Haley Barbour will not run for president. Rep. Ron Paul will. This time, Ron Paul won’t sound like an isolated iconoclastic loon. In fact, he may discover that he’s almost a mainstream Republican. This is going to open a massive hole in the political middle of the country that Obama should be able to waltz through with little problem. To maximize the margin of victory, Obama will have to hold as many of the alienated Republicans as possible. A Lyndon Johnson-size victory is definitely a real possibility. I think Paul Ryan’s budget plan combined with the radicalism of the Republican candidates makes a landslide a better than even bet. There are two things that are frustrating, however. To maximize the size of the victory, Obama needs to hold the center, which means he isn’t going to tack to the left. Worse, even if he wins in a landslide, he’ll still spend his second-term basically check-mated by Senate Republicans. There’s not much hope in that.
About The Author
BooMan
Martin Longman a contributing editor at the Washington Monthly. He is also the founder of Booman Tribune and Progress Pond. He has a degree in philosophy from Western Michigan University.
There’s not much hope in that.
That sentence is two words too long.
That is, if Mr. Indefinite-Torture-at-Gitmo-for-the-innocent is seen as representing the LEFT in this country.
I guess is Congress is still missing in action in these arguments.
All I gotta say is it sure is easy to criticize assholes who are never going to be president like Haley Barbour and Ron Paul. It’s a lot easier than discussing what’s going on at Gitmo, and how that’s setting precedents, and how dangerous that is, and how it’s a democrat doing it.
Just sayin’.
I’d like to know what the fuck you’d do about Gitmo.
Congress has passed a law that makes it illegal for the president to spend any money to bring any detainees to the United States to stand trial. He is prohibited from even releasing any prisoners unless the Secretary of Defense certifies that they are as harmless as Bambi. He is not allowed to purchase a new facility so that he can close Gitmo. Congress has told the president, “You will keep this prison open, you will not release any prisoners, and you will not give them a fair trial in a civilian court.”
As far as I know, with the exception of a small number of liberal commentators (most of whom are self-published), no one has come forth to defend the president’s attempts to close Gitmo and hold civilian trials. Not Feingold. Not Sanders. Not Boxer. Not Brown. And certainly not Schumer.
So, you really ought to direct your anger where it belongs.
Direct our anger where it belongs? You mean, for example, to a president who as a candidate promised to close it his first year in office? Instead we should blame other cowardly Democrats too?
Well, yeah, I do. But just because other politicians are cowards doesn’t excuse executive cowardice.
What would I do about Guantanamo Bay? Release everyone or try them. It’s called the rule of law. Back in the day, the United States actually stood for that.
And the rule of law also requires you to follow the law that Congress sets for you.
When Congress said that no money could be spent on the Contras, Reagan ignored them. What you are arguing is that Obama do the exact same thing. That’s trading one form of law-breaking for another.
Don’t pretend there are easy choices here.
Again, not quite, because even if we assume Obama was appropriated the money, he would not use it in the way that you and I both know is the moral and right thing to do; he would cowardly hold some indefinitely, for fear of political backlash if they ever did attack or kill Americans. And while I empathize with that, it doesn’t make it right.
Look at the political reality and compare it to what you are expecting.
If Obama were appropriated the money, he would have held civilian trials of the high profile cases like KSM. He would have reestablished the principle of the rule of law. He would have closed Gitmo, which is symbolically important. He would not have been hampered in releasing those who should be released.
And, yes, there are probably a handful of detainees who are truly dangerous but who cannot be prosecuted successfully, for whatever reasons, that he would hold indefinitely. The Saudi King said we should just put a GPS chip in them like we do with pets and release them. Maybe that wasn’t as crazy as it sounds, when you compare it to what we intend to do instead.
I know political reality, but my job as an activist/blogger/reader is not to care about political reality. I was well aware that we wouldn’t get to where I wanted on Guantanamo; I’m not naive despite my age. I don’t agree with Armando on a lot of strategy ideas, but by far his most important contribution to the blogosphere was this piece:
President Obama campaigned for the presidency for two years. In that time, he must have called for the closure of Gitmo several hundred times in speeches, casual conversation, debates, and discussions with reporters and editorial boards. While he was doing that, hundreds of Democratic candidates for office were doing the exact same thing. But when the time came to do it, Obama was left alone holding his dick. That’s the bottom line.
