Yes we can't - why hasn't the Republican House solved the financial crises yet?
Poor ole Obama. The greatest financial meltdown since the 1929 crash (with the possibility of a double dip recession still upon us) meant Obama couldn't do anything to make American's happy. Fox News in a recession is almost as powerful as Goebbels on crack cocaine, the reality that the American dream is ending hasn't really sunk in yet and every government gets blamed even if had little to do with them.
The problem for John Key is that his politics of aspiration don't work in a recession, his optimism simply starts looking vacant and detached from the real world, the joke is that he is attempting to domestically implement free market, low tax, deregulation dogma to solve a global crises that was caused by free market, low tax, deregulation dogma.
Neoliberalism is bankrupt and it's time to brush up on Keynes, social investment is what is needed now, why? Because it is now that people hurt, they hurt bad and in this country Labour did the responsible thing by paying off our debt when the times were good, well they aren't good now and NOW is the time to borrow so that those 220 000 children living beneath the poverty line in NZ have a hope.
To date John Key has been more focused on corporate welfare than social welfare.
For Obama the loss of the House to the Republicans is a gift, he can turn to them and say, 'Okay, solve it'. The Tea Party nutters can't play with anyone else in the sandpit and the moderate Republicans are too frightened by Glenn Beck to compromise, two years of that will make obama look the better candidate than Sarah Palin.
posted by Bomber @ 12:09 pm
6 comments
6 Comments:
the only problem to your post is that the dems still control the Senate, so anything the GOP do in the House can be blocked in the Senate, or vetoed by Obama.
And probably will.
Now, if the GOP had gained control of the Senate then your point would be correct.
In actual fact, this is the worst possible result for Obama. He will not be able to point the finger at the Republicans in 2012 because he was the one who said he wanted, but never practised, consensus politics before this election, and who will not practise them after.
Here is why i don't agree, Obama can use the Senate as a brake to stop the crazier elements of the Tea Party from being implemented, and then point to those crazy ideas as the reason they need to be kicked out.
Anon, Doesn't Obama need 60 votes in the senate to override a fillibuster? Does he have them? Did the Dems maintain 60 seats?
Bomber, I think what you say makes sense. GOP says they can fix everythign faster and better, Obama should launch the challenge to the GOP dominated house; ok, show all those Americans who voted for you how fast and how well you can fix the economy.
I also notice a lot of columnists, pundits and bloggers all are now in the business of sticking in their 2 cents on how and what Obama should do to win 2012. It's a bit premature, given a lot can happen in 2 years and we don't know who will run for presidential candidate of GOP
Here is what will happen - nothing. Obama cant pass his agenda - the republicans cant override the veto.
Bomber is right on one point - as the economy gets worse next year, the Republicans will be blamed. Whether it sticks is another matter. The Republicans will probably win the Senate in 2012 - with more vulnerable Democrats up than Republicans.
President - it depends who runs. Christe, is, in my view, the smart Republican choice. Obama could dump Biden for Hillary perhaps, and you have a contest.
Where I would be worried if I were a "humper for Obama" would be the resurgence of the republicans in the south, and in critical states like Ohio.
hahah "wanted, but never practised, consensus politics" I put water out my nose after I read that.
Thank you.
The last two Presidents have preached consensus politics...both have come to nothing.
Bush was even "looking at including Democrats in his cabinet" given the close race v Gore in 2000...that one got shelved quickly.
Obama's positions are equally partisan; you can agree or disagree with them as you see fit..but the "change" stance is hollow BS (as it was always going to be given what he was saying.)
Post a Comment
<< Home