Welcome to DU! The truly grassroots left-of-center political community where regular people, not algorithms, drive the discussions and set the standards. Join the community: Create a free account Support DU (and get rid of ads!): Become a Star Member Latest Breaking News General Discussion The DU Lounge All Forums Issue Forums Culture Forums Alliance Forums Region Forums Support Forums Help & Search

Algernon Moncrieff

(5,790 posts)
9. The minute a President actually seems to be bringing change, Americans slam the brakes
Sat Oct 25, 2014, 01:57 AM
Oct 2014

This was true in this administration, and it was true during the Clinton administration. Both young, Democratic Presidents' both very well spoken; and both of whom defeated old Republicans who seemed to be out of ideas. Both brought us out of recession. Yet, in both cases, the first midterm in their administration brought about a seismic shift in th House of Representatives that -- at least in Clinton's case -- was never overcome. Contrast that with George W. Bush -- the country rallied around him after 9-11, and he got to enjoy having both houses of Congress be solidly Republican until the Iraq war was in total meltdown in 2006. Mind that Bush got into the WH with fewer popular votes than Al Gore, and barely beat John Kerry in 2004.

Part of the problem is what voters want is a moving target. 2008 is a perfect case in point: in 2008, the public wanted out of Iraq yesterday, and they wanted somebody to stop the economic free fall. Here came Barack Obama -- a refreshing, cool, young (in politician years) guy with a beautiful wife and family running on "Hope & Change". He got elected, had both houses of Congress, and set about ....making changes. The problem is that Americans typically don't really want change; they want comfort. So when Obama began changing healthcare, he caught Hell for not focusing on jobs. When he started pulling out of Iraq, some complained he wasn't moving out fast enough, while others were loathe to give up the gains their sons had died or been maimed for in Iraq. 2010 comes along; out goes Pelosi; in comes Boehner; and change grinds to a halt. As in '94, the Republicans did a great job of making people fear change, and Democrats did a poor job of defending their hard-won gains.

While we could, and should want and expect more, the likelihood is that Congress will be no less obstructionist, and after November 4th, the 2016 Presidential elections will begin in earnest. The Republicans will continue to blame the President for everything and hold hearings abut non-issues, and the President will begin thinking about where he'll be building his library and what he and Michelle will be doing in "retirement." It'll become about legacy. Meantime, the cabinet will likely be run by under-secretaries, as Cabinet heads take their leave to go write their books, and the Senate refuses to confirm any replacements.

At this point, I simply pray we aren't sending troops back to Iraq in 2016.

By the way, by 2018, the Republicans will talk about Barack Obama like he's some kind of long, lost buddy -- the same way they seem to talk about Bill Clinton (who, you might remember, they tried to impeach).

"Obama and the End of Greatness" [View all] MannyGoldstein Oct 2014 OP
Are your Ready for Mediocrity, 2016? NYC_SKP Oct 2014 #1
I can guarantee that Pres. Warren will not be mediocre. MannyGoldstein Oct 2014 #3
Quite the opposite, indeed! NYC_SKP Oct 2014 #4
She won't be elected Prs is 2016, so we'll never know... Adrahil Oct 2014 #19
Good question Andy823 Oct 2014 #53
Your posts often remind me of the late Bill Hicks, in a good way Electric Monk Oct 2014 #2
Oops, this is the clip I meant to post, but they're both good so I'll leave that earlier one. Electric Monk Oct 2014 #5
He's better looking and smarter than me MannyGoldstein Oct 2014 #8
This looks like a good thread and I want to get in on it underpants Oct 2014 #6
Oops, here it is MannyGoldstein Oct 2014 #7
The minute a President actually seems to be bringing change, Americans slam the brakes Algernon Moncrieff Oct 2014 #9
Sounds like Shesol is laying the groundwork for Clinton distancing herself. joshcryer Oct 2014 #10
Yep, the Clinton's are just all over apathy and hubris. nt bemildred Oct 2014 #11
I agree madokie Oct 2014 #12
... Scuba Oct 2014 #13
There are those who look at things the way they are, MannyGoldstein Oct 2014 #14
I am glad to see we think alike. nt bemildred Oct 2014 #40
Seek immediate help MannyGoldstein Oct 2014 #49
There are those who look at things the way they are and ask "How can I make a buck off it?" nt bemildred Oct 2014 #39
Hey, the Age of America is over... TreasonousBastard Oct 2014 #15
Don't despair Manny; history is unpredictable DerekG Oct 2014 #16
I don't see a problem with that treestar Oct 2014 #17
When were we so great to begin with? geek tragedy Oct 2014 #18
There is a persistent myth of... Adrahil Oct 2014 #21
Washington, Lincoln, FDR MannyGoldstein Oct 2014 #23
You listed war time presidents. geek tragedy Oct 2014 #26
Washington and Lincoln made war. MannyGoldstein Oct 2014 #35
And WWII had nothing to do with his legacy geek tragedy Oct 2014 #36
In FDR's first term, unemployment halved MannyGoldstein Oct 2014 #38
Fuzzy math . geek tragedy Oct 2014 #50
We need a great media more than a great president. CJCRANE Oct 2014 #20
Correction: it's not a short story, and it's written by (not about) a Clinton staffer. ucrdem Oct 2014 #22
I meant "the short story" as compared to the "long story" MannyGoldstein Oct 2014 #24
Story means fiction. This is a tendentious essay, written by an interested party. nt ucrdem Oct 2014 #25
Are you deliberately being difficult? RufusTFirefly Oct 2014 #30
Not in a publication that routinely publishes fiction. ucrdem Oct 2014 #31
You must not be a regular reader. RufusTFirefly Oct 2014 #41
The term in the OP is "short story" and it means fiction in any context. ucrdem Oct 2014 #45
I bet you think a small businessman is a midget, too. RufusTFirefly Oct 2014 #46
Well. MannyGoldstein Oct 2014 #34
Comes with the season, I guess RufusTFirefly Oct 2014 #43
Sounds like a lame riff on "The End of History" MADem Oct 2014 #27
I don't believe the Great Man theory of history -- with one exception: RufusTFirefly Oct 2014 #28
You must be a Marxist! n/t QC Oct 2014 #32
Sure! RufusTFirefly Oct 2014 #44
. . .and let's not forget "Lenin", either. . . DinahMoeHum Oct 2014 #54
This Esquire article does a great job describing how bollixed up we are BeyondGeography Oct 2014 #29
I believe historians will judge Obama as a truly great president awake Oct 2014 #33
You Better Believe It! n/t JTFrog Oct 2014 #37
Damn!! Beat me to it! nt msanthrope Oct 2014 #42
Ouch. nt MannyGoldstein Oct 2014 #48
I would like to think that after these mid-terms cilla4progress Oct 2014 #47
" Impeachment isn't on the table " was the end of greatness. orpupilofnature57 Oct 2014 #51
Reads like a more detailed version of the rationalizations I read right here. pa28 Oct 2014 #52
Latest Discussions»General Discussion»"Obama and the End o...»Reply #9