did that turn out?
Over in the House, the GOP is striving to achieve its "Drive to 245," which would mean increasing the party's 233-seat majority to a level not seen since 1946. But Republicans will be fortunate to hold on to the number of House seats they have now.
While I certainly hope Republicans win a Senate majority next month, they must resolve to do more than merely slow the "rule of lawlessness" that now defines Obama's presidential modus operandi. They must use a majority to pass popular conservative legislation -- from tax reform to energy deregulation to border security -- through both chambers and place it on Obama's desk, daring him to veto it.
Of course, Obama has already committed to bypass Consitutional Rule of Law, saying, "Where Congress isn't acting, I'll act on my own. ... I've got a pen ... and I can use that pen to sign executive orders and take executive actions and administrative actions that move the ball forward."
And indeed, he has demonstrated he will do so, with executive orders constricting Second Amendment rights, and supporting his so-called "climate change" agenda, enacting regulations for his "war on coal" and continuing to stiff-arm the proposed Keystone XL pipeline. The most egregious examples of Obama's executive order abuses include his repeated rewrites of the so-called "Affordable Care Act," in an effort to assist the re-election campaigns of congressional Democrats.
The fact is, if Senate Republicans do attain majority status, and the House GOP maintains its current majority, those achievements will not have been earned through "Republican Leadership" so much as handed to them by way of Barack Obama's colossal failures in both domestic and foreign policy.
As Peggy Noonan, former speechwriter for Ronald Reagan, observed this week in her Wall Street Journal analysis, "In a year when Republicans are operating in such an enviable political environment, why aren’t their U.S. Senate candidates holding big and impressive leads? Why does it look close? Why are party professionals getting worried?"
What does she mean by "enviable political environment"?
Lets review the short list of failures:
Obama's administration is now defined by his litany of lies and legacy of scandals, most notably the failure of his so-called "economic recovery" plan; his unparalleled foreign policy malfeasance; his "Fast and Furious" gun control play; his long list of ObamaCare lies; his IRS Enemies List; the dramatic resurgence of al-Qa'ida; the Benghazi security failure and subsequent cover-up to protect his 2012 re-election bid; his hollow "Red Line" threat to Syria; the "Russian Spring" in Crimea; the Middle East meltdown in Egypt, Libya, Syria, Yemen, Jordan and Gaza; the disintegration of Iraq; the rise of the Islamic State; the VA death panels cover-up; the immigration crisis on our southern border; the malfeasance and long-overdue resignation of Eric Holder, the most lawless attorney general in our nation's history; and now, his downplaying of the Ebola threat, his utter unwillingness to address both Enterovirus D68, which is killing children nationwide, and the pandemic threat of jihadist Bio-Bombers.
Despite the significant advantage this should give Republicans in the upcoming election, Noonan writes, "Republicans aren’t achieving lift-off. The metaphor used most often is the wave. If Republicans can’t make, catch and ride a wave in an environment like this, they’ve gone from being the stupid party to the stupid loser party."
Charles Krauthammer notes, "[Obama’s] agenda died on Nov. 2, 2010, when he lost the House. It won’t be any deader on Nov. 4, 2014, if he loses the Senate."
So what happened in 2010 that stalled Obama's agenda?
Clearly, the 2008 election of an ideological Socialist to the Office of President came with some unintended consequences for Obama and his Leftist cadres across the nation. Chief among those was the emergence of the grassroots Tea Party Movement ahead of the 2010 midterm election.
While the GOP rolled out its "new and improved" platform modeled after Newt Gingrich's successful 1994 Contract with America, it was the Tea Party that singlehandedly repopulated the House with a substantial number of genuine conservatives, thereby restoring Republican control.
Regrettably, the "establishment Republicans" in the House virtually excluded the new conservatives from significant House leadership positions. The resulting fratricidal infighting thwarted additional gains in 2012 and enabled Obama to buy a second term as president.
Has the GOP learned any lessons?
