Even I don't by the whole 'it would be amaaaazing!' bit - I couldn't help but post this. :blush:
http://online.wsj.com/article_email/SB10001424052970203611404577041950781477944-lMyQjAxMTAxMDIwMDEyNDAyWj.html
QuotePresident Obama can't win by running a constructive campaign, and he won't be able to govern if he does win a second term.
When Harry Truman and Lyndon Johnson accepted the reality that they could not effectively govern the nation if they sought re-election to the White House, both men took the moral high ground and decided against running for a new term as president. President Obama is facing a similar reality—and he must reach the same conclusion.
He should abandon his candidacy for re-election in favor of a clear alternative, one capable not only of saving the Democratic Party, but more important, of governing effectively and in a way that preserves the most important of the president's accomplishments. He should step aside for the one candidate who would become, by acclamation, the nominee of the Democratic Party: Secretary of State Hillary Clinton.
Never before has there been such an obvious potential successor—one who has been a loyal and effective member of the president's administration, who has the stature to take on the office, and who is the only leader capable of uniting the country around a bipartisan economic and foreign policy.
Certainly, Mr. Obama could still win re-election in 2012. Even with his all-time low job approval ratings (and even worse ratings on handling the economy) the president could eke out a victory in November. But the kind of campaign required for the president's political survival would make it almost impossible for him to govern—not only during the campaign, but throughout a second term.
Put simply, it seems that the White House has concluded that if the president cannot run on his record, he will need to wage the most negative campaign in history to stand any chance. With his job approval ratings below 45% overall and below 40% on the economy, the president cannot affirmatively make the case that voters are better off now than they were four years ago. He—like everyone else—knows that they are worse off.
President Obama is now neck and neck with a generic Republican challenger in the latest Real Clear Politics 2012 General Election Average (43.8%-43.%). Meanwhile, voters disapprove of the president's performance 49%-41% in the most recent Gallup survey, and 63% of voters disapprove of his handling of the economy, according to the most recent CNN/ORC poll.
Consequently, he has to make the case that the Republicans, who have garnered even lower ratings in the polls for their unwillingness to compromise and settle for gridlock, represent a more risky and dangerous choice than the current administration—an argument he's clearly begun to articulate.
One year ago in these pages, we warned that if President Obama continued down his overly partisan road, the nation would be "guaranteed two years of political gridlock at a time when we can ill afford it." The result has been exactly as we predicted: stalemate in Washington, fights over the debt ceiling, an inability to tackle the debt and deficit, and paralysis exacerbating market turmoil and economic decline.
If President Obama were to withdraw, he would put great pressure on the Republicans to come to the table and negotiate—especially if the president singularly focused in the way we have suggested on the economy, job creation, and debt and deficit reduction. By taking himself out of the campaign, he would change the dynamic from who is more to blame—George W. Bush or Barack Obama?—to a more constructive dialogue about our nation's future.
Even though Mrs. Clinton has expressed no interest in running, and we have no information to suggest that she is running any sort of stealth campaign, it is clear that she commands majority support throughout the country. A CNN/ORC poll released in late September had Mrs. Clinton's approval rating at an all-time high of 69%—even better than when she was the nation's first lady. Meanwhile, a Time Magazine poll shows that Mrs. Clinton is favored over former Massachusetts Gov. Mitt Romney by 17 points (55%-38%), and Texas Gov. Rick Perry by 26 points (58%-32%).
But this is about more than electoral politics. Not only is Mrs. Clinton better positioned to win in 2012 than Mr. Obama, but she is better positioned to govern if she does. Given her strong public support, she has the ability to step above partisan politics, reach out to Republicans, change the dialogue, and break the gridlock in Washington.
President Bill Clinton reached a historic agreement with the Republicans in 1997 that led to a balanced budget. Were Mrs. Clinton to become the Democratic nominee, her argument would almost certainly have to be about reconciliation and about an overarching deal to rein in the federal deficit. She will understand implicitly the need to draw up a bipartisan plan with elements similar to her husband's in the mid-to-late '90s—entitlement reform, reform of the Defense Department, reining in spending, all the while working to preserve the country's social safety net.
Having unique experience in government as first lady, senator and now as Secretary of State, Mrs. Clinton is more qualified than any presidential candidate in recent memory, including her husband. Her election would arguably be as historic an event as the election of President Obama in 2008.
