March 5, 2013

Is Chris Christie's "fix it!" rhetoric smart?

Or does this sound like your average guy watching the sequester debacle on TV?
“I don’t understand it, I don’t understand why they haven’t fixed it already. It seems to me that it should be pretty easy to fix. Real leadership would get this fixed. Get everybody in the room and you fix it and you don’t let them leave until you fix it,” said the Republican. “That’s what real leadership is; not calling a meeting two hours before the thing’s going to hit to have a photo-op in the driveway at the White House. That’s not real leadership. Fix it!”
Yeah, this should be pretty easy to fix. Get everybody in a room and yell fix it! at them and don't let them leave until it's fixed. That's what they oughta do.

Seriously, if that was your dad, what would you say to him?

ADDED: "Fix it!" reminds me of "Just do it!" (the old Nike slogan) and "Just say no" (the anti-drug slogan associated with Nancy Reagan). Which reminds me... Christie is grossly overweight. Why doesn't stop eating so much? Just do it. Just say no. Fix it! It should be pretty to easy to fix.

106 comments:

Bob Ellison said...

Christie is correct. Leaders should lead. They aren't.

Jay said...

It seems to me that it should be pretty easy to fix. Real leadership would get this fixed.

Obama has no interest in "real leadership" at all.

He's not a leader.
He's a political agitator.

Shanna said...

They could pass a real budget, that makes rational cuts. This could be fixed. No it's not easy, but it's doable. Congress and the President are currently playing a game of chicken that's all. The president assumed the rep's would cave and shocker they actually didn't for once!

SomeoneHasToSayIt said...

I would tell Christie - when something seems incomprehensible to you, like "why don't they just fix it? It would be so easy to do!", it is almost a certainty that you are basing your logic on an unquestioned, and false, premiss.

In this case, you are assuming Obama WANTS to fix the situation. He doesn't, and the reason is as clear as it is despicable.

Unknown said...

The "it" that needs to be fixed is $16 trillion of debt and an apparently permanent $1 trillion annual deficit building up in a $15 trillion economy.

The sequester is an irrelevant distraction from this, political Kabuki.

Mitchell the Bat said...

Christie's solution would be to throw his weight around.

AprilApple said...

Christy is at least right about obama's photo-op. Funny how the photo-op is now bothersome and proof of a lack of leadership. Funny funny funny.

Unknown said...

As to what I'd say to Chris Crisco, "Nothing is impossible to he who doesn't have to do it."

MrCharlie2 said...

i'd say "yes sir"

Nonapod said...

Obama has zero interest in "fixing" anything. His goal is to win back the house in 2014 and to do so he needs to make the Republicans look as unreasonable as possible. He needs to be seen as running against the Republicans, not governing. If he has to sow a little chaos to do so it's fine by him.

edutcher said...

Uh, maybe I'm don't quite recall things correctly, but isn't I-am-not-a-Dictator Zero Christie's best bud?

Or is that only because he thought he might get a cabinet post in exchange for shafting the Romster?

rhhardin said...

I assume that mob connections help.

glenn said...

Here's the bottom line, the Dems want to keep spending more money because it supports their agenda. The Repubs want to slow the rate of increase because many of the taxpayers are Repubs. And both parties abandoned common sense years ago for ongoing rounds of "Gotcha"

Humperdink said...

What would I tell Christie? "Get lost ..... and grab another doughnut on your way out."

He has achieved blow hard status at the point.

Tank said...

Unknown said...

As to what I'd say to Chris Crisco, "Nothing is impossible to he who doesn't have to do it."

Si senor.

I often find that lots of things are (1) easy and (2) won't take long, if you're not the person doing the thing.

The idea that this is easy to fix is a joke. In fact, Christie, is largely (okok, I did that on purpose) becoming a joke. As someone who thought he might be better than anticipated, I took that back long ago. He's worse than anticipated.

AllenS said...