Republican National Committee Chairman Reince Priebus, on schedule, rolled out the latest version of the party's Key Principles last week. To his credit, first among those is this: "Our Constitution should be preserved, valued and honored." Priebus is genuinely committed to conservative principles. Recall that he had The Patriot Post's Essential Liberty Pocket Guide distributed to all RNC convention members in 2012, and he held one up for display during that event.
However, the first of the GOP key principles should state, "Our Constitution should be upheld as the supreme law of the land, and our leaders should abide by their oaths 'to Support and Defend' it." To that end, the current Republican congressional leadership receives mixed reviews. Senate Majority Leader Mitch McConnell is committed to conservative principles, scoring better than 80% in the American Conservative Union ratings. Notably, however, Speaker of the House John Boehner did not make the 80% ACU cut.
Despite McConnell's rating, if the GOP does luck into a Senate majority, I believe it's time for new leadership in both chambers.
Krauthammer notes, "[R]egaining the Senate would finally give the GOP the opportunity, going into 2016, to demonstrate its capacity to govern. ... [C]ontrolling both houses would allow the GOP to produce a compelling legislative agenda. ... If the president signs any of it, good. If he vetoes, it will be clarifying. Who then will be the party of no? The vetoed legislation would become the framework for a 2016 GOP platform."
He is correct, but producing a compelling legislative agenda would require outstanding leadership -- which neither McConnell nor Boehner have demonstrated.
As Noonan writes, "It’s good to win, but winning without a declared governing purpose is a ticket to nowhere. ... Republicans need to say what they’re for."
The fact is, both McConnell and Boehner have failed to clearly articulate a unified governing purpose. Thus, gaining a Senate majority and retaining the House majority may be for naught if not under spirited and principled new leadership.
Winston Churchill wrote, "If you have an important point to make, don't try to be subtle or clever. Use a pile driver."
However, there appears to be no important point to make under the current GOP leadership, and neither McConnell nor Boehner seem to have any idea what a pile driver is.
"A leader," said Ronald Reagan, "once convinced a particular course of action is the right one, must have the determination to stick with it and be undaunted when the going gets rough." Clearly, he was just such a leader.
Under the current GOP leadership, there has been neither a clear course of action nor the necessary determination to stick with such action.
Let me restate: Any Republican gains in November will not be earned through "Republican Leadership" so much as handed to them through Barack Obama's colossal failures.
It is long past time for young and fresh Republican leadership in both the House and Senate -- and there are rising leaders who are more than capable of making their case.
Pro Deo et Constitutione -- Libertas aut Mors
Semper Fortis Vigilate Paratus et Fidelis
Reply #1058 on:
October 09, 2014, 10:50:25 AM »
If they win I wonder who would or could be a majority leader.
New polling show Roberts drawing even in Kansas. I don't care for him much as apparently Kansans don't either but he is better than a guy who is almost certainly a liberal disguised as an independent.
Politics, Two midterm elections have hollowed out the Democratic Party
Reply #1059 on:
November 09, 2014, 11:47:47 PM »
This article sparks a number of interesting points. While it seems that Republicans have a limited number of good potential candidates with great executive experience, Democrats now hold 18 governorships?! The crowned prize of California was just held again by Jerry Brown, 76, so it will be 2026 at the earliest before some new, up and coming Dem can win and govern two successful terms of experience in the country's largest state as preparation for future leader of the free world.
"Meanwhile, Republicans control governorships in Florida, Texas, Illinois, Ohio, Michigan, Wisconsin, North Carolina, Georgia and Massachusetts. Democrats were hoping to knock off Republicans Scott Walker in Wisconsin, Rick Scott in Florida and Rick Snyder in Michigan. All survived. In Ohio, John Kasich won by the second-largest margin in state history"
Mentioned previously, Governors Hickenlooper (D-Colo) and Walker (R-Wisc) are ascendant if they win and they won.
Andrew Cuomo (Gov. NY) who I don't know much about is, they say is too tied to the Clintons.
Last Edit: November 10, 2014, 12:05:26 AM by DougMacG
Republicans and Hispanics
Reply #1060 on:
November 10, 2014, 12:19:09 AM »
Despite holding a pretty hard line views on immigration, Texas Republicans won about 45% of Hispanic votes.
