By using this site, you agree to our Privacy Policy and our Terms of Use. Close
Kasz216 on 17 January 2011
Edit Thread
binary solo said:
badgenome said:
binary solo said:

Nothing like a tragedy to give a politician an opportunity to look statesmanly. Not saying that Obama used Giffords' shooting for cynical political purposes, what he did was totally appropriate and right, and I'm sure Obama was sincere about what he said. But there's no doubt in my mind that Obama and his circle of advisors and speechwriters knew this was an opportunity to make up some lost ground with the electorate.

The good he's done himself personally from this will be short lived though. People will get back to their own personal and social problems soon, and unless they see positive action and movement in the right direction things will slide back again.

The rebound began before the shooting, and polls in the immediate aftermath show little to no change from before. This is probably more attributable to voter anger dissipating in the wake of the elections and Obama giving his base something to cheer for with the repeal of Don't Ask, Don't Tell.

Interesting. The immediate aftermath polls possibly didn't include his speech? I would expect a statisically significant bounce after that speech. But yes, the things he (Congress) managed to achieve after the election have done more for him than pretty much everything he did in the past 2 years.

These next 2 years could either be a poisoned chalice for the Republicans, or it could be the final nail in the Obama presidency coffin. The Republicans have the harder strategic road I think. The way the Republicans came out swinging after the election with all this aggressive talk of obstructing Obama at every turn looked like they might end up handing Obama another 4 years in office. If the Republicans fight Obama tooth and nail then Obama could make it look like a sore winner House, and an obstructionist Senate minority. If the Republicans end up working with Obama to get things done, then Obama looks like a president who can work well with Congress.

The Republicans need to essentially close down the presidency without coming off looking like the bad guys. Trouble is they need to convince the Senate to pass House Bills/measures for the president to get a look at them and given the Senate is still majority Democratic the Bills that get to Obama for signing aren't going to be so right wing that Obama will be vetoing all over the place. More than likely Obama will work with the moderates in Senate to water down hard right stuff coming out of the House into centre right stuff, which the president can sign without suffering too much damage with his base support. The fight will really be on when it comes to passing funding measures for things like the new Food Safety law. Starving the administration of funds is a possibly winning tactic for the Republicans, though it also comes with its electoral risks. With the Food safety law every foodborne illness outbreak that happens while the Republicans are blocking funding will weaken their position. And Foodborne illness outbreaks happen commonly enough that the obstructionist position could really blow up.

The game, as they say, is afoot.


Yeah, the Republicans in general just need to find a way to convey to the public that "hey even though we have  a majority in the house, the democrats are still in control with the Senate and the Presidency."

I don't think it's really in the house Republicans best interest to be obstructionary, but do the opposite and pass a LOT of stuff that they know has no chance of passing in the Senate, and some things they can get passed in the Senate that Obama will veto.

That's why they are pushing ahead with the healthcare repeal afterall, knowing that it won't pass the senate and even if it did they don't have enough for an override.