When Obama Attacks, I Feel Better
Forget the Commander in Chief, I really like this Campaigner in Chief. If President Obama governed liked he campaigns, the world would be a better place. At a fundraiser the other day, President Obama went on the attack again. This time he was going after Mitt Romney and the Republicans with their ridiculous stances on various women issues. Note to Axelrod, Plouffe, and Pfieffer – please keep Obama on the attack. Especially after he wins in November. Some highlights.
“I’m always puzzled by this,” Obama said. “This is a party that says it prides itself on being rabidly anti-regulation. These are folks who claim to believe in freedom from government influence and meddling. But it doesn’t seem bother them when it comes to women’s health.”
Pointing to GOP governors and legislatures across the country that have passed laws requiring ultrasounds before abortions, Obama said Republicans believe “women can’t be trusted to make their own decisions.”
“It’s appalling,” Obama said, referring to a statement from Pennsylvania Gov. Tom Corbett’s (R), who defended his state’s mandatory ultrasound measure by suggesting women simply “close your eyes.” “It’s offensive and it’s out of touch,” Obama said.
[snip]
“When you say we should ‘get rid of’ Planned Parenthood, you’re not just talking about restricting women’s ability to make health care decisions, you’re talking about denying the preventative care like cancer screenings millions of women rely on,” Obama said.
[snip]
Obama also needled Romney for his equivocation on the Lilly Ledbetter Act. Romney has said he wouldn’t get rid of the law if elected, but has refused to say whether he would have signed it.
Attacking that stance amounts to an easy lay-up for Obama.
“Standing up for equal pay and equal work isn’t something I’ve got to ‘get back to you’ on,” he said. “It’s the first law that I signed.”
Tags: 2012 Presidential Election, President Obama, War on Women
Maybe Team Obama will notice the correlation between the aggressiveness and his increased popularity. I can dream.
Team Obama? How Stephenie Meyer of you. 🙂
But on a more serious note, maybe Obama’s staff can convince him that this style would actually accomplish much. Take a moment and read the article linked in the gridlock story. I think that being combative is the only way to get things done.
Maybe Team Obama will notice the correlation between the aggressiveness and his increased popularity.
Oh, he noticed; in fact he is counting on it for re-election.
Obama was well aware that his passive compromising style was causing him to lose the liberal base and even the House (see: enthusiasm gap).
But he really wanted those major center-right policies passed (individual mandate, tax cut extension, debt deal). If he hadn’t wanted them passed, he would have fought them with the kind of energy he is showing now. Unfortunately those conservative victories are now the policy centerpiece of Obama’s first administration.
So now he’s pivoting to a more red-meat liberal style to win back the base – but it’s all rhetorical; there is no longer any major legislation at stake. All the major Democratic issues have already been compromised away (except for the looming threat of “tax reform”).
And it will probably work. Remember he thinks we are f**ing retards – and he may be right.
@ puck, no, those victories you place at the centerpiece of Obama’s first administration are your picture. There are plenty of other great things that Obama has accomplish that you continually fail to realize. And, if you think there is “no longer any major legislation at stake”, you are simply delusional.
Also, the idea that health care reform is a conservative victory is an immature look at the legislation.
I too fail to see any “great” thing Obama has accomplished. Could you please name a few?
@anon40, okay, but this is the last time.
Repeal of Don’t Ask, Don’t Tell
Passing of Lilly Ledbetter Act
Passing of Health Care Reform
Passing on the American Recovery and Reinvestment Act
Appointment of Elena Kagan to the Supreme Court
Appointment of Sonia Sotomayor to the Supreme Court
No longer defending the Defense of Marriage Act
Ended War in Iraq
Saved the Economy
etc.
“Bin Laden is dead and General Motors is alive.” Saving the economy from total collapse is a pretty good accomplishment. Agreed?
I just wish Puck could allow a little ray of reality into his comments. This Obama is 100% shit emo-prog routine is a bullshit pose being put on by a smart guy.
Puck, you are conversing with people who know Obama’s record. Right now I’d be more interested in hearing about what you think Democrats should be DOING and less about what they didn’t do. It is an election year after all.
Seriously Puck, What the fuck is your point? I feel like I would really benefit from reading your actual thoughts on topics like this instead of always having to wade through your hack, knee jerk Obama hating.
Puck: The “individual mandate” is not a partisan feature of the law. If we had a single-payer system, it would be supported by taxes on all.
It’s important to understand the source of the right-wing assault on government’s involvement in health care: It would put to lie once and for all the absurd notion that private industry can do things more efficiently than the government. And their strategists know it.
Conservatives don’t actually know anything about business or economics, so they don’t realize that any unregulated market will always, over time, incline towards monopoly. That’s logical, because having two companies provide the same service,though theoretically a great situation for consumers, is a dreadful system if you’re looking at efficient use of resources. It requires building two or more of everything to serve a finite pool of consumers (ever notice that when Barnes & Noble competed with Borders, they didn’t place the stores in locales away from each other). Ultimately one company will buy the other or one of the two will fail, neither choice representing an efficient use of resources.
