Obama blames Bush for Brown victory

[Jim in Anchorage]

STEPHANOPOULOS: So you saw it coming by then?

 

OBAMA: By that time, we did. And here's my assessment of not just the vote in Massachusetts, but the mood around the country.

 

The same thing that swept Scott Brown into office swept me into office.

 

People are angry, and they're frustrated. Not just because of what's happened in the last year or two years, but what's happened over the last eight years.

You've got really hard-working folks all across the country, who have seen their wages flat line and their incomes flat line.

 

They feel more secure than ever. Then suddenly you've got this bank crisis in which their 401Ks are evaporating, their home values -- their single-biggest investment -- is collapsing.

 

And here in Washington -- from their perspective -- the only thing that happens is that we bail out the banks.

[VABills]

Hasn't Obama been in DC for a fair amount of those last 8 years now?

[Jim in Anchorage]

Hasn't Obama been in DC for a fair amount of those last 8 years now?

8 years is shorthand for Bush.

[VABills]

8 years is shorthand for Bush.

Really? I guess I need to update my political meaning dictionary. Since the Messiah has been pres for over a year, plus he was a senator 4 years prior, he's a DC rat for 5 of those years and is at least 5/8th responsible.

[KD in CA]

Anyone else find it amusing that Democrats are in panic because they now only control 59 seats in the Senate? I mean geez....how are they supposed to accomplish anything with that?

[IDBillzFan]

Anyone else find it amusing that Democrats are in panic because they now only control 59 seats in the Senate? I mean geez....how are they supposed to accomplish anything with that?

Watching Dems react to Kennedy's seat going to a Republican is like watching a guy who beats his wife finally get taken away in cuffs. "Hey, baby, I know I was wrong. I shouldn't have done that. Let's work this out. Everyone makes mistakes. I was doing it because I love you."

 

Check out the quotes from this Politico article.

 

Several Democratic incumbents said later that none of the 19 Democratic seats up this year are safe — and that fundamental parts of the agenda need to be re-examined to win over voters back home.

 

“Every state is now in play,” said Sen. Barbara Boxer (D-Calif.), who faces the toughest reelection battle of her career — most likely against wealthy Republican Carly Fiorina.

 

Boxer is pushing a cap-and-trade bill to control greenhouse gases, but her counterpart from California, Democratic Sen. Dianne Feinstein, said a “large cap-and-trade bill isn’t going to go ahead at this time.”

 

“In my view, when people are earning, when their home is secure, when their children are going to school and they’re relatively satisfied with their life, then [when] there’s a problem like health care, they want it solved,” Feinstein said. “It doesn’t threaten them. The size of this bill threatens them, and that’s one of the problems that has to be straightened out.”

 

Asked if red-state Democrats up in 2010 and 2012 should be nervous about the electorate, Sen. Kent Conrad (D-N.D.) told POLITICO, “Oh, yeah.”

 

“I think part of the problem is the agenda itself,” said Conrad, who doesn’t face voters again until 2012. Instead of spending so much time on health care reform, Conrad said Democrats should have focused first on reducing the national debt and a bipartisan energy bill — and that President Barack Obama should have done a better job of explaining that the economic situation he inherited was “far worse” than he’d originally thought.

Other Democrats argued that they mishandled the health care bill, whose prospects have been seriously diminished with Brown’s victory.

 

Sen. Mary Landrieu (D-La.), one of the more conservative members of the caucus, said some in the Democratic Party were “overreaching” and “advocating more government” than her constituents want.

 

She blamed House Democrats for advancing liberal proposals that skewed the public’s perception of more moderate measures moving through the Senate.

 

"I love you, baby. I won't hurt you next time, I promise.

 

Unless I think you deserve it."

[Jim in Anchorage]

Anyone else find it amusing that Democrats are in panic because they now only control 59 seats in the Senate? I mean geez....how are they supposed to accomplish anything with that?

And 256-178 in the house. And the Presidency. Problem is they feel the sword of Damocles over their head, and are finding being in charge is much more difficult than their old role of whining about Bush.

[Magox]

If the W.H were smart, they would listen to the independents and move more to the center. However the Liberal Blogosphere has been going ape ****, and they are threatening to withold support unless he moves more to the left, and it's not just them but it's also the Unions just yesterday, also echoed that same sentiment. They would be wise to learn lessons from the past and examine what Clinton did after the 94 massacre. However, my fear is that he will listen to his base and go with their gut instincts which is to pass their agenda regardless of what polling data suggests, which is the rejection of their policies.

 

If in fact, he does go this route, I wouldn't be surprised if they lose 50 house and 7-8 senate seats come November.

 

edit:

 

Found this today

 

David Axelrod, a senior adviser to Obama, told reporters the White House has no plans to back away from its policy proposals.

 

“I don’t think we can be timid in the pursuit of an agenda that lifts the economic security of people,” he said. Some recalibration of the Democratic message may be needed, Axelrod said.

 

So, the problem is their communication not the substance of their policies. Ok

[IDBillzFan]

If the W.H were smart, they would listen to the independents and move more to the center. However the Liberal Blogosphere has been going ape ****, and they are threatening to withold support unless he moves more to the left, and it's not just them but it's also the Unions just yesterday, also echoed that same sentiment. They would be wise to learn lessons from the past and examine what Clinton did after the 94 massacre. However, my fear is that he will listen to his base and go with their gut instincts which is to pass their agenda regardless of what polling data suggests, which is the rejection of their policies.