(This is partly due to low turnout due to the turn-off of Hispanics to Democrats.)
The Vanishing White Democrat...
Reply #1061 on:
November 19, 2014, 06:45:24 AM »
The Vanishing White Democrat
Posted By Daniel Greenfield On November 19, 2014 @ frontpagemag.com
It wasn’t all that long ago that the Democrats were predicting the end of the Republican Party.
With the rise of Obama, James Carville began peddling a new book “40 More Years” promising that the Dems would rule for generations.
Just this year Carville predicted that the Republican Party would become extinct if it lost to Hillary Clinton. But it was the Democratic Party that was going extinct in Carville’s own backyard.
Republicans began winning Senate seats in Louisiana for the first time in a century in just the last ten years. If Landrieu loses, then both of the Louisiana’s Senate seats will be unprecedentedly held by Republicans.
And Louisiana isn’t an outlier. Bill Clinton couldn’t stop Arkansas from going full Republican with two Republican senators and a full suite of Republican representatives for the first time in history. That’s all the more amazing in a state that only had two Republican senators before that for over a century.
The Democratic Party is going extinct in places like Louisiana, Arkansas and West Virginia. It’s vanishing because the working class White Democrat is becoming extinct.
Even Carville hedged his bets while predicting the end of the Republican Party by joining FOX News.
A generation ago, white Democrats outnumbered white Republicans. Today it’s the other way around. Under Obama, barely a quarter of white people still identify as Democrats.
Republicans didn’t just win a few elections. They swept across entire legislatures in western and southern states. They took state senates and governorships in places like New York and Illinois. It’s not that Republicans had a particularly compelling message, some did and some didn’t, but that Democrats had assumed that enough white voters would continue showing up to prop up their rainbow coalition.
They were wrong.
The latest Pew poll shows that 74 percent of Democrats support ObamaCare, but only 29 percent of white respondents do. The Democratic Party is becoming a party without white people. Under Obama, the Democratic disadvantage among white voters doubled without any corresponding gains among minority voters.
Meanwhile Republicans increased their share of white voters. And that’s only telling part of the story.
The nation’s largest party is “none of the above”. Independents began to decisively outnumber both parties under Obama. Hispanic voters are increasingly identifying as independents. So are white men.
And though the independents come from both parties, they increasingly swing Republican in key races.
The Democratic model depended on the combination of an overwhelming minority vote combined with a second place showing in the white vote. That model may no longer be feasible, especially in states with a shortage of unemployed white hipsters with PhDs and protest signs who know all the latest social warrior mumbo jumbo but can’t change a flat tire.
The Democrats had to bet on turnout and changing demographics to salvage the situation. They played up racial tensions to increase turnout and championed open borders to shift demographics and those tactics only deepened their problems with white voters.
Tribalism helped Obama win a second term, but it didn’t fix the underlying flaw in the Democratic model. And it actually worsened the situation. The more the Democrats sounded racially divisive notes, the more they alienated white voters, not just by abusing them, but by ignoring their concerns.
ObamaCare became emblematic of a party that tuned out what used to be its base. And so its base left forcing the Democrats to discover that they couldn’t actually win without white voters.
Republican congressional candidates won 64 percent of white working class voters. Landrieu won just 18 percent of the white vote; 22 percent among white women and 15 percent among white men. That’s less than the amount taken by a second Republican candidate in the race, Rob Maness.
Those numbers alone indicate why the Democrats won’t put any real money behind her. If Landrieu can’t even compete for the white vote, then there’s no reason to waste good money on her.
Mark Pryor won only 31 percent of white voters. Nunn won 23 percent of white voters. The Dems didn’t do this badly everywhere, but where they lost it was usually because the white vote sharply tilted away from them enough to offset their overwhelming minority percentages.
The Democrats have a white voter problem. The party is betting that it won’t outlast Obama because it confused its own propaganda with reality and decided that white voters hate Obama because he’s black.
It was never Obama’s race that was the problem. It was the Democratic Party’s embrace of leftist radicalism at the national level while waging identity politics wars along the lines of race and gender.