By going down the re-election road and into partisan mode, the president has effectively guaranteed that the remainder of his term will be marred by the resentment and division that have eroded our national identity, common purpose, and most of all, our economic strength. If he continues on this course it is certain that the 2012 campaign will exacerbate the divisions in our country and weaken our national identity to such a degree that the scorched-earth campaign that President George W. Bush ran in the 2002 midterms and the 2004 presidential election will pale in comparison.
We write as patriots and Democrats—concerned about the fate of our party and, most of all, our country. We do not write as people who have been in contact with Mrs. Clinton or her political operation. Nor would we expect to be directly involved in any Clinton campaign.
If President Obama is not willing to seize the moral high ground and step aside, then the two Democratic leaders in Congress, Sen. Harry Reid and Rep. Nancy Pelosi, must urge the president not to seek re-election—for the good of the party and most of all for the good of the country. And they must present the only clear alternative—Hillary Clinton.
:lol:
You can't reach out to the Republicans, it's a lost cause.
Quote from: Grey Fox on November 23, 2011, 10:24:22 AM
:lol:
You can't reach out to the Republicans, it's a lost cause.
I'm a Republican. :)
Quote from: garbon on November 23, 2011, 10:25:36 AM
Quote from: Grey Fox on November 23, 2011, 10:24:22 AM
:lol:
You can't reach out to the Republicans, it's a lost cause.
I'm a Republican. :)
Yea & but you are also not a member of the Senate or the House.
Quote from: garbon on November 23, 2011, 10:25:36 AM
I'm a Republican. :)
And how have you responded when we reach out to you?
Quote from: Grey Fox on November 23, 2011, 10:27:32 AM
Yea & but you are also not a member of the Senate or the House.
They take orders from garbon though, he represents the Republican base.
Quote from: Valmy on November 23, 2011, 10:29:18 AM
Quote from: Grey Fox on November 23, 2011, 10:27:32 AM
Yea & but you are also not a member of the Senate or the House.
They take orders from garbon though, he represents the Republican base.
I just think it is a poor notion to start off with the premise that the entire other party is unwilling to compromise. Can't really run a country that way as we've all been feeling. :(
Quote from: Valmy on November 23, 2011, 10:28:52 AM
Quote from: garbon on November 23, 2011, 10:25:36 AM
I'm a Republican. :)
And how have you responded when we reach out to you?
Like any gay man. Depends how many drinks he's had :P
Quote from: garbon on November 23, 2011, 10:42:38 AM
Quote from: Grey Fox on November 23, 2011, 10:36:47 AM
Quote from: garbon on November 23, 2011, 10:36:14 AM
Quote from: Valmy on November 23, 2011, 10:28:52 AM
Quote from: garbon on November 23, 2011, 10:25:36 AM
I'm a Republican. :)
And how have you responded when we reach out to you?
Give me an issue.
Federal VAT of 5%
Eww, VATs sound awful. /Wouldn't that hurt the poor?
It would fix the deficit tho.
Quote from: garbon on November 23, 2011, 10:37:08 AMI just think it is a poor notion to start off with the premise that the entire other party is unwilling to compromise. Can't really run a country that way as we've all been feeling. :(
Not as bad as starting out with the premise that your own party doesn't want to compromise.
Quote from: Jacob on November 23, 2011, 11:01:17 AM
Quote from: garbon on November 23, 2011, 10:37:08 AMI just think it is a poor notion to start off with the premise that the entire other party is unwilling to compromise. Can't really run a country that way as we've all been feeling. :(
Not as bad as starting out with the premise that your own party doesn't want to compromise.
I think every party likes to believe itself willing to compromise. Doesn't make it true.
This article is just :lol:. Of course, WSJ editorials have been notorious for original interpretations of reality even long before William Randolph Hearst bought it.
Quote from: garbon on November 23, 2011, 11:08:41 AM
I think every party likes to believe itself willing to compromise. Doesn't make it true.
That may be generally true, but the Republicans in the House and Senate* have seemed very proud of their written pledge not to compromise.
I think that they believe that it makes them look strong, rather than making them look like willing stooges of a Washington lobbyist.
*except the ones, if any, that refused to sign up for Grover Nysquist's pledge of non-compromise on raising taxes.