I would imagine that most Americans aren't bothered by this "why they haven’t fixed it already", whatever it is. What's the problem of trillion dollar yearly deficits? We had the yearly deficits before this last presidential election, and the voters simply didn't care about them. After all, isn't Obama's trillion dollar deficits actually stimulus?

Humperdink said...

at "this" point.

betamax3000 said...

Budget Balancing plan:

First: we sell Hawaii.

Tank said...

glenn said...
Here's the bottom line, the Dems want to keep spending more money because it supports their agenda. The Repubs want to slow the rate of increase because many of the taxpayers are Repubs. And both parties abandoned common sense years ago for ongoing rounds of "Gotcha"


Really? Just how much did the Republicans slow the rate of increase when they had the White House?

Darrell said...

The Washington Post tried to fix it for Bob Menendez. They failed.

The Washington Post mistook one prostitute for another Monday in a report that initially seemed to debunk a November 2012 Daily Caller exposé of New Jersey Democratic Senator Bob Menendez. While the Post said it had an affidavit from a woman in the Dominican Republic admitting she fabricated claims Menendez paid her for sex, that woman was not one of the two prostitutes TheDC interviewed for a Nov. 1 report.

http://dailycaller.com/2013/03/05/wapo-report-confuses-one-prostitute-for-another-in-bid-to-debunk-menendez-allegations/

I Callahan said...

Obama has no interest in "real leadership" at all. He's not a leader. He's a political agitator.

The Washington Post (of all possible sources) outed him about this the other day. Obama wants to discredit the GOP house so that he can hand the gavel back to Pelosi in 2014, and during his final 2 years, institute every liberal wet dream he can jam in.

Christie is being his usual RINO, dishonest self.

Dust Bunny Queen said...

Get er dun!!!

It isn't easy to fix something that is so balled up and had been purposely made to be a clusterfuck :-) Over half of the room filled with people to 'fix it' have personal vested interests in keeping it fucked up.

Can't get elected again ya know if you take away the candy. Can't give your friends treats and kick backs if you actually govern with principles and fiscal responsibility.

Original Mike said...

There can not be a fix until one side accepts that this can not be fixed with more revenue. The numbers don't lie.

You think the federal budget is unworkable now? Wait until interest rates go back to normal and the interest on the debt rises to half-a-trillion dollars.

Surfed said...

My dad the WWII generation Naval Officer? Oh shit, I would've fixed it before he had even finished the sentence.

betamax3000 said...

Re: "The Washington Post tried to fix it for Bob Menendez. They failed."

Perhaps we need to add a steep Hooker Tax for Congress members.

Michael K said...

Christie's romance with Democrats is proceeding apace. He has to know Obama's plan. The sequester was designed to gore the Republican ox, which is defense, to force them to cave in. They didn't. The cuts are small. Too small according to the credit rating agencies. Obama is acting on a plan to win the House in 2014 so he can get his leftist agenda passed. That plan includes creating chaos and pain in the country. That's what agitators do.

Christie does himself no good with the GOP with this but he may not care.

Amexpat said...

Coming from Christie, it's good political rhetoric.

His criticism resonates with a general disgust with politicians of both parties. And as a guy with a rep for getting things done, he doesn't need to get bogged down in specifics.

Jay said...

So the sequester happened and there are no airport delays, 10,000 teachers didn't lose their jobs and police are still arresting people.

Can we cut another $240 billion now?

We should do that every month, through July.

MayBee said...

No, he should name specific tools like "balanced approach" and "fair share".

edutcher said...
This comment has been removed by the author.
Paul Zrimsek said...

Sure, Chris. Let us know when you'll be sending back all that disaster-relief money-- that's part of the fix.

Methadras said...

This is what leadership from behind looks like.

edutcher said...

Michael K said...

Christie's romance with Democrats is proceeding apace. He has to know Obama's plan. The sequester was designed to gore the Republican ox, which is defense, to force them to cave in. They didn't. The cuts are small. Too small according to the credit rating agencies. Obama is acting on a plan to win the House in 2014 so he can get his leftist agenda passed. That plan includes creating chaos and pain in the country. That's what agitators do.