Republicans don’t have a problem with black people. Democrats do have a problem with white people.
The party is now under the sway of an elitist class of white leftists for whom “white people” is an insult, not a group of voters. And by “white people” they mean the sort of voters who conclusively tossed them out in West Virginia, Nevada and Arkansas.
The elitists of the new Democratic Party envision themselves as the white protectors and organizers of a minority country whose property and rights they will redistribute as they see fit in a new Socialist order. There is absolutely nothing in this creepy little vision that appeals to anyone except the grubby Grubers frustrated at having to work so hard to dupe the insufficiently stupid American voters who won’t just let them play with their health care toys without insisting on tediously voting against higher taxes.
It’s this elite that steadily began alienating white voters with its policies. The situation became critical under Obama not because of his race, but because he fully endorsed their insane power grab.
Now the Democrats are hoping that Hillary Clinton can save their party, but first she has to decide who she is. Hillary has tried to play up racial appeals to white voters before overcorrecting and going the other way. At times she sounds like she wants to appeal to working class voters and at other times she returns to her native element pushing the policy toys of the technocracy.
Instead of the Democratic Party’s Great White Hope, Hillary more closely resembles Mary Landrieu veering between accusations of racism and support for the Keystone pipeline. The left’s attacks on Landrieu for supporting the pipeline only highlight the impossible dilemma of any Democrat trying to run to the right of Obama and Nancy Pelosi. They have to either abandon their voters or their party.
Unlike European parties, American politicians were supposed to put loyalty to their constituents ahead of loyalty to their party. The Democratic Party put its own politicians in the impossible position of being defined by a centralized party seeking to eliminate anything reeking of conservatism while expecting them to win in conservative parts of the country. The Dems didn’t lose. They committed suicide.
The Democratic Party has moved so far to the left that it has alienated all white voters who aren’t on the left and its botched programs like ObamaCare are even beginning to alienate minority voters. Minority support for ObamaCare has hit a new low. Finding white support for ObamaCare requires a microscope.
But the Democratic Party can’t change. It has become dependent on a small donor class of men like Bloomberg, Soros and Steyer whose ad buys and think tanks dictate their agenda. To win, Hillary, Biden and any other candidate must first win over billionaires whose priorities of gun control, no pipeline and lots of big government are exactly the things that have pushed the Democratic Party to the edge.
James Carville was half-right about the 2016 election. If Hillary doesn’t win it, one of the big two parties may go extinct. But it won’t be the Republicans.
"You have enemies? Good. That means that you have stood up for something, sometime in your life." - Winston Churchill.
Re: The Vanishing White Democrat...
Reply #1062 on:
November 19, 2014, 08:05:14 AM »
Whites are a shrinking majority, but still a pretty big group to offend and lose with all the division politics. If you listen or study the Obama speech that rose him to prominence, it was all about unifying not dividing, where getting elected was all about dividing into groups.
The racial gap and the gender gap both cut both ways. As pointed out, the difference is that the Republicans desperately want the votes of the groups they have been losing, and the Dems don't seem to give a damn groups outside their targets.
George Friedman: Obama and the nature of failed presidencies
Reply #1063 on:
November 24, 2014, 04:40:30 PM »
On Obama and the Nature of Failed Presidencies
Tuesday, November 18, 2014 - 03:01 Print Text Size
By George Friedman
We do not normally comment on domestic political affairs unless they affect international affairs. However, it is necessary to consider American political affairs because they are likely to have a particular effect on international relations. We have now entered the final phase of Barack Obama's presidency, and like those of several other presidents since World War II, it is ending in what we call a state of failure. This is not a judgment on his presidency so much as on the political configuration within it and surrounding it.
The midterm elections are over, and Congress and the president are in gridlock. This in itself is not significant; presidents as popular as Dwight Eisenhower found themselves in this condition. The problem occurs when there is not only an institutional split but also a shift in underlying public opinion against the president. There are many more sophisticated analyses of public opinion on politics, but I have found it useful to use this predictive model.