Quote from: Valmy on November 23, 2011, 10:28:52 AM
Quote from: garbon on November 23, 2011, 10:25:36 AM
I'm a Republican. :)
And how have you responded when we reach out to you?
I'd like to reach out to gay fox with a can of bear mace.
Quote from: DGuller on November 23, 2011, 11:11:59 AM
This article is just :lol:. Of course, WSJ editorials have been notorious for original interpretations of reality even long before William Randolph Hearst bought it.
It's not them. This is a reprint. The guy who wrote this is releasing a book on politics about hyper-partisanism or something like that, and this is a good way to make headlines and get on talk shows.
Quote from: Ed Anger on November 23, 2011, 11:52:04 AM
Quote from: Valmy on November 23, 2011, 10:28:52 AM
Quote from: garbon on November 23, 2011, 10:25:36 AM
I'm a Republican. :)
And how have you responded when we reach out to you?
I'd like to reach out to gay fox with a can of bear mace.
I'd like to reach out to you with a can of cheez wiz.
Well, I'm turned on now.
I don't think that Obama should even think about stepping aside while the Republican Candidates are suitably Batshit. I still don't know which Republican candidate is supposed to beat him?
Quote from: Viking on November 23, 2011, 12:33:42 PM
I don't think that Obama should even think about stepping aside while the Republican Candidates are suitably Batshit. I still don't know which Republican candidate is supposed to beat him?
Haven't they shown Romney currently winning in a match up?
Quote from: Viking on November 23, 2011, 12:33:42 PM
I don't think that Obama should even think about stepping aside while the Republican Candidates are suitably Batshit. I still don't know which Republican candidate is supposed to beat him?
Yeah this. I don't think he is the best theoretically possible candidate to deal with the sinkage of of US politics into 3rd world standards, but looking from here he appears to be way better at anything than the ridicioulous lineup of the GOP.
Except for Ron Paul of course. Ron Paul for Prez! :wub:
Quote from: Razgovory on November 23, 2011, 01:11:53 PM
Quote from: garbon on November 23, 2011, 10:25:36 AM
Quote from: Grey Fox on November 23, 2011, 10:24:22 AM
:lol:
You can't reach out to the Republicans, it's a lost cause.
I'm a Republican. :)
You used to deny it.
Before I moved to New York, I was a registered democrat. :contract:
Quote from: garbon on November 23, 2011, 12:48:44 PM
Quote from: Viking on November 23, 2011, 12:33:42 PM
I don't think that Obama should even think about stepping aside while the Republican Candidates are suitably Batshit. I still don't know which Republican candidate is supposed to beat him?
Haven't they shown Romney currently winning in a match up?
Well, no
http://www.realclearpolitics.com/epolls/2012/president/us/general_election_romney_vs_obama-1171.html
Obama seems to win most polls against Romney, and that is before the Republican At(ea)tack dogs go after Romney.
BTW, when googling "obama vs romney" google suggested "obama vs zombies"
http://www.flashgames247.com/play/13969.html
if anything this looks just like the republican debates
Quote from: Viking on November 23, 2011, 01:42:38 PM
Quote from: garbon on November 23, 2011, 12:48:44 PM
Quote from: Viking on November 23, 2011, 12:33:42 PM
I don't think that Obama should even think about stepping aside while the Republican Candidates are suitably Batshit. I still don't know which Republican candidate is supposed to beat him?
Haven't they shown Romney currently winning in a match up?
Well, no
http://www.realclearpolitics.com/epolls/2012/president/us/general_election_romney_vs_obama-1171.html
Obama seems to win most polls against Romney, and that is before the Republican At(ea)tack dogs go after Romney.
I did a search on google and many places are showing some level of parity between the two. With at different points in time - Mitt actually being a head.
Quote from: garbon on November 23, 2011, 01:20:18 PM
Before I moved to New York, I was a registered democrat. :contract:
I'm a registered Republican. :contract:
Quote from: DGuller on November 23, 2011, 01:50:05 PM
Quote from: garbon on November 23, 2011, 01:20:18 PM
Before I moved to New York, I was a registered democrat. :contract:
I'm a registered Republican. :contract:
when garbon and DGuller are republicans one must come to the conclusion that Obama's fucked...
