How long should Obama and the Democrats have before they’re responsible for the state of the economy? It has to be at least six months, and possibly as long as a year. One thing is for sure: it’s way too early to call the current situation anything but a Republican mess. Not only has Obama been in office for only six weeks, most of his policies have not even been implemented yet. Until the stimulus bill, Obama’s housing plan, and other policies have been actively administered for at least six months, we simply can’t say what impact Obama’s policies have had.
Of course, Obama hasn’t had much of a chance to implement his agenda because of Republican obstruction. Republicans don’t get to have it both ways — they obstruct Obama’s agenda and say they hope he fails, but then they claim he hasn’t achieved results quickly enough. Obama and the Democrats could certainly fix the economy sooner without Republican sabotage. As long as the Republicans readily admit they are trying to make Obama fail, a hefty portion of the blame for the bad economy will remain attached to them.
Nice Try
So, under your theory, the Dem’s (that have controlled Congress for the past x years) and the new administration get a free pass until things start picking up again and then they get to claim credit.
All along, it’s not that the Repub’s are objecting because they honestly disagree with the path to recovery it’s just that they are purposely trying to get the economy to fail in order to blame the Dem’s.
The Dems did not really control anything the last two years of Bush because he vetoed any meaningful legislation.
There is a very good article I just read about Iceland. They implemented, to the greatest extent, Milton Friedman’s ideas of supply side libertarianism economics. They were heralded by conservatives world wide. They were voted the least regulated market in the world by conservatives. for 5 or six years they were becoming one of the richest nations in the world with the highest per capita income. Of course, Iceland is now crashing and the entire country might go bankrupt. This should be a perfect example of how conservative economic policies destroy countries. In the short term the policies make a few people very, very rich, but it is a false prosperity because a country can never sustain itself without a strong middle class to drive demand.
Clinton nominally raised taxes on the wealthy and created 24 million jobs in 8 years, as well as balancing the budget.
Bush drastically lowered taxes, and only created 3 million jobs in 8 years, while increasing the debt 1000%.
which policy is more sound and good for America?
If you think what Obama is doing is socialism, then America must have been socialist from 1930’s-1970’s when we rose to super power status. We weren’t socialist then, and we are not now. If you think Obama is socialist, you are ignorant of American history and what socialism even is.
“Obama and the Democrats could certainly fix the economy sooner without Republican sabotage.” Although I agree with you that it is wrong for Republicans to engage in obstructionist tactics, you are making the large assumption that Obama and the Democrats can fix the economy.
Well if you listen to Rush that is the republican plan, and if you put party ahead of country then it is a good one. As a party the republicans are cornered at the moment there is no good path for them to take.
Well there is a good path, but they won’t take it. They could support Obama and his plans so as to give himself the rope to hang himself with, given that they know his ideas are so wrong and that they will fail the republican party would then have a mandate to set things right and dismantle the whole system.
That said, I don’t think they really believe this stuff in their heart of hearts and don’t want to take the chance on Obama succeeding. It is kind of like a Christian Scientist with appendicitis, what to do?
“Of course, Obama hasn’t had much of a chance to implement his agenda because of Republican obstruction.”
Funny how what is “due process” when your party is not in control turns into “obstruction” when they finally gain it.
dtm,
I don’t recall any time in the past 8 years when Democrats organized a media campaign with a blowhard radio announcer to “hope Bush fails”.
In fact, the repubs often dismissed anyone who complained about the war and didn’t “pray for victory” as anti-american, unpatriotic, traitorous, etc.
So, if people who criticize a president’s policy decision and don’t support it are unpatriotic, then people who HOPE THE PRESIDENT FAILS (unqualified, courtesy of Limbaugh) must be commiting treason, and should be punished (death penalty?).
Sorta like those Republican senators that emphatically said that denying a judicial appointment an up or down vote is unconstitutional? Now those same senators are saying they will block any judicial nominee they don’t like.
Didn’t Rush call for Baracks Obama’s failure the day after the inauguration?
Now I see manufactured outrage addicts calling for Barack Obama to debate Rush, as their celebrated stupitity fetish continues to be fed.
Fact is, if Barack Obama is successful, and America recovers with his agendas help, that would be a complete nightmare for the outrage addicts. Their addiction depends on ONLY their idology being correct, and everyone elses being wrong.
Of course, the right wing ideology is always 100% correct in the minds of the outrage addicts, even if those policies miserably fails America. To them, it is more important to stress that the Liberals are always wrong. That is all that some people in the right wing base know.
Perhaps Rush should debate big Eddie. I’d enjoy that.
So this is really all about Rush Limbaugh? Do ou all consider Limbaugh, in his current role, a beacon of public opinion and thought leadership?
SInce Rush is always correct, and has been a guiding force in American Republican politics, perhaps Americans should see him debate in a format that both sides can watch. He is the “shining light on the hill” in the eyes of some.
