MURDER, POLITICS, AND THE END OF THE JAZZ AGE
by Michael Wolraich
Order today at Barnes & Noble / Amazon / Books-A-Million / Bookshop
MURDER, POLITICS, AND THE END OF THE JAZZ AGE by Michael Wolraich Order today at Barnes & Noble / Amazon / Books-A-Million / Bookshop |
Roger Hickey at the Campaign for America's Future blogsite, yesterday.
.....
...the prospects for Obama winning a second term are starting to look pretty good.
But what about the House? Prospects for Democrats keeping the Senate are looking better, but if the House of Representatives stays in Republican hands, even if President Obama is re-elected his second term will be crippled. Obama can still name good Supreme Court justices, and he can veto terrible legislation – both good reasons to vote for him – but, in the face of Republican obstructionism, he will be virtually powerless to pass economic recovery laws aimed at creating jobs and getting the economy growing and not shrinking.
Obama has repeatedly told voters they have the opportunity to "break the current stalemate in Washington between two fundamentally different ideas on how to create strong, sustained economic growth," – as he said in Cleveland on June 14. A few days later he told a campaign crowd, "What's holding us back is a stalemate in Washington between two fundamentally different visions on which direction we should go, and this election is your chance to break that stalemate."
Obama is right, of course, but only if the voters reelect him AND sweep into office at least 25 Democrats to seats now held by Republicans. You didn't hear much about taking back the House as a goal of Democrats at the Charlotte convention – an indication that they don't want to look like failures if they fall short. But for the same reasons Obama now looks like a winner, Democrats and independent activists now have the possibility of "nationalizing" contests for the House and turning this election into an historic wave election that can truly "break the stalemate" and put the nation on a course of decisive change. How do we do that?
....
Comments
His praise of Bill Clinton and comment that he would not do away with all the elements of Obamacare may be an indication that Romney is starting to feel a little desperate. If one believes the statements were thought out by Romney--and not just impulsive, undisciplined verbal emissions--both statements might be seen as efforts to appeal more to independent voters. Both risk, one would think, re-infuriating large segments of his party's base, for whom two statements at the core of extremist winger catechism are:
*Bill Clinton is satanic (and, for those who believe Satan inhabits the soul of more than one living human, Bill Clinton is one of them, along with Hillary and of course Obama, for starters)
*Obamacare is evil and must be repealed
by AmericanDreamer on Mon, 09/10/2012 - 1:41pm
He hasn't cancelled speaking at Bill Clinton's eighth annual philanthropic summit, both he and Obama are on the roster for the 25th; methinks that Mitt's pandering-to-the-base days are over, it's Independent time? I suspect he is confident he has them in pocket and fully expects them to continue to be avid to come out and vote no matter what he says from now until the election. I think that not the least of which because, unlike with McCain at this stage, the right wing talk show hosts are mostly all on the Romney bus. The latter will keep the base riled up with Obama bashing, rather than whining about any Mitt moderation.
by artappraiser on Mon, 09/10/2012 - 1:58pm
If this is a conscious strategy I'm sure Romney is hoping that none of these public statements he is making that would typically tend to infuriate base GOP voters will in fact infuriate them--that somehow they won't notice or won't be particularly concerned, not when they have a chance to vote against Obama. We'll see if that is how it turns out...
by AmericanDreamer on Mon, 09/10/2012 - 2:03pm
First he said he'd keep the wavier for pre-existing conditions.
Then he said the waiver was only if you'd been continuously insured.
I think he's tacking up a narrow channel without much latitude to go left or right, but still needing to tack because the wind is coming straight at him and you can't sail directly into the wind.
by Anonymous Peter... (not verified) on Mon, 09/10/2012 - 2:28pm
It would hardly be surprising to learn that Romney's standing with the GOP base is not what Bush's was in 2004.
I wonder if all of that can be explained by Romney's shortcomings as a candidate with appeal to that base in comparison with Bush, and the fact that Bush was running for re-election, versus potentially deeper problems for Republicans with what their base vote can accomplish?
Rove's 2004 decision was that ignoring public appeals to independents and focusing solely on base turnout could and would win re-election for Bush. Does this late 2012 campaign decision--if that is what these comments by Romney reflect--suggest a possible (short-term, at least) hit to the GOP base that could carry over to future elections?
by AmericanDreamer on Mon, 09/10/2012 - 2:39pm