Quote from: Viking on November 23, 2011, 12:33:42 PM
I don't think that Obama should even think about stepping aside while the Republican Candidates are suitably Batshit. I still don't know which Republican candidate is supposed to beat him?
From a Republican perspective it's a shame they're stuck with actual candidates rather than 'Generic Republican'. He'd do quite well I think.
Having said that if Europe sinks then we could well end up with a Ron Paul Presidency.
Quote from: Viking on November 23, 2011, 12:33:42 PM
I don't think that Obama should even think about stepping aside while the Republican Candidates are suitably Batshit. I still don't know which Republican candidate is supposed to beat him?
Any of them. You have no friggin idea how unpopular Obama is here in the States right now.
Quote from: Siege on November 23, 2011, 05:29:47 PM
Any of them. You have no friggin idea how unpopular Obama is here in the States right now.
:blink:
Quote from: Siege on November 23, 2011, 05:29:47 PM
Quote from: Viking on November 23, 2011, 12:33:42 PM
I don't think that Obama should even think about stepping aside while the Republican Candidates are suitably Batshit. I still don't know which Republican candidate is supposed to beat him?
Any of them. You have no friggin idea how unpopular Obama is here in the States right now.
Until the other guy is Ron Paul.
Quote from: Siege on November 23, 2011, 05:29:47 PM
Quote from: Viking on November 23, 2011, 12:33:42 PM
I don't think that Obama should even think about stepping aside while the Republican Candidates are suitably Batshit. I still don't know which Republican candidate is supposed to beat him?
Any of them. You have no friggin idea how unpopular Obama is here in the States right now.
What on your base?
Quote from: garbon on November 23, 2011, 05:32:19 PM
Quote from: Siege on November 23, 2011, 05:29:47 PM
Any of them. You have no friggin idea how unpopular Obama is here in the States right now.
:blink:
Quote from: Siege on November 23, 2011, 05:29:47 PM
Quote from: Viking on November 23, 2011, 12:33:42 PM
I don't think that Obama should even think about stepping aside while the Republican Candidates are suitably Batshit. I still don't know which Republican candidate is supposed to beat him?
Any of them. You have no friggin idea how unpopular Obama is here in the States right now.
Ah, yes, both echo chambers are here....
Quote from: Siege on November 23, 2011, 05:29:47 PM
Quote from: Viking on November 23, 2011, 12:33:42 PM
I don't think that Obama should even think about stepping aside while the Republican Candidates are suitably Batshit. I still don't know which Republican candidate is supposed to beat him?
Any of them. You have no friggin idea how unpopular Obama is here in the States right now.
Bush won in '04 because the Dems were overconfident and nominated an elitist New England liberal. Certainly the GOP is also capable of picking a candidate who can't win. Like the Perry we've seen over the past few months...
Quote from: Peter Wiggin on November 23, 2011, 06:22:41 PMBush won in '04 because the Dems were overconfident and nominated an elitist New England liberal.
This isn't fair at all. Of the potential candidates they nominated the most credible-seeming. Not only that but they nominated the Vietnam vet to fire-proof them from attack on national security. I think this spin is ignoring the 2004 primary.
Who else was there? Edwards, Lieberman, Dean, Gephardt? Kerry was the best of a bad bunch.
This crop of Republicans isn't any better. I suspect Liebermann or Gephardt could have won the general election. Maybe Edwards if he kept his mistress under wraps(not sure on chronology of that scandal).
Quote from: Sheilbh on November 23, 2011, 06:31:12 PM
Who else was there? Edwards, Lieberman, Dean, Gephardt? Kerry was the best of a bad bunch.
Gephardt was boring but would have been all right. Smart guy, moderate, more hawk than dove.
Gephardt was a totally owned subsidiary of Big Labor. I would have been happier with Lurch.
Quote from: Admiral Yi on November 23, 2011, 07:06:55 PM
Gephardt was a totally owned subsidiary of Big Labor. I would have been happier with Lurch.
He's pretty pro-business these days.
Quote from: Sheilbh on November 23, 2011, 06:31:12 PM
Who else was there? Edwards, Lieberman, Dean, Gephardt? Kerry was the best of a bad bunch.
:angry:
Quote from: Admiral Yi on November 23, 2011, 07:11:14 PM
Quote from: fahdiz on November 23, 2011, 07:08:46 PM
He's pretty pro-business these days.
