Wow. Obama became Bush in less than two years.
"Obama takes low profile on midterm campaign trail" by Jeff Zeleny, New York Times | August 1, 2010
WASHINGTON — As lunch was served in the Roosevelt Room of the White House one day last week, President Obama assured the nine Democratic members of Congress sitting around the table that he would do anything he could to help them survive their fall elections.
Even, he said, if it meant staying away.
“You may not even want me to come to your district,’’ Obama said, according to guests, nearly all of whom hold seats that Republicans are aggressively seeking.
Three months before the midterm elections, the president is stepping up his involvement in the fight to preserve the Democratic Party’s control of Congress. But advisers said he would concentrate largely on delivering a message, raising money, and motivating voters from afar, rather than on racing from district to district.
It is a vivid shift from the last two elections, when Obama was the hottest draw for Democratic candidates in red and blue states alike. And it highlights the tough choices Democrats face as they head toward Election Day with the president’s approval ratings down, Republicans energized, the economic slump still lingering, and two veteran House Democrats now facing public hearings on ethics charges.
We wanted change and the Democrats failed.
Democrats who are on the ballot hope to make the election about issues other than Obama, including the benefits to their constituents of the health care and stimulus legislation and the argument that voting Republican means a return to the policies of George W. Bush.
How you tun things we objected to and despised into advantage and benefit will be a neat trick.
As for a return to Bush, believe it or not some AmeriKans are nostalgic for the "good old days."
Related: The 2012 Republican Presidential Nominee
Oh, you are going to be a one-termer, Obomber.
That line of thinking is largely shared inside the West Wing, where advisers are trying to determine the balance between using Obama to inspire voters and keeping him from becoming a defining negative presence. Already, Obama is popping up more as a target in Republican campaign ads than as a positive presence in Democratic spots.
Related:
"Obama's liberal critics find their voice
He's not only tone deaf but also growing hostile to public criticism. Indeed, Obama goes after whistleblowers with more punishing venom than ever did George W Bush who whined about leaks but did not indict. In Obama's 17 months in office he has outdone all his Oval Office predecessors in going after anyone in government who dares spill the beans to the media.
Since taking office, Obama proved himself a machine politician, not a man of the people, an earlier article explaining it this way: He promised peace and delivered war; real health and financial reform, not same old, same old; help for millions losing jobs, homes, hope and futures, not handouts to Wall Street and other industry favorites; regulatory oversight, not the usual incestuous government-industry ties, making disasters like in the Gulf possible, and when they happen conspiring with offenders in coverup, distortion, lies, and a total disregard for the environment, wildlife, and way of life for thousands - let alone permanent damage to a vital ecosystem.
Is that the "change" you wanted or thought you were voting for, America?
Yet at the same time many Democrats continue to demand more help from Obama and his team, and to question whether the White House is as committed to their fates this year as it is to the president’s reelection in 2012.
Ha-ha-ha-ha-ha!
A huge database of people who supported Obama’s presidential bid remains off-limits to other Democrats, unless special exceptions are made.
Are you a member of the "party?"
Sig Heil! Sig Heil! Sig Heil!
Several elected officials have complained that requests for fund-raisers and other types of help get lost in the bureaucracy and are not granted until repeated appeals are made. And members of Congress have raised objections for not being notified that grants or federal projects would be announced in their districts.
More generally, some Democrats suggested that the Obama political team was too insular, sometimes leaving candidates feeling cut off and in the dark about decisions being made in the White House and at the Democratic National Committee....
Those are the SAME COMPLAINTS the REPUBLICANS made against Emperor Bush when they were in charge!
Even Michelle Obama’s role has emerged as a source of tension between some Democrats and the White House. Party leaders believe that she could be of critical help in reaching some women. Obama brought the subject up during his lunch with the group of House members last week.
“I’ll bet you want Michelle,’’ the president told the group, participants said, acknowledging that his popularity was significantly lower than that of his wife — a significant turnaround from some of the more heated days of the 2008 campaign, when Michelle Obama was widely viewed as a political liability to her husband.
I'm not a fan of either one.
Yet the White House has not granted any requests for Michelle Obama to campaign for Democrats or decided whether she will have any role in the midterm elections. (Advisers said she is primarily focused on being a mother and on her own initiatives, like childhood obesity.)
Related: Meet First Lady Michelle Obama
Her family eats good, taxpayers.
See: An Entourage Surpassing the Queen's
Some change, 'eh, America?But image is everything in AmeriKa, right?
For all the questions about whether the White House is doing enough, the Democratic National Committee, under Obama’s control, is investing $20 million in campaigns for the House and Senate. Smaller investments are being made in governors’ races, including in states like Ohio and Florida that will be critical to the president’s reelection in 2012.