Once we go to a single-payer system, it will become obvious that government can deliver the same service — if my insurance company is any indication, I’d say better service — at a far lower cost. And everyone will notice.
Therefore, the constantly repeated imbecile refrain that “government can’t do anything right” will go into the dustbin of history, alongside every conservative idea that came before it.
I suppose it’s time to shut up and win an election.
It’s just that when I hear progressive rhetoric coming from Obama, we need to understand we have heard this sweet song before. I think we need to be realistic and figure out a way to make it happen for real this time.
Sorry, I don’t have time for a longer answer right now, although you all deserve one.
Nemski–
None of the things you mentioned are “great”. Some are GOOD, some are a given for any president with a D after his name, and one (the war in Iraq) is not yet finished.
. I think we need to be realistic and figure out a way to make it happen for real this time.
It happens with a solid 60 votes to actually *vote* for a progressive agenda in the Senate. Or a dismantling of the 60 vote threshold to go back to majorities for most items.
It isn’t much of a puzzle.
@ anon40 whatever
For those that stick to the “100% shit emo-prog routine” as Jason330 rightly calls it, a little clarification is in order. As a friend told me there was no way that the first black president of American was going to be a Progressive. And when a woman becomes president, the same will go for her.
To think otherwise is childish.
“It happens with a solid 60 votes to actually *vote* for a progressive agenda in the Senate. ”
No bill ever begins with 60 votes. If you want to get 60 votes you have to fight for them. Unless all you want to do is pass more tax cuts for the rich, then you can get 80 votes right off.
And “progressive” isn’t needed – just plain old Democrat will do fine. Anything but more Republican policy.
Look at the title of your post before you sling around terms like “emo.”
If you want to get 60 votes you have to fight for them.
Just because you *fight* for votes doesn’t mean you get them. Just for grins and giggles, I’d love for someone in the *fighting* caucus layout Just Once the path to getting 60 votes on a controversial bill. And that path would have to include what leverage the President has over some of the doubtful 60 in order to make that fight productive. Just Once. Otherwise this is just a call for more belligerence, not in getting anything done.
Also, cassamdra_m, what would Obama have to give up to get the 60 votes? You just don’t change a senator’s vote without something in return. Well, okay, maybe in Candyland you can.
the fight is good political theater. Thats all it is. Get on the record championing an idea. The reality, of course, is that the more Obama advocates for something, the harder thr GOTP opposes it.. the HAVE to. I also think Obama would be excellent at “fighting” for something “(like single payer) and not come off as belligerence,… no one wants him to be belligerent.
Imagine Obama being able to threaten to support a primary challenger to Carper if he keeps voting like a repuke. He could campaign hard here in Delaware for an issue that Carper would normally DINO out on. Specifically target states who electorate is a lot more liberal than it’s senator.
brought to you by “no magic bullets, just ideas”
@ ben, remember how well that worked out for Obama when he promised to support Spector when he switched parties. And Eric Cantor has been catching shit for doing something similar in supporting a Republican opponent in a primary against a Republican incumbent.
In short, when it happens, nothing good ever comes of it.
51% should be the required majority to pass legislation, not 60%
Anon40, I would consider saving GM, killing Osama Bin Laden, saving the economy, abiding by the timetable for withdrawl from Iraq and the Lilly Ledbetter Fair Pay Act to be GREAT things. As a gay veteran, repealing DADT was a great thing too.
But I guess those things are “meh” if you are not interested in the economy, saving jobs, national defense, or equality for women and those who choose to serve.
Is Obama Progressive? Maybe, mabye not. But ask yourself, would a conservative republican or blue dog Dem have accomplished the aforementioned? Or would we be an austerity wasteland (like Europe 24% unemployment in Spain), still in Iraq and discriminating against women and LGBs?
I think supporting a political opportunist is different from (for example) a populist who is primarying an incumbent…… Think, if Obama supported Sestak from the start.
And, sadly, none of the Delaware progressives stepped up to primary Carper.
A credible primary candidate in the wings for Obama to threaten support against Carper might work. Even though that goes quite against the traditional incumbent protection racket that is both parties.
@nemski at 1:42 has an excellent question. Which needs to be in the layout to 60 votes on something controversial too. What is the President’s leverage AND what does he have to negotiate away (or negotiate with) to get that Senator’s vote.
Saving GM–good.
“Abiding by the timetable..”–bullshit. We should have GTFO of Iraq years ago.
Fair Pay Act–good.
Repealing DADT–good. Perhaps great if you’re a gay service person, but merely good to most people who agree w/ it.
My biggest problems with Obama are his willingness to absolutely cave on virtually any issue and his habit of increasing Executive Powers. In many ways he’s worse than his predecessor where the latter is concerned.