On closing Gitmo, yes, he has been hamstrung by Congress.
But on a host of other topics he gets full blame on his own. From defending and expanding Bush policies on torture, holding violators accountable, indefinite imprisonment without recourse or due process, and vindictive persual of whistleblowers.
Sorry, Booman, but Obama’s military, espionage, and torture policies have won unprompted praise from people like Dick Cheney and Peter King. It’s like when Woodrow Wilson won re-election on a platform of having stayed out of WW1, then turned around and not only entered the war but introduced a series of undemocratic, anti-bill-of-rights measures that were the worst America had seen until GWB.
In Wilson’s defense he did introduce a lot of very positive, before-their-time, foreign policy proposals like the 14 points, the principle of self-determination, and the proposed great expansion of international law via groups like the League of Nations. I hope, that we see that kind of vision from Obama some day, but so far all we have are empty speeches which are betrayed by subsequent actions.
The Nobel Peace Prize committee must be beside themselves with embarrassment.
Overnight Escorts
free cam
This probably will not make you feel better, at this point little will make you feel better, however if a woman you are with truly loves you and she does use the magic cringe worthy words, chances are to her it really does not matter.
If he did what you want him to do, which Congress has specifically told him, in law, he cannot do, the first thing the House of Representatives would do is file Articles of Impeachment against him for failing to “take Care that the Laws be faithfully executed,” which is his Constitutional duty. Is that what you want? Really?
And America will go down the toilet as he continues to bend to the Republicans’ will.
In 2008 we had the greatest opportunity of my lifetime. All we needed was a little leadership.
And I am sure Ezra is going to get flamed this morning for calling President Obama an early 1990’s Republican as far as his policy accomplishments go.
Reading Ezra these days is fascinating. His tone is really one of exasperation- he’s desperately trying to keep the facts straight in a town that has conveniently forgotten that terms like left, right, center, liberal, conservative have actual meanings that aren’t redefined with each news cycle.
Booman disagrees with me on this, but I don’t think mainstream republicans are completely blind to how the poles are shifting in American politics. They see the crazies in their party pushing this country further to the right and although they don’t agree with those positions, it moves the center right to about where they are. They play to win so they won’t be happy until their views, all of them, win.
Where are the razor blades?
A landslide creates coattails generally. But Democrats don’t yet have all of the races covered with credible candidates. Democrats through their conventional way of doing things risk leaving a lot of races on the table before the election happens.
There’s still time…I think. I don’t know, I live in Rick Scott’s Florida; where the living is easy.
But, but, bullypulpitlBJarmwtwistingFDRcommitteechairsJFKprimarychallenge!
You forgot “fight” and “leadership.”
“A Lyndon Johnson-size victory is definitely a real possibility.”
If Obama wins in an epic landslide ala LBJ, why doesn’t he bring along a Dem senate/House?
Who says President wants a House/Senate of the same party?
He would probably win back the House and either hold the Senate or only lose it by a vote or two. But even in the most optimistic scenario, we won’t gain more than one or two Senate seats, which would put us at 54 or 55 seats. Without 60 seats, he is checkmated.
Or Reid could change the rules at the start of the new senate. Or Obama could change the political dynamic so that senators pay a high price for obstruction.
The current 60 vote requirement was innovated by Dole in the 90s and perfected by McConnell. Its not set in stone and its not the vision of the founding fathers. Its a political innovation that progressives haven’t found an answer to…yet. Lets not give this one up Booman.
If we didn’t change the rules after the record-breaking obstruction of the last two years, we never will. The Republicans have relaxed their opposition to confirming judges and that is apparently enough for Senate Democrats.
He may be held in check rather than check-mated. There is hope in that, unless despair is your default emotion. I think this President handles a handicap quite well.