They ALL ACT the SAME!
Clinton, Bush, Obama, they ALL BEHAVE the SAME WAY!
--more--"
In fact, Bush will be a shadow over the political discussion and debate:
"Battle over Bush tax cuts looms in Washington; Program set to expire after election season" by David M. Herszenhorn, New York Times | July 25, 2010
WASHINGTON — An epic fight is brewing over what Congress and President Obama should do about the expiring Bush tax cuts, with such substantial economic and political consequences that it could shape the fall elections and fiscal policy for years to come.
Democratic leaders, including Obama, say they are intent on letting the tax cuts for the wealthy expire as scheduled at the end of this year. But they have pledged to continue the lower tax rates for individuals earning less than $200,000 and families earning less than $250,000 — what Democrats call the middle class.
Most Republicans want to extend the tax cuts for everyone, and some Democrats agree, saying it would be unwise to raise taxes on anyone while the economy remains weak. If no action is taken, taxes on income, dividends, capital gains, and estates would all rise.
How about ELIMINATING THEM and rolling back this tyranny constructed over lies -- and saving our economy in the process?
The issue has generated little public attention this year as Congress grappled with health care, financial regulation, energy, a Supreme Court nomination, and other divisive topics.
Gee, whose job is that, NYT?
But it will move to the top of the agenda when lawmakers return to Washington in September from their summer recess, just as the midterm campaign gets underway in earnest.
Says who?
In recent days, intense discussions have begun at the Capitol.
Beyond the implications for family checkbooks, the tax fight will serve as a proxy for the bigger political clashes of the year, including the size of government and the best way of handling the tepid economic recovery....
Some liberals want Obama to keep his promise to raise taxes on the rich, and the White House’s budget forecasts rely heavily on rolling the top income tax rates back to their pre-2001 levels.
You guys get stiffed more by your leadership than the Ron-Paulers by its.
Some fiscal hawks warn that extending the tax cuts would add more than $2 trillion to the federal budget deficits at a time when the national debt is becoming an economic concern and a political issue.
Except when it comes to funding wars, banks, and Israel.
Political economists are fiercely divided.
Political economists?
What do they sell, bullshit?
Then they are in the newspaper business, right?
--more--"
"Senate Republicans thwart campaign spending bill; Obama priority is defeated in party-line vote" by Mark Arsenault, Globe Staff | July 28, 2010
WASHINGTON — The death of the bill is unlikely to become a hot issue on its own....
But even in defeat, Democrats think they have a winning issue for the fall campaign: a piece of a larger effort to portray Republicans as servants of corporate America who are out of touch with the middle class....
They are the ones who are out of touch.
They pass all this legislation we oppose and they think we like it?
Related: Countering the Court: Your Political Fix
Democrats will have to do it through the machines then.
Related: DOJ Whistleblower: Obama Administration is Planning November Vote Fraud
Now the immigration actions his administration has failed to take makes sense.
And rather than a Foley sex scandal, this fall will be dominated by corruption cases:
"House panel suggests reprimand of Rangel
A relatively mild rebuke....
That's it?
And why the cut, Globe?
At least two House Democrats are calling on Rangel to resign.
--more--"
Related: Rangel Dragging Down Democrats
And the longer he holds on the further down they will drop.
And I'll bet Democrats are wishing they could wash this away as well:
"Democrats reeling as Waters faces possible ethics trial" by Associated Press | August 1, 2010
A second House Democrat, Representative Maxine Waters of California, could face an ethics trial this fall, further complicating the election outlook for the party as it battles to retain its majority.
People familiar with the investigation, who were not authorized to be quoted about charges before they are made public, say the allegations could be announced next week. The House ethics committee declined Friday to make any public statement on the matter.
Waters, 71, has been under investigation for a possible conflict of interest involving a bank that was seeking federal aid. Her husband owned stock in the bank and had served on its board.
Related: California Bank of Waters
Representative Charles Rangel, a New York Democrat, also faces an ethics trial this fall on charges that include failure to disclose assets and income, nonpayment of taxes, and doing legislative favors for donors to a college center named after him.
Both Waters and Rangel are prominent members of the Congressional Black Caucus and the trials would be an embarrassment for the group. Dual ethics trials would also be a major political liability for Democrats, forcing them to defend their party’s ethical conduct while trying to hold on to their House majority.
While Rangel is a former chairman of the tax-writing House Ways and Means Committee, Waters is a prominent member of the House Financial Services Committee....
--more--"
Also see: Slow Saturday Special: MIC Captures Marcy Kaptur
Update: City firehouses still stuck in a racial divide
Yeah, the MSM and Democrats are going to try and make the election about race when it's (once again) about wars, economy, and service to Israel.