Analyzing a President's Strength
I assume that underneath all of the churning, about 40 percent of the electorate is committed to each party. Twenty percent is uncommitted, with half of those being indifferent to the outcome of politics and the other half being genuinely interested and undecided. In most normal conditions, the real battle between the parties — and by presidents — is to hold their own bases and take as much of the center as possible.
So long as a president is fighting for the center, his ability to govern remains intact. Thus, it is normal for a president to have a popularity rating that is less than 60 percent but more than 40 percent. When a president's popularity rating falls substantially below 40 percent and remains there for an extended period of time, the dynamics of politics shift. The president is no longer battling for the center but is fighting to hold on to his own supporters — and he is failing to do so.
When the president's support has fragmented to the point that he is fighting to recover his base, I considered that a failed presidency — particularly when Congress is in the hands of the opposition. His energy cannot be directed toward new initiatives. It is directed toward recovering his base. And presidents who have fallen into this condition near the end of their presidencies have not been likely to recover and regain the center.
Historically, when the president's popularity rating has dipped to about 37 percent, his position has been unrecoverable. This is what happened to George W. Bush in 2006. It happened to Richard Nixon in 1974 when the Watergate crisis resulted in his resignation, and to Lyndon Johnson in 1967 during the Vietnam War. It also happened to Harry Truman in 1951, primarily because of the Korean War, and to Herbert Hoover before World War II because of the Great Depression.
However, this is not the final historical note on a presidency. Truman, enormously unpopular and unable to run for another term, is now widely regarded as one of the finest presidents the United States has had. Nixon, on the other hand, has never recovered. This is not therefore a judgment on Obama's place in history, but simply on his current political condition. Nor does it take failure to lose the presidency; Jimmy Carter was defeated even though his popularity remained well in the 40s.
Of the five failed presidencies I've cited, one failed over scandal, one over the economy and three over wars — Korea, Vietnam and Iraq. Obama's case is less clear than any. The 40 percent who gravitated to the opposition opposed him for a host of reasons. He lost the center for complex reasons as well. However, looking at the timing of his decline, the only intruding event that might have had that impact was the rise of the Islamic State and a sense, even in his own party, that he did not have an effective response to it. Historically, extended wars that the president did not appear to have a strategy for fighting have been devastating to the presidency. Woodrow Wilson's war (World War I) was short and successful. Franklin Roosevelt's war (World War II) was longer, and although it began in failure it became clear that a successful end was conceivable. The Korean, Vietnam and two Iraq wars suffered not from the length, but from the sense that the presidency did not have a war-ending strategy. Obama appears to me to have fallen into the political abyss because after six years he owned the war and appeared to have no grip on it.
Failure extends to domestic policy as well. The Republican-controlled legislature can pass whatever legislation it likes, but the president retains veto power, and two-thirds of both houses must vote to override. The problem is that given the president's lack of popularity — and the fact that the presidency, all of the House of Representatives and one-third of the Senate will be up for re-election in two years — the president's allies in Congress are not as willing to be held responsible for upholding his vetoes. Just as few Democrats wanted Obama campaigning for them, so too do few want to join the president in vetoing majority legislation. What broke Truman, Johnson and Nixon was the moment it became clear that their party's leaders in Congress wanted them gone.
Acting Within Constraints
This does not mean that the president can't act. It simply means that it is enormously more difficult to act than before. Gerald Ford, replacing Nixon but weakened by the pardoning of his predecessor, could not stop Congress from cutting off aid to South Vietnam during the final Communist assault. George W. Bush was able to launch the surge, but the surge was limited in size, not only because of strategic conditions but also because he had lost the ability to force Congress to fund alternative expansions of the war. In each of the failed presidencies, the president retained the ability to act but was constrained by the twin threats of an opposition-controlled Congress and his own party's unwillingness to align with him.
At the same time, certain foreign diplomatic initiatives can continue. Nixon initiated negotiations between Egypt and Israel that culminated, under Carter's administration, in the Camp David Accords. Truman tried to open negotiations with China, and the initiative's failure had little to do with opposition to a negotiated settlement in Korea.
