dagblog - Comments for "Obama's Big, Bold To-Do List"

HEAR, HEAR

Resistance — Thu, 10 May 2012 03:14:02 +0000

In reply to I think it's pretty simple.

HEAR, HEAR

I think it's pretty simple.

Dan Kervick — Thu, 10 May 2012 02:42:11 +0000

I think it's pretty simple. Democratic Party political operatives have been given the gift of four years of revolting and treacherous hate speech by the Republic Party and its demented Tea Party fanatics. It's all on tape and video

They need to run against the Republican Party as a whole. The message? The Republican Party is full of disgusting unpatriotic vermin who hate America and have no respect for the United States government. The depth of their sickness is such that they have spent four years working to keep people miserable, struggling, dying and unemployed on purpose to try to turn human misery into political capital. And Mitt Romney is the leader of this gang of miscreants. Fortunately for them, flogging and scaffolds are out of fashion. But we still have voting.

This case is easy to make. The video trail and paper trail of Un-American, Republican freak show foulness and treasonous statements is endless. Put it all together and then invite Americans to flush all that shit down the toilet of history.

There are those among the

Elusive Trope — Wed, 09 May 2012 12:54:26 +0000

In reply to And how does convincing

There are those among the undecideds who just don't like politicians and everything about the beltway. They view our country's problems as a result primarily of the inability of DC to get anything of substance accomplished. And they view the presidential candidates as the leaders of the two parties. Consequently there is the desire to reward the party seen as willing to roll up their sleeves and get to work putting the country back to work, and punish the party unwilling to do this. And one way to reward or punish these parties is to elect or not elect their leader.

Convincing the undecideds that Republicans as a whole are obstructionist is not some kind of magic ticket to a second term, but it is one more thing Romney would have to overcome.

The tea party would disagree

Bruce Levine — Wed, 09 May 2012 10:39:34 +0000

In reply to Bringing in a bigger

The tea party would disagree with you.

On that we have agreement thank heavens.

Bringing in a bigger

Resistance — Wed, 09 May 2012 06:57:43 +0000

In reply to Harry Truman won in large

Bringing in a bigger douchebag to lead the country is not the road to the changes we seek

The tea party would disagree with you.

Either Congress and the President does the will of the people or the governed will rise up.

World events are changing rapidly, old orders are coming down, the people tire of empty promises.

Not that I prefer radical change, I don't, and it is frightening to think, its on the horizon.

History proves once the people have reached the boiling point, things really heat up. The elements will be intensely hot.

Only less than 4 years ago

The American people were ready to lynch the banker class after Bush; only one election ago.

If Obama fail occurs, and is replaced by another Bush lite, the people won't be looking for another Obama to diffuse the anger

From the Magna Carta to the American revolution, the people, the governed, will find a way to get the tyranny yoke removed.

The next Obama will be hard pressed, to take away the pitchforks.

What road to change will you seek, when your petitions to your government, fall on deaf ears?

Harry Truman won in large

Bruce Levine — Wed, 09 May 2012 04:34:00 +0000

In reply to No one ever won a

Harry Truman won in large measure by castigating the Congress in a tough post-war economy. And I'll bet anyone 100 bucks to their favorite charity that Obama will beat Romney (if only in the electoral college). That is not to say that President Obama can properly be compared to the historically rehabilitated HST.

I agree that President Obama, for political reasons, decided not to really take on the economic catastrophe we're in with anything bold, and everything but. Some of us are surprised by that. Some of us aren't. In any event, I may be a mook, but I cannot understand why the man didn't proposed massive investment in our deteriorating infrastructure. To me it's a no-brainer.

Finally, I sense in some, and not the writer, that there will be a little bit of not so hidden joy in the event that President Obama is defeated by Romney. I actually understand that feeling. But mark my words--be careful what you wish for. Been there, done that and so have you all--in 1980 and most recently in 2000.

Bringing in a bigger douchebag to lead the country is not the road to the changes we seek. Not in this country--it's just not the way it works.

2) Romney is a dangerous

cmaukonen — Wed, 09 May 2012 03:20:48 +0000

In reply to And how does convincing

2) Romney is a dangerous ~~maniac~~ dingbat.

There...fixed it for you.

There is a difference.

I say we go Old Testament on

Qnonymous — Wed, 09 May 2012 03:12:57 +0000

In reply to Great post Genghis. Here's

I say we go Old Testament on these clowns. They deliver corrupt justice? Well then, as Leviticus clearly states, we get to shove red hot pokers through their eyes and turn them loose into the desert.

The next election is going to

NCD — Wed, 09 May 2012 01:30:30 +0000

In reply to Obama's Big, Bold To-Do List

The next election is going to be decided by a very small percentage of low information, undecided until the last minute voters. Many of them are convinced Obama is 100% personally responsible for $16 trillion or so in national debt. Proposing 'Big Ideas' that have zero chance of passage in any form, even if reduced to Lilliputian scale, might reduce the ridicule on Dagblog, but would be grist for the well funded Republican 'socialist bankrupting the country destroying freedom/capitalism/jobs' TV attack ad GOP propaganda mill.

Anyway, the New Deal wasn't that great. Roosevelt gave in to corporate interests to keep the WPA wage scales well below private employment, he sent a bunch of veterans working on a WPA project along with their families, to be washed away in flimsy tents in the Florida Keys in 1935 hurricane season, then white washed the investigation of the disaster, planned a WPA sea level salt water, aquifer destroying, canal across Florida at Jacksonville which was fortunately canned by Congress, and Roosevelt refused to pay WW1 veterans their 'bonus payments' in the late 30's, but was overridden by Congress. He also cut the employment programs in the late 30's with an eye to balancing the budget. It was WW2 that brought the US out of the extended depression of the 30's.

Perhaps mimicking the successful re-election of George W. Bush, Obama could resort to the 'big idea' of starting another war, with Iran, as Romney is beating the drums on?

I'd like to add that Nick

artappraiser — Wed, 09 May 2012 01:01:14 +0000

In reply to He's betting on aggressively

I'd like to add that Nick Confessore's May 7/8 NYT piece on liberal big donors planning to spend on GOTV rather than paying for Citizen's United style attack or message ads, sorta fits with that picture, where they will leave the candidate to do precise, targeted attacking.