Cheer up, I’m sure the republicans will find themselves a very representative candidate for the next election. Maybe by then we’ll be able to focus on who we send to Congress.
In point of fact, “this time” he may turn out to be occupying dead center. Which will close that hole for Obama or any other Dem.
Of course…since he has not and will not:
1-Make the correct promises behind closed doors to the corporate powers who control media coverage.
and
2-Has not gotten a face job so that he looks like an aging Clark Kent…
His chances of being a viable candidate are as good as nil.
But find somebody who does look like ol’ Clark…the leaden Romney or preferably some other, more talented pol… and program him to say the right Ron Paul-ish things (Much like Obama was saying the right “It’s time for change!” things in 2008.) and the Dems got trouble.
Right here in Revere City.
Bet on it.
That hole in the middle?
Easily filled in by bullshit.
Watch.
All it really depends upon is whose bullshit stinks less.
Obama’s is pretty well de-scented.
That’s his true talent.
Image and media-conveyed scent.
Political pheromones rule here.
Left? Right? Center?
Just more bullshit.
Or didn’t you notice that we are in the same “war” under Obama in which we were engaged under Bush.
Blood for oil.
Or…in modern parlance…drones for oil.
Only difference…less U.S. blood.
Only problem?
As Bin Laden so succinctly put it:
Watch.
AG
Anyone who knows me knows how much I hate Ron Paul and his sycophant supporters; most especially I hate their hero worship while simultaneously accusing and incriminating you as being guilty of hero worship.
However, I watched him on Sean Hannity last night, and I’ve seen pretty much all of his interviews since 2007. Is his idea of America backwards and outright kooky? Yes. But Ron Paul has also stated on many occasions that while he is personally opposed to our welfare state that he would not have a problem with our country funding it, and even raising taxes to expand it if that’s what the populace wanted to do, if we ended our disastrous foreign policy. He didn’t make that clear on Hannity, but whenever Hannity talked about spending, Ron Paul brought it back to foreign policy. Perhaps he speaks about these programs in this manner because he’s a pol just like the rest, and knows damn well that SS/Medicare are very popular and aren’t going anywhere; perhaps he speaks this way because Medicare patients line most doctor’s pockets. I don’t know. But I do know that if Gary Johnson were to have a serious shot at winning the presidency that I would consider voting for him. I realize his economic positions, but I’m so thirsty for someone who is sane on foreign policy, civil liberties, and the drug war…
I think it’s a fluid situation–it could end up being tight even with a complete crazy as an opponent, or it could be a landslide as you suggest. But for the first time, I think the Senate might not be a lost cause. The Harry Reid idea of forcing a vote on a Senate version of the Ryan plan has the potential for making the Senate races a lot more competitive and very messy for Republicans. ANY vote, for or against, will create trouble for a number of Repugs. They get a challenge from the right if they vote against (which some, like Hatch, Lugar and Snowe will be getting anyway), and they marginalize themselves with moderates and independents if they vote for it. This could also help shake free a few seats that vulnerable Dem incumbents would otherwise lose, like the O’Donnell/Coons gift race in 2010. Of course this depends on Democrats being decisive and cutthroat, starting right away, in taking full advantage of the opening…..hmmm.
The Senate is not that fluid. We could win races in Nevada, Arizona, and even Georgia, but we’ll be lucky to hold the Senate and won’t gain seats unless there a real landslide. And my napkin-analysis says that he can’t possibly win more than two net seats. So, Obama would enter his second term with a maximum of about 55 Senate seats, and quite possibly 48 or fewer. Either way, he’ll be checkmated.
Thank goodness, then, that the Democratic Party has no platform for the next four years. I mean, Democrats wouldn’t want to actually defend the Constitution, workers, and the poor, right? Which is why I’m voting Socialist in 2012.
You’ll be lucky if there is a socialist on the ballot in your state. I have never had that option.