How so?
In '09 he advised the board of UnitedHealth in a campaign against universal health coverage; he lobbies for the Medicines Company and chairs the Council of American Medical Innovation to block generics and extend patents; and he basically broke the union at Spirit Aerosystems earlier this year. It's like Bizarro Gephardt.
Quote from: Ideologue on November 23, 2011, 07:13:05 PM
:angry:
Edwards was and remains a complete douchebag. Sorry.
Quote from: fahdiz on November 23, 2011, 07:15:29 PM
In '09 he advised the board of UnitedHealth in a campaign against universal health coverage; he lobbies for the Medicines Company and chairs the Council of American Medical Innovation to block generics and extend patents; and he basically broke the union at Spirit Aerosystems earlier this year. It's like Bizarro Gephardt.
Interesting. A very similar career arc to Tom Daschle, another midwestern union whore.
What in the world is Spirit Aerosystems and how did Dick break the union there?
Quote from: Admiral Yi on November 23, 2011, 07:21:13 PM
What in the world is Spirit Aerosystems and how did Dick break the union there?
They make shit for Boeing. BTW Gephardt's a lobbyist for Boeing now too, and on the board over at Ford even O_O
Spirit on Gephardt's advice walked out of negotiations with the union this summer.
Fascinating.
Quote from: Sheilbh on November 23, 2011, 06:31:12 PM
Quote from: Peter Wiggin on November 23, 2011, 06:22:41 PMBush won in '04 because the Dems were overconfident and nominated an elitist New England liberal.
This isn't fair at all. Of the potential candidates they nominated the most credible-seeming. Not only that but they nominated the Vietnam vet to fire-proof them from attack on national security. I think this spin is ignoring the 2004 primary.
Who else was there? Edwards, Lieberman, Dean, Gephardt? Kerry was the best of a bad bunch.
I think Dean was a better candidate then we gave him credit for. The Dems were still afraid of looking anti-war at the time even though it was becoming increasingly clear that Iraq was a mugs game. I think Dean really reflected what the Dem base wanted, but the natural liberal wishy-washyness encouraged Kerry. As Chairmen Dean proved an excellent strategist. Gephardt was the old guard. Very Union (I have family that knew him pretty well). Unfortunately Union members a decreasing demographic so he never had a chance.
Quote from: Admiral Yi on November 23, 2011, 07:21:13 PM
Quote from: fahdiz on November 23, 2011, 07:15:29 PM
In '09 he advised the board of UnitedHealth in a campaign against universal health coverage; he lobbies for the Medicines Company and chairs the Council of American Medical Innovation to block generics and extend patents; and he basically broke the union at Spirit Aerosystems earlier this year. It's like Bizarro Gephardt.
Interesting. A very similar career arc to Tom Daschle, another midwestern union whore.
What in the world is Spirit Aerosystems and how did Dick break the union there?
Do you consider pro-business pols whores as well?
Quote from: Admiral Yi on November 23, 2011, 07:25:56 PM
Fascinating.
Right? If this shit didn't exist we'd have to invent it.
Quote from: Razgovory on November 23, 2011, 07:27:51 PM
Do you consider pro-business pols whores as well?
Really depends on what you mean by pro-business.
Quote from: Admiral Yi on November 23, 2011, 07:38:21 PM
Quote from: Razgovory on November 23, 2011, 07:27:51 PM
Do you consider pro-business pols whores as well?
Really depends on what you mean by pro-business.
I mean like "Pro-Union" except instead of "Union" I used the word "Business".
Quote from: Razgovory on November 23, 2011, 07:40:29 PM
I mean like "Pro-Union" except instead of "Union" I used the word "Business".
Then yes. If a politician enacted legislation that favored a minority to the detriment of the rest of us, I would consider that politician a whore for whatever special interests he favored.
Okay, so that's most Republicans then. Good to see we are on the same page.
I don't think that's most Republicans and I don't think we are on the same page Raz.
Quote from: Admiral Yi on November 23, 2011, 07:56:13 PM
I don't think that's most Republicans and I don't think we are on the same page Raz.
You don't think most Republicans (and probably Democrats) haven't enacted bills that benefit a business in their district? There's only so much of that money federal money to go around. Every dollar of pork that goes to a business in your distinct is not going to my district, or Berkut's, or Fahdiz's.