The president has few domestic options. Whatever Obama does with his power domestically, Congress can vote to cut funding, and if the act is vetoed, the president puts Congressional Democrats in mortal danger. The place where he can act — and this is likely the place Obama is least comfortable acting — is in foreign policy. There, the limited deployment of troops and diplomatic initiatives are possible.
Obama's general strategy is to withdraw from existing conflicts in the Middle East and contain and limit Russian actions in Ukraine. The president has the ability to bring military and other pressure to bear. But the United States' opponent is aware that the sitting president is no longer in control of Washington, that he has a specific date of termination and that the more unpopular things he does, the more likely his successor is to repudiate them. Therefore, in the China-North Korea model, the assumption is that that continuing the conflict and negotiating with the successor president is rational. In the same sense, Iran chose to wait for the election of Ronald Reagan rather than deal with Jimmy Carter (who was not a failed president).
This model depends on the opponent's having the resources and the political will to continue the conflict in order to bargain with the president's successor, and assumes that the successor will be more malleable. This is frequently the result, since the successor can make concessions more readily than his predecessor. In fact, he can make those concessions and gain points by blaming the need to concede on his predecessor. Ironically, Obama used this strategy after replacing George W. Bush. The failed president frequently tries to entice negotiation by increasing the military pressure on the enemy. Truman, Johnson and George W. Bush all took this path while seeking to end their wars. In no case did it work, but they had little to lose politically by trying.
Therefore, if we follow historical patterns, Obama will now proceed slowly and ineffectively to increase military operations in Syria and Iraq, while raising non-military pressure on Russia, or potentially initiating some low-level military activities in Ukraine. The actions will be designed to achieve a rapid negotiating process that will not happen. The presidency will shift to the other party, as it did with Truman, Johnson and George W. Bush. Thus, if patterns hold true, the Republicans will retake the presidency. This is not a pattern unknown to Congress, which means that the Democrats in the legislature will focus on running their own campaigns as far away from Obama and the next Democratic presidential candidate as possible.
The period of a failed presidency is therefore not a quiet time. The president is actively trying to save his legacy in the face of enormous domestic weakness. Other countries, particularly adversaries, see little reason to make concessions to failed presidents, preferring to deal with the next president instead. These adversaries then use military and political oppositions abroad to help shape the next U.S. presidential campaign in directions that are in their interests.
It is against this backdrop that all domestic activities take place. The president retains the veto, and if the president is careful he will be able to sustain it. Obama will engage in limited domestic politics, under heavy pressure from Congressional Democrats, confining himself to one or two things. His major activity will be coping with Syria, Iraq and Russia, both because of crises and the desire for a legacy. The last two years of a failed presidency are mostly about foreign policy and are not very pleasant to watch.
Read more: On Obama and the Nature of Failed Presidencies | Stratfor
Follow us: @stratfor on Twitter | Stratfor on Facebook
Matthew Vadum: "Ferguson in Flames"
Reply #1064 on:
November 25, 2014, 08:02:25 AM »
Ferguson in Flames
Posted By Matthew Vadum On November 25, 2014
Grand jurors in Ferguson, Mo., refused to indict local police officer Darren Wilson yesterday, heroically resisting pressure from President Obama on down to lynch an innocent police officer who fought off a violent attacker.
The decision is infuriating left-wingers across America because it rebuts the underlying assumption they embrace which is that white police racism caused the death of Michael Brown, a young black thug who tried to seize Wilson’s gun in an attempt to do the officer harm.
As fresh rioting was already underway in the St. Louis area, the decision also angered President Obama who could barely contain his hostility in a disgraceful, unprecedented television appearance following the release of the announcement about the non-indictments. Obama urged activists to refrain from using violence. The president himself bears direct responsibility for fomenting the combustible situation, however.
The county’s elected prosecuting attorney, Robert McCulloch, calmly explained the process in detail last night that the grand jury employed in choosing not to return indictments in five potential charges from first-degree murder to lesser offenses.