You’ve been pointing out the depressing Senate outlook for quite a while, and I think you are right, it’s very bleak. But what I’m suggesting is the longshot chance that the 2010 Delaware/Nevada scenarios end up being repeated widely. It isn’t just Ryan who is working on behalf of Democrats, it’s Walker, Kasich, Scott, etc., the whole lot of them that are helping turn town hall events from a bunch of red-faced Teahadists shouting “keep your government hands off my medicare” to a roomful of indignant older folks complaining about vouchers and skewed Heritage Foundation studies. In other words, the dream that a significant number of older voters in the middle of the spectrum who wake up to the fact that they’ve been voting against their own self-interest.
Here is the list. You show me how we win seven net seats.
You would have to hope that Lugar and Snowe get primaried out, and that Snowe doesn’t then run as an independent (or doesn’t just do that from the start).
And even then, you’d still have to run the table in ND, VA, NV, MA, NM, and, gulp, AZ and TX.
And on that list, only NM and NV are seats to feel good about (thanks Latino voters). How the Democrats intend to hold the Senate if they can’t even beat Scott F’n Brown, I don’t know.
Why do you have to show me the list again? It takes away almost any hope I can muster when you look through it…….
It’s also possible that by next year I will have wed Drew Barrymore. Possible but not very likely.
Lyndon had his party’s liberal base sewn up not only with the luck of an extremist opponent, but b/c he’d made sure to secure it by backing substantial JFK progressive legislation in 1964. He also had been left with a robust economy and no wars to have to defend.
O has a sluggish economy, high gas prices, depressed housing market, plus 3 wars to have to explain to an increasingly anxious and ornery public. And he’s hardly passed any robust progressive legislation, while often giving his liberal base the back of his hand.
Unlike the lucky LBJ against the certifiable Barry, O is probably going to get either the mainstream Multiple Choice Mitt or T-Paw, both slick operators who will move to the center come the fall — with plenty of help with the shape-shifting from the corporate MSM.
Mittens will never make it out of the primaries having to defend RmoneyCare, and TPaw comes across as small so I would love to see him and Obama on the same stage…
I think you’re vastly overestimating the probability of a landslide. 1964 and 84 might seem informative years, but if you actually look at the current polling, there seems to be a big warning sign.
Independents seem to have plainly lost their minds, probably due to the recession, if they ever had them to begin with. They’re a more incoherent entity than the tea partiers on Medicare scooters.
http://www.tnr.com/article/not-even-past/87379/republican-democrats-independents-dewey-lippmann
It’s going to take a huge swing in independents for Obama to reach landslide levels of support like you’re talking about, no matter who his opponent is. His race makes him polarizing in a way that LBJ or Reagan never had to remotely deal with.
It’s not race but policy, and primarily the economy, which will keep O’s numbers well below LBJ’s. Johnson’s negatives (some mild, insignificant anti-Southern sentiment here and there) had nothing to do with either DP or FP, and most of the public was satisfied with the state of the union in ’64.
Not so the public in 2011 or probably next year. It’s still the economy stupid. Plus 2.5-3 wars to have to defend.
Lyndon spent almost no time playing defense while forcing Barry on the defensive nearly all the time. Easy to do, too.
Mitt Romney isn’t the rigid ideologue that Barry was, and could plausibly shape-shift his way, with MSM help, back to the center sufficiently to keep it close at the least. T-Paw has similar abilities, but to a lesser extent. But neither is in Barry’s class as a scary extremist with a tendency to shoot hisself in the feets. They’re both smarter, too.
I’ve got O barely prevailing with 51% of the vote against Mitt’s 46%, assuming UE gets down close to 8.0%, gas prices dip somewhat from near-historic highs now, and no other economic meltdowns in the markets. That’s a narrow win with a few ifs thrown in.
BooMan – I don’t think we can win in a landslide unless the GOP puts up some loon like Sarah Palin or Newt Gingrich (which is possible). There just aren’t many swing voters anymore. We’re not even fighting over issues anymore. Instead, we’re fighting over whether power should be held only by a narrow group of oligarchs and religious fanatics or whether power should be shared more widely. We win the argument if people are convinced that the oligarchs are out to get them (and they are). I still don’t see a landslide, though.