Election 2010 - The Consequences

[SB Shock]

Couple quotes from STRATFOR, a non-partisan entity.

What STRATFOR will do now is address this simple fact: U.S. President Barack Obama, whose time in office began with a supportive Congress, has lost his ability to dictate the domestic policy agenda.

Obama has one short year to stabilize a party reeling from an electoral rebuff and get his approval numbers up. Otherwise, he will face serious challenges from within the Democratic Party, to say nothing of what the Republicans would try to do.

it will be interesting to see what President Obama says today in his speech and if there is any humility (my guess he won't show any humility to his enemies.

But STRATFOR does say:

This is something that the rest of the world repeatedly has failed to grasp. Domestically weakened American presidents have often done more than engage in foreign policy: They have overturned entire international orders. Former U.S. President George W. Bush defied expectations after his 2006 midterm electoral defeat and launched the surge into Iraq, utterly changing the calculus of that war. Clinton launched the Kosovo war, which undid what remained of the Cold War security architecture. Most famously, John Kennedy, whom the Soviets had written off as a weak and naive dilettante who had surrounded himself with incompetent advisers (sound familiar?), gave the Russians their biggest Cold War diplomatic defeat in the Cuban Missile Crisis.

The United States might be distracted and its president domestically weakened, and undoubtedly most of the world will assume that they know what this means. But history tells a very different story, and this president — like his predecessors — is not done just yet.

[ISASO]

But this President doesn't seem to think like Kennedy or Clinton. Both of those guys were patriots when push came to shove. Obama still has 40-some years of personal disdain for America to overcome before he taps his patriotic feelings. His opportunity to make a military statement exists, but I bet he withdraws from the fight instead of engaging in it.

[SB Shock]

GOP likely to urge Obama officials not to shred documents

http://thehill.com/homenews/house/127457-gop-likely-to-urge-obama-officials-not-to-shred-documents

[SB Shock]

Inside White House, calls for shake-up

http://www.politico.com/news/stories/1110/44637.html

Frustrated current and former West Wing staffers, speaking on condition of anonymity, told POLITICO they hoped Tuesday night’s humbling losses would persuade President Barack Obama to pursue a much more sweeping fix than just the “natural” post-election churn of personnel his administration has insisted will take place.

[ShockBand]

This is a breakaway from the above stuff, but I thought worth sharing.

On O'Reilly tonight, Democratic Congressman Dennis Kucinich made one of the best one-liners I've heard in awhile:

"The impatience of the American people is now in the hands of the Republican Party."

Now of course the Senate and WH are still in Democratic control, but even O'Reilly thought that to be a fair assessment. If in two years things, namely the economy/jobs, aren't improved, will the voters take out their frustrations on Blue or Red?

Or will we start kicking a whole bunch of 'em out regardless of party???

[SB Shock]

This is a breakaway from the above stuff, but I thought worth sharing.

On O'Reilly tonight, Democratic Congressman Dennis Kucinich made one of the best one-liners I've heard in awhile:

"The impatience of the American people is now in the hands of the Republican Party."

Now of course the Senate and WH are still in Democratic control, but even O'Reilly thought that to be a fair assessment. If in two years things, namely the economy/jobs, aren't improved, will the voters take out their frustrations on Blue or Red?

Or will we start kicking a whole bunch of 'em out regardless of party???

I think both (though democrats will be most vulnerable in the senate where they will have 20 seats up and the Republicans only like 10).

This nation needs to hold our representatives accountable instead of just letting them walking a party line (where frankly the party line is beholden to special interest) but put the fear in them that if they don't represent their constituents interest they will be kicked out. That is what I think this election and the previous election was about.

There were alot of first term democrat representatives who ran more as conservative than their Republicans to get elected but voted rolled over and voted part line and they were kicked out. The blue-dog democrats got annihilated because they voted party line. The remaining democrats are hard-core left who come from hard-core left districts.

[Maggie]

I’m not sure what the Congressman means – it is not surprising that he doesn’t get it. To begin with, after watching President Obama’s press conference, Democrats who are still left standing must have been mortified. The depth of his self-delusion was stunning.

