Personally, I think O’s offering up of Social Security was the gravest betrayal of the trust of the American people by an Democratic President since LBJ ginned up the Vietnam War. I’m willing to walk that one back, but I can’t think of a more grievous sellout in 40 years. I’d endorse a primary challenge to O on that basis alone. However, if the subject is politics rather than policy, I’m amazed I’ve seen so many well-argued positions explaining why this will prove a political net loss, but falsely assuming any of that will resonate with the average voter.
Mitt Romney is going to be GOP nominee. Its his “turn”. The GOP king-makers will soon confirm this is likely a lost cycle to them, so they might as well at least dispense with the Mormon’s Presidential aspirations. How is Mitt Romney going to leverage O’s craven capitulation to Mittens’ relative advantage on this specific issue? Why would he even go there? Romney is on the record as having proposed, privatization, raising the retirement age, and phasing out Social Security completely for younger workers.
”We’re going to have to sit down with the Democrats and say, let’s have a compromise on these three elements that could get us to bring Social Security into economic balance. You can have personal accounts where people can invest in something that does better than government bonds–with some portion of their Social Security. We’re going to have the initial benefit calculations for wealthier Americans calculated based on the Consumer Price Index rather than the wage index. That saves almost two-thirds of the shortfall. You can change the retirement age. You can push it out a little bit.”
Source: 2008 GOP debate in Boca Raton Florida Jan 24, 2008
“In a campaign appearance, Romney expressed support for replacing some of Social Security’s guaranteed benefits with privatized accounts. He also suggested as cost-saving measures raising the retirement age and changing the way Social Security is adjusted for inflation.” – Union Leader, 6/7/2007.
“Romney wants to reform programs such as Social Security and Medicare but has not promised to preserve benefits. ‘I don’t want to add entitlements,’ he says, ‘I want to find ways to reform our entitlement programs.’” – Boston Globe, 1/27/2006.
“(Romney) is weighing…. deep cuts in automatic-benefits programs such as Medicare and Social Security…. Romney aides say he is intrigued by the ideas of Democrat Robert Posen who served on Bush’s 2001 Social Security Commission. Posen’s plan calls for ‘progressive indexation’ that maintains the current Social Security benefit formula for the poor while providing gradual benefit reductions for wealthier individuals.” – Bloomberg, 2/7/2007.
“Romney.. says its time to reform the two major ‘entitlement’ programs in America: Social Security and Medicare, government-paid health care insurance for the elderly… Romney said the solution should ‘make sure that we honor the expectations’ of those who are already getting Social Security and those who are about to get regular Social Security checks from the government, while at the same time ensuring the system will be solvent when the 30-and 40-year-olds of today reach retirement age.” – Radio Iowa, 8/25/06.
A similar record will be available on any GOP candidate. In a 1 x1 matchup spanning many months, how could any of them use O’s actual record on Social Security, which likely will remain unchanged after four years of his Presidency, against him in any meaningful way while simultaneously defending their more unpopular but well-established positions? I will never forgive the man for what he has done, but this is not going to cost him re-election.
Passing the Affordable Care Act caused an epically protracted battle of disinformation and sheer stupidity containing everything from popularly held notions of death panels to armies of IRS enforcement agents. The amount of fear and ignorance demonstrated by the American people in that debate rivaled that of the run-up to the Iraq War, and the majority of voters are still fundamentally confused. That’s a pathetic indictment indeed, but O’s intentionally vague social security cuts saw daylight maybe four days before the Republicans suffered a very public and humiliating meltdown.
The dynamics of the specific, individual Presidential matchup are also different than for House incumbents. Obama v. GOP Candidate X leaves O a hell of lot less vulnerable to perceptions on relative positions on Social Security among the national electorate than the Blue Dogs who got booted from their swing districts last November.
Not sure about this.
I doubt the Republicans have enough cred on protecting Social Security to leverage O’s proposed sellout effectively to their advantage. All many folks will take from this months from now is GOP folds, causing infighting, leaving O to be perceived as a relatively stronger leader.
His hair is also highly overrated.
nslander commented on the blog post Fed Expects Unemployment to be Higher in 2012 than When Obama Took Office
Neither Peter Principle nor apathy, but Occam’s Razor: he is simply executing his plan.
nslander commented on the blog post Obama’s Approval Gets Big Bump from Killing of Bin Laden, But Gains Unlikely to Last
If we are going to waste time on horserace horseshit, we might as well frame this event properly. The percentage of voters in 2012 who will state explicitly they’re voting O because he killed Bin Laden 18 months prior will be near zero. But, O’s enhanced “effective/strong leader” perception will also bolster his economic/jobs cred among undecided vs any Republican. Its simply a matter of degree.
nslander commented on the blog post Bin Laden Death Should Have Only Modest Influence on 2012 Election
Again- my point is not about Rs voting D, nor is it about O’s net approval; one would be foolish to suggest this will have any lasting effect. However, I simply can’t believe this will not have a lasting, visceral effect of bolstering O’s RELATIVE advantage of PERCEIVED BASE COMPETENCY to swings voting their pocketbooks. I’m apologize for screaming, but some here appear like they didn’t want to read that.