I encourage unveiling what Rush’s message really is for all Americans to see, not just his radio audience. Since Rush Limbaugh apparently controls the right wing outrage addicted base, perhaps America needs to scrutinize Rush and learn about how he thinks.
Rush vs Shultz
The winner gets the biggest steak on the menu.
No, not really. Rush is out, as far as the larger population goes, I think.
Obama’s plan might help us keep our house which is worth less than we owe. If we keep the house instead of ending on the streets, in my mind, Obama owns the economy.
Limbaugh is undeniably the most prominent republican in the United States. He certainly has a higher public approval rating than any congressional republican.
http://publicpolicypolling.blogspot.com/2009/02/public-divided-on-limbaugh.html
So, yeah. although I wouldn’t call Rush “a beacon of public opinion and thought leadership?” but among conservatives and republicans, probably so.
Dems love to claim that Republicans want Obama to fail. They fail to recall that a majority of Dems wanted Bush to fail: http://patterico.com/2009/03/08/democrats-have-no-right-to-be-snooty-about-rush-not-wanting-the-president-to-succeed/
Further, to call Rush the leader of the Republican Party is silly. Republicans overwhelmingly dismiss this: http://www.rasmussenreports.com/public_content/politics/general_politics/just_11_of_republicans_say_limbaugh_is_their_party_s_leader
To add to that, a recent poll suggests only 2% of Republicans see Rush Limbaugh as the party leader: http://www.rasmussenreports.com/public_content/politics/general_politics/republicans_see_their_party_as_leaderless
That 2% must be the Republicans in congress who quake in fear of him.
Sean - that’s a great link. Kinda puts Jeff’s whole argument about the “failing” debate in a different light.
As for Rush, I couldn’t even tell you what station he’s on here locally.
So now you’re embracing polls, Sean2?
Oh, I forgot. If it suits their purposes, conservatives say polls are “hard proof”. If not, they’re just polls, probably biased.
I’ve never been one to criticize polls. I believe in principle, and I like leaders who know how they feel about an issue before seeing the latest public opinion polls. The only time I criticize polls is when I criticize them as an agent and tool of policy.
The discussion about Rush Limbaugh as leading the Republican Party says more about it being a headless organization than anything about that drug addicted fat pervert. They have no leadership so they follow an “entertainer” and quake in their boots should Rush not like what they are saying. They have no ideas, no morals and no power… makes you wonder what happened to the party of Eisenhower.
Rush Limbaugh and Al Franken are cut from the same cloth, both political entertainers who border on the comedic for a loyal listening audience.
It is interested hearing what people say about Rush, and then translating that to Franken. The only difference I see is that people here want to demonize on, yet want the other to be their Senator!
How many congressional leaders or party chairs have begged for Al Franken’s forgiveness when they disagree with him publicly?
I’m under the impression that we need two parties to balance out power (absolute power corrupts absolutely). I’ve decided the GOP better get things together over there… Rush Limbaugh is terrible for your party, and if he’s seen as “the” leader… uh oh.
That said, if we hung a character meter of sorts on Al Franken and Rush Limbaugh, you’d see they are nothing alike. It all comes down to who they care about and what they are trying to do.
The biggest difference between Rush “Got any drugs?” Limbaugh and Al Franken is that Franken hires real live Harvard educated fact checkers for his work. Rush just spouts bullshit until someone calls him on it. Oh and Al Franken as far as morals go has been married to the same very nice woman for more years than Rush has been drug free in his life. Rush has been married multiple times and was last seen boarding a flight for a sex vacation to the Dominican Republic with illegal Viagra stuffed in his pockets… and Dan is convinced they are just alike.
Republicans must constantly mistake perverts for nice guys, how else do you explain Senator Vitter and Congressman Mark Foley? Google Senator and Diapers for a look at Republican Family Values in the flesh.
So you Democrats are saying that a man who has been addicted to drugs is scum?
Big tent?
The hypocricy is what makes him scum. This is a man who said: “if people are violating the law by doing drugs, they ought to be accused and they ought to be convicted and they ought to be sent up.”
That who has been part is kind of important. Personally I think the fat boy is still up to his eyeballs in booze, boy hookers and prescription drugs so his advice is at best suspect. Even if he has limited his addictions, I would still take what any junkie, clean or dirty, says with a grain of salt. Just look at that dry drunk George Bush for confirmation of that.
Sorry D but I live in a real world so the last thing I want to do is to put my political party let alone my country in the sweaty palms of a guy so stupid he only quite doing hillbilly heroin when he started going deaf. Call me crazy but I don’t have the confidence you, every other Republican and Michael Steele have in Rush Limbaugh. I do like our intelligent and charismatic President, our nation’s leader, much better than Rush.