To put things in perspective: the Democratic Party just suffered the worst repudiation any political party has since before the middle of the last century. The defeat was staggering in the House (where Republicans will net more than 60 seats), in the Senate (+6 for the GOP), and in races for governorships (where the GOP has a net gain of six, with a couple of contests still outstanding). Republicans also took control of a ton of legislative chambers and gained hundreds of legislative seats. No region in America, not even the Northeast, was untouched by the Republican wave.

If you listened to the president, though, the “shellacking” was because of process rather than substance. ObamaCare, he assured us, is a sparkling, wondrous law; the only downside to it was the horse-trading that went on to secure its passage. They would be misreading the election, the president helpfully informed Republicans, if they decide to “relitigate” the arguments of the last two years. Well isn’t that what elections are about – they are reflection of the public approval or disapproval of what has happened since the last election.

Look, it’s not surprising that Obama finds the prospect of revisiting his signature legislative accomplishment daunting. It’s unpopular. Countless Democrats ran against it. But his liberal base considers it the lynchpin of his presidency. And hundreds of Republicans-not just the 60 who gave the House to the GOP-ran explicitly on repeal of some kind or other. They might not have the same read on the popular will as Obama. At least some of them might plausibly conclude that they were elected to re-litigate the past.

But the message from the voters, according to Obama, is that The Car (to use his beloved, overused analogy), while still in the ditch, is undeniably moving in the right direction. We just have to go faster than we are (maybe that is what the Congressmen means?). Democratic losses can be explained because they lost the optics war: in pursuing so many wise and prudent policies all at once, you see, the hyperactive president and his administration only appeared as if they were profligate spenders and champions of big government. This is just silly – the stimulus, TARP, the auto bailout, student loans together with ObamaCare didn’t symbolize big government – it is big government.

What I took away from that press conference was less a president than a dogmatist - a man who appears to have an extraordinary capacity to hermetically seal off events and evidence that call into question his governing philosophy, his policies, and his wisdom. The election was above all a referendum on the president’s policies, yet his big takeaway was not to re-litigate his agenda. He speaks as if he’s a lawyer rather than a lawmaker.

If the GOP stays strong and attempts to roll back many of the policies put in place the last two years – it will be fine - they may not succeed in getting legislation passed; but they will force a public debate. And I think they will find some support among Democrats. Some may be skeptical that self-styled moderate Democrats will buck the president. Certainly, their track record in that regard is poor. But the 2010 midterm elections and these lawmakers’ own re-election have a way of focusing Democrats on the perils of blindly falling in line behind the President. Will the Democrats at risk in 2012 desert Obama all the time? Of course not. But in key areas, it certainly will appear that there is a bipartisan consensus on one side and the President on the other.

It is going to be an interesting two years.

[SubGod22]

Well put Maggie

[t7017s]

http://newsflavor.com/politics/world-politics/white-house-insider-what-the-hell-have-we-done/#ixzz107aU39u8

[shoxilla]

Interesting dynamic to watch is how gridlock will/will not be a daily occurence If so, another incumbent backlash will occur. My grandfather always said if they're not smart enough to steal what they need they first time we sure don't need them for a second time.

:( :-x :roll:

[ABC]

The supposed negative about gridlock is way over done.

If we would have had gridlock last year, cap and trade wouldn't have passed and health care would not be law and Democrats might still have the majority in the House.

Though I would like taxes and regulation reduced, I would be satisfied if Congress really didn't do anything. That would offset all of the bad stuff they regularly do.

[SB Shock]

Interesting dynamic to watch is how gridlock will/will not be a daily occurence

Gridlock is a good thing. That means only those items of consensus will get passed.

Passing new laws or spending more money is not gong to solve the problem of this country. Not passing new laws (and enforcing the laws we already have) and not spending money will be a step in the right direction.

If so, another incumbent backlash will occur.

The backlash occurred because there was no Grid Lock. Obama had a blank checkbook and instead of trying to do what was right for the country, he pushed a unpopular leftist agenda. That is why the backlash occurred.