I can’t think of any single event (ie, not a decreased trend in unemployment) that helps O v any R in answering “Who do you trust to_______?” Apocryphal story alert: my conservative co-workers a losing their shit over this, and I’m fairly certain its not because O scored a perceived political victory by Making ‘Merica Safe, but because he scored a perceived political victory by simply getting an undeniable tangible result.
nslander commented on the blog post Bin Laden Death Should Have Only Modest Influence on 2012 Election
I’m going to disagree. I can’t dismiss the effect this event will have on widening the perception of base competency between the current President and any Republican contender. This extends beyond the GOP’s “Keeping American Safe” frame to the respective parties’ ability to protect American’s pocketbooks. Not so much a boost to Obama, but a soaking wet blanket on the Republicans.
nslander commented on the blog post Dylan Ratigan, Law Professors and I All Agree: Obama Needs to Explain or End Manning’s Treatment
nslander commented on the blog post WI State Assemblyman: Republicans Ran Out of Capitol Last Night After Voting
“With the Left trying to intimidate the Koch brothers to back off of their support for freedom..”
This stopped me as well.
-It assumes there actually exists a viable “Left” movement in US;
-that the imaginary Left is sufficneintly powerful to to employ public intimidation as a tactic;
-that muli-billionaires are subject to intimidation by school teachers,and;
-a good ol’ Orwellian appeal to freedom.
That phrase is simply dripping with fear and weakness.
nslander commented on the blog post David Brooks: Scott Walker Campaigned on Union-Busting
FWIW – my heartfelt note to Mr. Brooks:
You are walking proof meritocracy in journalism is dead. How does it feel knowing idiots like me, people who work full time in fields entirely unrelated to the reporting on geo-political, economic and cultural trends, consistently beat you to the punch on everything from the run-up to the Iraq invasion, the financial crisis to simple, verifiable matters as whether a Governor had campaigned very recently on eliminating public employees collective bargaining rights? Because you are incapable of shame, I’ll be embarrassed for you. Just give it up.
Nothing like breaking the news to a rich kid that he didn’t earn his wealth.
Over 30 years and adjusted for inflation, CA alone has subsidized donor states to the tune of half a trillion dollars. Anytime, y’all. Anytime.
But I don’t think donor state status is determined by it party ID as much as its population density.
The common feature among donor states is their size, which suggests the benefits of scale and the sheer number wealthy paying into a progressive tax system. I’ve noticed many folks who profess their hatred of large cities fail to recognize the simple reality it costs more to deliver services and infrastructure to more sparsely populated areas. Of course, they tend to vote Republican and bitch about wasteful liberals and minorities. The donor states trend blue with the notable exception of Texas, which makes their voting patterns even more ridiculous.
And you still need to disgorge to CA $50 billion+ for giving aid and comfort to Enron.
nslander commented on the blog post White House’s Move to “the Center” Ignores the Lessons of 2004
Disagree with the opening line. The WH is not convinced the Dems lost the midterms because it lost the midddle. Rather, the WH holds the left, the middle, and anybody on the right who stands to opppose the corporatist agenda in contempt.
PLEASE stop implying this WH does not “get it”. They “get it”, but they HATE us.
Specific campaign commercials can make an entire race of humans disappear? Learn something new everyday.
So, the benign manipulation of the racial and socio-economic bias inherent our culture is an unacceptable price for maximizing the likelihood of ending the disproportionate incarceration of people of color? Got it.
Agree about Dem opposition. As a registered Dem, our candidates are craven and desperate to surry support from the prison-industrial complex and law enforcement unions. Problem is, that’s not going to change, and we need to find a way to counter that.
I’m aware of deputy chief, it was problem of his visibility. I think I heard him once on the radio only (KPFK?). His image, or another cop’s, image or silhouette should have been more prevalent than the pot leaf.
I would call it something other than the derogatory word used to stigmatize minority cannabis smokers and black musicians.
Have somebody (Soros?) cut a check to poll those who voted against 19. From that sample, identify those who initially supported it and determine what caused their switch. I’m not convinced the conventional explanation about the AG’s stance was the reason. I suspect non-smokers’ innate apprehension caught up to them. Begin to diffuse that fear and bring home that 10% in an election cycle not heavily Republican. The first and last face of the campaign should be law enforcement. Hate to say it, but depict as many short-haired, middle-aged white males as possible. Lose the leaf, stop calling it marijuana.