 

The union and uber-libs aren't likely to see a president this liberal again in their lifetime. If they were smart, they'd shut the hell up and help him move center. Staying far left will do nothing but make people more unhappy, and make it easier to turn Obama into a one-termer. And if Obama were smart, he'd move center.

 

But no. It's not the policy. It's the message.

 

I'm honestly starting to believe these folks in the WH have egos beyond anything I imagined. I know you have to have a massive ego to run for president. I don't begrudge that. But I'm starting to think it'll be his biggest downfall.

[Magox]

The union and uber-libs aren't likely to see a president this liberal again in their lifetime. If they were smart, they'd shut the hell up and help him move center. Staying far left will do nothing but make people more unhappy, and make it easier to turn Obama into a one-termer. And if Obama were smart, he'd move center.

 

But no. It's not the policy. It's the message.

 

I'm honestly starting to believe these folks in the WH have egos beyond anything I imagined. I know you have to have a massive ego to run for president. I don't begrudge that. But I'm starting to think it'll be his biggest downfall.

You're going to love this.

 

Paul Krugman’s announcement that he is near to “giving up” on President Barack Obama is fueling a new round of liberal revolt.

 

“Maybe House Democrats can pull this out, even with a gaping hole in White House leadership,” Krugman continued. “But I have to say, I’m pretty close to giving up on Mr. Obama, who seems determined to confirm every doubt I and others ever had about whether he was ready to fight for what his supporters believed in.”

 

 

Krugman’s harsh tone was matched by other liberals who seem to have had enough with the course the president has taken on health care.

 

“This is garbage,” Salon editor Joan Walsh said of the bill Wednesday during an appearance on MSNBC’s “Hardball.” “This is a corporate bill, with corporate giveaways that the left is pissed about.”

 

“President Obama has simply not led. He let the Republicans run this health care agenda,” Walsh said. “People want to blame Harry Reid and Nancy Pelosi? [Obama] turned it over to the Senate Finance Committee. He gave Republicans their marching orders. He gave them the rope to hang him, and that’s what they did. That’s why we are still talking about this a year after his inauguration.”

 

A blogger for the influential liberal site Firedoglake posted a video of Walsh’s rant early Thursday morning, writing only: “Time to sack up or go home, Barry.”

 

We'll see who's in control, the Unions and Looney left or BO?

[erynthered]

From accross the pond:

 

http://www.spiegel.de/international/world/...,673192,00.html

 

Center-left daily Süddeutsche Zeitung writes on Thursday:

 

"Obama made a serious misjudgement. Right at the beginning of his first year in office, he saved the banks, rescued the automobile industry from collapse and passed a huge economic stimulus package. He had hoped that these enormous deeds would give him the space to address those issues which are dearest to him: health care reform, climate change and investment in education."

 

"Those issues, however, are clearly not priorities for people in the US at the moment. Scott Brown campaigned on two promises, both of which apparently struck a nerve with the electorate. He wants to block health care reform and he wants to find ways to reduce the enormous budget deficit. It is here where the roots of dissatisfaction with Obama are to be found. His reform agenda, in its current form, is highly suspect to Americans. And they have the impression that, if he continues piling up debt, he will be gambling away the country's future."

 

The Financial Times Deutschland writes:

 

"For Obama, the election in Massachusetts means that he will have to re-evaluate his political style. He could now focus his concentration on his political base and push through his policy agenda. After all, he still has a majority in Congress -- he could back away from his strategy of bipartisanship ... which would mean giving up much of what he spent his first year in office creating."

 

"More likely, however, is that Obama will interpret the Massachusetts loss as a signal that he should move further toward the middle and make more concessions to the conservatives -- even if this alienates his base even further, a base which had high expectations from the 'yes we can' candidate."

 

"For everyone else in the world, this means that they will have to bid farewell to a candidate for whom the hopes were so high. They will have to say goodbye to the charisma they fell in love with. Obama will be staying home after all."

 

The left-leaning daily Die Tageszeitung writes:

 

"In addition to health care reform, Obama's reputation has primarily been harmed by the high unemployment rate and the increasingly unpopular war in Afghanistan. It will become even more difficult in the future for the president to push projects through successfully. Not just because Republicans now have a means of preventing it, but also because the Democratic camp is deeply divided. Some would like to see the party shift toward the center -- wherever that may be -- whereas others want the party to position itself to the left. Such a battle is hardly a good sign for the mid-term elections in November. Massachusetts could prove to be an omen."

 

The center-right Frankfurter Allgemeine Zeitung writes:

 

"Of course the president rejects the interpretation that the Massachusetts election was a referendum on his first year in the White House. But he cannot ignore the fact that his health care reform package is not popular, the situation of the country's finances is seen as threatening and many voters blame the high unemployment rate on the party in power -- on the Democrats, led by Obama. The result is a second year in office full of very different challenges than the first. To save what there is to be saved, Obama will have to be prepared to fashion a bipartisan compromise on health care -- a compromise with a Republican Party which has tasted blood and can now dream once again about a return to power."