Christie does himself no good with the GOP with this but he may not care.


You're probably right.

The other point, that Choom doesn't want to fix anything, is also on point.

This is the Neverending Campaign as pioneered by Willie.

Choom really can't do anything, so he needs a community to organize.

So far, it ain't woikin'.

According to Gallup, his approval is back at 46 (if, in fact, it ever left it).

Hagar said...

There is no need for Obama to call a meeting. If he wanted to "fix it," he could do so by instructing his department secretaries to use their available discretion to make the "cuts" so as to minimize disruption to necessary government operations.
If more "discretion" should be found to be necessary, Obama can make a phonecall to Harry Reid and tell him to have that legislation on his desk by Monday noon.

Ambrose said...

What's to fix? Republican's have slowed the rate of increase in spending for the first time this century, and Christie wants them to go into a room and raise taxes again.

bagoh20 said...

Do you know what you call a thousand politicians crying about mandatory spending cuts?

A good start.


Cuts need made. People are gonna bitch about the ones that hurt them. Politicians are gonna bitch about them all. If you wanna quit the crack addiction there is gonna be some withdrawal. I see the pain, but my love makes a slight smile come to my face as I see the potential return to my loved one.

AllenS said...

Great. I suppose that I won't get the can opener that I bought, because the sequester will prevent the Post Office from delivering it.

R. Chatt said...

Dust Bunny Queen hit it on the head. When everyone in the room is primarily looking out for their own spot at the trough (access to vast amounts of government money) they hardly have the motivation to change anything, let alone close down the trough.

What they really want is to keep things going as they are. After all, our elected officials have made it to the top of the heap. They don't really have to do anything, just talk about stuff, "important stuff." Huff huff, very busy.

I like the idea that they don't get paid if they don't accomplish their job. They'd figure out how to fix the budget very quickly.

Jay said...

These people are pathetic in their habitual lies:

Officials with airports cited by Homeland Security Secretary Janet Napolitano as examples of how the sequester would delay airline travelers say she’s wrong — they’re not delaying flights one bit.

“We haven’t had any slowdowns at all,” said Marshall Lowe, a spokesman for Los Angeles International Airport, one of the airports named by Ms. Napolitano, The Telegraph reported. Mr. Lowe added that he had been on duty all weekend — and even then, there were no reports of the security delays Ms. Napolitano warned was occurring as a result of mandated budget cuts.

Ms. Napolitano also cited Chicago’s O’Hare and Atlanta’s Hartfield-Jackson airports as suffering from security checkpoint lines that were “150 to 200 percent as long as we would normally expect” at a recent meeting to discuss sequester fallout. Specifically, she said: “We’re already seeing the effects at some of the ports of entry, the big airports, for example. Some of them had very long lines this weekend,” The Telegraph reported.

The Telegraph reported Tuesday, however, that officials with these very same airports denied any longer lines or airline delays.


bagoh20 said...

You'll be able to tell which are going to be the useful politicians for our future from all this. If they are whining for just one more fix, they need kicked out of the rehab.

Nathan said...

Isn't this Chris Christie's appeal, supposedly? He's the average guy who doesn't make issues more complicated than they are, who uses straight talk and just gets things done?

Except sometimes things are pretty complicated, and they can't be explained pithily away.

Governor Christie makes me think of Joe Biden as played by Kevin James.

phx said...

I'm with Bob Ellison and his first comment on this thread.

furious_a said...

One legislative chamber hasn't passed a budget in four years. One of the co-equal branches of gov't has (1)submitted ONE budget on time in five years (2)routinely negotiated in bad faith on matters budget, immigration, debt, etc.

Nothing will ever get "fixed", short of momentous election results, under the above circumstances.

carrie said...

"just say no" is a constructive solution to a problem. "Fix it" doesn't offer a solution or leadership at all but is just more words thrown at a problem.

carrie said...

"just say no" is a constructive solution to a problem. "Fix it" doesn't offer a solution or leadership at all but is just more words thrown at a problem.