Quote from: Razgovory on November 23, 2011, 07:59:44 PM
You don't think most Republicans (and probably Democrats) haven't enacted bills that benefit a business in their district? There's only so much of that money federal money to go around. Every dollar of pork that goes to a business in your distinct is not going to my district, or Berkut's, or Fahdiz's.
:D OK Raz, you win.
Even if Obama stepped aside, who amongst the Democrats has the strength and leadership to take over the presidential run?
Biden? :)
I always do. But seriously, you'd be surprised how many regulations are passed to favor one business in one district or state. A great many regulations are proposed by lobbyists to benefit their business often to the detriment of their competitors.
I remember reading something about it a long time ago. I don't even know what the article was called. I don't know if this is the same article: http://www.thefreemanonline.org/columns/businessndashgovernment-collusion/ The one I remember talked about peanut farmers. But does give a good idea from a free market perspective. Well the situation 16 years ago at least.
I like Biden and his foul mouth. :(
He's Biden his time.
He'll ensure the crucial EC points from Delaware.
Quote from: Caliga on November 23, 2011, 08:17:25 PM
I like Biden and his foul mouth. :(
He is a lier.
He claimed rapes went up, when they actually went down.
Quote from: Neil on November 23, 2011, 08:08:46 PM
Even if Obama stepped aside, who amongst the Democrats has the strength and leadership to take over the presidential run?
Clinton.
Zhaspahr Clyntahn?
Quote from: Berkut on November 25, 2011, 12:20:30 AM
Quote from: Neil on November 23, 2011, 08:08:46 PM
Even if Obama stepped aside, who amongst the Democrats has the strength and leadership to take over the presidential run?
Clinton.
Bill is constitutionally prohibited, Hillary is a woman, Chelsea is too young and a woman, white George doesn't have the pull to lead the party and black George is more interested in leading Parliament.
Whoa, nobody got my obscure referrence.
Maybe someone did and is too embarrassed to admit it.
Quote from: Neil on November 25, 2011, 08:58:10 AM
Quote from: Berkut on November 25, 2011, 12:20:30 AM
Quote from: Neil on November 23, 2011, 08:08:46 PM
Even if Obama stepped aside, who amongst the Democrats has the strength and leadership to take over the presidential run?
Clinton.
Bill is constitutionally prohibited, Hillary is a woman, Chelsea is too young and a woman, white George doesn't have the pull to lead the party and black George is more interested in leading Parliament.
Roger?
:D
Quote from: Ideologue on November 25, 2011, 07:13:47 PM
Quote from: garbon on November 25, 2011, 06:43:44 PM
Quote from: Neil on November 25, 2011, 08:58:10 AM
Hillary is a woman
Obama is a black man. :mellow:
No, Obama is Batman.
Ya plz, step aside for teh GOP field. (x Huntsman)
And I consider myself, sadly, a moderate GOP.
Batmen have been used in the military for years.
Quote from: Habsburg on November 26, 2011, 03:14:16 AM
Quote from: Ideologue on November 25, 2011, 07:13:47 PM
Quote from: garbon on November 25, 2011, 06:43:44 PM
Quote from: Neil on November 25, 2011, 08:58:10 AM
Hillary is a woman
Obama is a black man. :mellow:
No, Obama is Batman.
Ya plz, step aside for teh GOP field. (x Huntsman)
And I consider myself, sadly, a moderate GOP.
Yeah, I'm sure Republican leadership would work out great for you.
And it's a song reference. :secret:
Not convincing. WSJ needs to hack into more dead children's voicemails to find more convincing arguments, methinks. :hmm:
Quote from: Martinus on November 26, 2011, 09:24:40 AM
Not convincing. WSJ needs to hack into more dead children's voicemails to find more convincing arguments, methinks. :hmm:
I roll my eyes at you, sir.
Quote from: Neil on November 25, 2011, 08:58:10 AMblack George is more interested in leading Parliament.
:lol: We can't ask him to step down from his duties as leader of Parliament in this time of crisis.
Anyways, I think Carter is entitled to a second term, why not now?
Quote from: Capetan Mihali on November 26, 2011, 12:15:49 PM
Anyways, I think Carter is entitled to a second term, why not now?
Because he's made himself unelectable? There's not really all that many Americans who both vote and hate Israel.