McCulloch is a white Democrat who has come under heavy fire from race-baiting members of his own political party. His partisans hate him because he does not share their antipathy for police officers, and presumably, because he is the wrong color. McCulloch easily secured the Democratic nomination for his office in a primary election four days before Brown was killed. In that contest, he handily beat former state public defender Leslie T. Broadnax, a black woman, by a margin of 71.4 percent to 28.6 percent.
McCulloch said many witnesses gave testimony that was not believable. Witnesses fabricated events, admitted they were in error, clung to discredited factual accounts, or gave evidence inconsistent with the physical evidence.
McCulloch said grand jurors were “the only people who heard every witness … and every piece of evidence.”
“These grand jurors poured their hearts and soul into this process,” he said. The grand jury consisted of nine whites and three blacks and was meeting every week since Aug. 20 to hear evidence in the fatal shooting of Michael Brown. The panel convened for 70 hours and heard from 60 witnesses.
Perhaps in a conciliatory gesture to those who wanted Wilson strung up, McCulloch referred to the death of Brown and the events surrounding it as tragic. Obama too used the word tragic.
But that is the wrong word.
Recall that Brown, an 18-year-old black male, was killed in Ferguson, Mo., on Aug. 9 by white police officer Darren Wilson after he attacked Wilson and tried to grab his handgun. Brown’s defenders characterize him as a gentle giant even though a few minutes earlier he was captured on video committing a strong-arm robbery at a convenience store, roughing up a much smaller clerk in the process. At autopsy Brown’s height was 6′ 5″ and his weight was 289 lbs. As previously reported, autopsy results were consistent with witness accounts that Brown reached for Wilson’s gun during their fateful altercation.
Brown’s death was not tragic. He was a villain. The evidence shows that he initiated potentially deadly force against an officer of the law and suffered the consequences of his actions. Grand jurors only needed a little bit of evidence to indict Officer Wilson. The evidence needed only to establish that probable cause existed to charge Wilson with a crime. The prosecution couldn’t even satisfy that low legal bar. The Wilson case may never have made it to a grand jury at all were it not for the antics of left-wing racial grievance groups working with and taking directions from the Obama administration.
The decision not to indict Wilson is not a tragedy. Far from it. The decision is just, proof that the grand jury system that was created to prevent governments from railroading unpopular defendants still works.
The tragedy is that Wilson had to be subjected to a three-month-long circus in which he was wrongfully accused of being a racist, murdering cop. He was demonized in the media day in and day out, a process that continues in the nation’s newsrooms even after last night’s announcement.
Petulant, as America’s childish Commander-in-Chief is wont to be when he fails to get his way, Obama sounded angry that grand jurors failed to indict Officer Wilson. The plot by Obama, Attorney General Eric Holder, and Obama operative Al Sharpton to lynch Wilson in the courts failed.
Coming across like a Latin American caudillo, Obama sounded disgusted with Ferguson police and police forces across the nation in a press briefing last night.
Instead of accepting the grand jury’s wise decision, Obama set about stoking the flames. After spending months stirring up racial antagonism, Obama pontificated as if an innocent bystander of the events.
The decision “was going to be subject of intense disagreement not only in Ferguson, but across America, so I want to just say a few words suggesting how we might move forward,” he said, without noting that Wilson’s use of justifiable force against Brown became a national issue at his instigation.
Ignoring the fact that the death of Michael Brown had everything to do with his threatening, abusive behavior and absolutely nothing to do with his race, Obama implied cops hate minorities.
“We need to recognize that the situation in Ferguson speaks to broader challenges that we still face as a nation,” Obama said, even though no broader challenges that we face as a nation played a role in Brown’s death.
“The fact is, in too many parts of this country, a deep distrust exists between law enforcement and communities of color,” he said, without noting that he and his comrades-in-arms in the world of community organizing have created distrust and disharmony where none previously existed.
Obama then blamed white people for Michael Brown attacking Darren Wilson.
“Some of this is the result of the legacy of racial discrimination in this country,” Obama said even though there is no evidence that the residue of racial discrimination played any role in Brown’s death.
“And this is tragic, because nobody needs good policing more than poor communities with higher crime rates,” Obama said. “The good news is we know there are things we can do to help, and I’ve instructed Attorney General Holder to work with cities across the country to help build better relations between communities and law enforcement.” Obama said this even though the case at hand provided no evidence that there is a problem between communities and law enforcement.
The president then pivoted to make a pitch for affirmative action in police departments:
That means working with law enforcement officials to make sure their ranks are representative of the communities they serve. We know that makes a difference. It means working to train officials so that law enforcement conducts itself in a way that is fair to everybody. It means enlisting the community actively on what should be everybody’s goal, and that is to prevent crime.
These are mere policing platitudes Obama is lip-syncing as he advances the notion that only black police officers are suited to work in black communities. We do not know that it makes a difference. In fact, enforced diversity can be deadly.
We know that in the rush to furnish communities with cops of the correct skin color corners are likely to get cut and people will die as a result. Economist John Lott found in a 2000 study that the apartheid approach to police staffing led to increases in violent crime, especially in black neighborhoods. This is because the forced lowering of standards put less-qualified officers of all skin colors on the streets.
Even though the justice system ultimately worked in Ferguson, Obama pretends there is still a problem because there aren’t enough blacks in the local constabulary, in his view. He urged communities “interested in working with this administration and local and state officials to start tackling much-needed criminal justice reform,” even though the Brown-Wilson saga does not prove any reform of the criminal justice system is needed.
Obama continued ignoring the facts, insisting there is a problem.
“We have made enormous progress in race relations over the course of the past several decades … but what is also true is that there are still problems and communities of color aren’t just making these problems up,” Obama said, again ignoring that there is no evidence of a problem.
“Those who are only interested in focusing on the violence and just want the problem to go away need to recognize that we do have work to do here, and we shouldn’t try to paper it over,” he said without proving there is any work to be done. “Whenever we do that, the anger may momentarily subside, but over time, it builds up and America isn’t everything that it could be.”
It is as if the psychosis our troubled president suffers from regarding Ebola, the virus Obama is lovingly importing from West Africa, has spread to other issues as well. Only Obama and his fellow travelers say there is a problem in Ferguson.
The mass hysteria over Michael Brown’s death that Obama and his allies generated continues.
It is yet another success for America’s first Alinskyite president.
"You have enemies? Good. That means that you have stood up for something, sometime in your life." - Winston Churchill.
Reply #1065 on:
November 25, 2014, 09:06:14 AM »
Agree completely with above post. Most of us agree with Mark Levin's comments from last night's radio broadcast. What he takes away from this is youth should not be robbing stores, strong arming store owners, punching police officers and reaching for their guns.
Yet we have the left desperately turning this around to suit their agenda.
Time for center and right of center political leaders to start calling out this charade. We know the left won't do it.
Re: Politics - Ferguson
Reply #1066 on:
November 25, 2014, 10:42:46 AM »
St. Louis County Police Sgt. Brian Schellman said this morning that at least 61 people were arrested. Charges ranged from burglary to trespassing to receiving stolen property.
As of 8:30 a.m., area hospitals reported a total of 23 injuries including three admissions and two gunshot victims.
The chaos started when the first account of the incident said he was shot in the back, from a distance, for no reason. Gradually we found out that isn't what happened. Because of the rules of the system, the officer's account of it didn't come out until now.
I wonder how many innocent people the police in that area have been shooting that people would widely believe the first story? How often when the innocent people are shot in the back for no reason by the police does the justice system fail to hold the officer accountable and people have to take to the streets for justice? Relative to the ongoing level of crime against each other, the answer to those questions is pretty close to zero.
Recently I heard an ad on liberal-radio looking for protesters and donations to fight against the police state. Maybe we will find out from the arrest who these people really are and where they are from.
Another question comes to mind, if all these people in this community are really so anti-big-government and dissatisfied with the status quo, why did they just vote 94% Democrat? (See Ferguson State Senate district 14
Please select a destination:
DBMA Martial Arts Forum
=> Martial Arts Topics
Politics, Religion, Science, Culture and Humanities
=> Politics & Religion
=> Science, Culture, & Humanities
=> Espanol Discussion
Powered by SMF 1.1.19
SMF © 2013, Simple Machines