Alex said...

Maybe the fat donut eating bastard can lead by example and lose the lard!

bagoh20 said...

"Christie is correct. Leaders should lead."

Sure, but what does leadership have to do with politicians. We have had plenty of their "leadership". They aren't qualified to lead a the slushy crew at the Quicky mart. The problem we have is entirely due to expecting the kind of people we elect to do the right thing and trusting them. I'm all for mandatory cuts until we we do better at hiring. When you have to run an organization with sub-optimal employees, you need to automate as much as possible. If we can have automatic spending increases for decades, I think a little leaderless cutting won't kill us. Besides, waiting for leadership to show up is a really bad plan in nearly any situation.

Alex said...

Stalin was a leader. Leading is meaningless if its not towards a single goal - how to improve the standard of living for your countyr.

AJ Lynch said...

He yells at Obama now after the feds have approved the $30 Billion Christie wanted NJ for Hurricane Sandy.

Alex said...

Leading for leading's sake leads to gas chambers.

Biff said...

Christie isn't Dad - he's an executive, and sometimes the job of an executive calls for setting parameters, setting deadlines, and calling on people to fulfill the responsibilities of their positions.

He has used the approach successfully when dealing with the New Jersey legislature, which has not always been known for responsible behavior.

Okay, maybe there is a bit of parent-like (not necessarily dad-like) behavior happening here.

It is true that the office of the Governor of NJ is among the more powerful executive positions in the US with respect to activities within its jurisdiction, so perhaps it is not completely fair to judge the US Presidency by NJ gubernatorial standards. Nonetheless, President Obama seems to behave less like a serious executive than he behaves as a spoiled brat. If the President conforms to a stereotype, it's definitely not that of a parent: it's the stereotype of the only child.

One of those stereotypes is more compatible with statesmanship than the other.

PS. I just realized how infrequently I've heard the terms "statesmanship" or "statesman-like" being used during this administration. Is it because of a perceived hint of gender at the end of the word, or is it because of other reasons?

AllenS said...

Bob Ellison said...
Christie is correct. Leaders should lead. They aren't.

Correct me if I'm wrong, but hasn't the House sent a budget every year to the Senate? That's where it dies. Sounds like some are trying to lead.

phx said...

Agreed Alex. I was hoping however that Obama and Boehner would have the leadership skills to take care of this themselves.

I'm amazed that it's gone this far. I say no carve out "fixes" for national defense etc. The sequestration was intended to get these guys to fix this completely and that's what the leaders should face up to. If they can't, the responsibility is on them and let the chips fall where they may.

edutcher said...

Jay said...

These people are pathetic in their habitual lies:

Officials with airports cited by Homeland Security Secretary Janet Napolitano as examples of how the sequester would delay airline travelers say she’s wrong — they’re not delaying flights one bit.


Big Sis is a great little manager. Not only did she make the planes run on time, she also scrimped enough from the petty cash to buy 2700 MRAP urban assault vehicles to go along with that 1.6 billion rounds of ammo.

furious_a said...

One legislative chamber hasn't passed a budget in four years. One of the co-equal branches of gov't has (1)submitted ONE budget on time in five years (2)routinely negotiated in bad faith on matters budget, immigration, debt, etc.

It has also had the last 2 budgets it's proposed laughed out of both chambers of one of the other co-equal branches.

Once again, leading from his behind.

Jonathan Card said...

To be fair, didn't he "just fix it" in New Jersey? Even if it's a smaller problem, it's not like he knows nothing about the subject.

Jeff Teal said...

When we actually had an authorization and appropiation process there were actually people who said no to SOME of the outright theft.Appaeently most politicians got real tired of that.So fixing it is asking Willie Sutton to head up the FDIC.

SJ said...

I've seen several stories about Obama's penchant for getting legislators together so that he can make speeches for them.

I've seen no stories of Obama holding meetings that lead to good discussion, back-and-forth, and a final compromise.

Can I assume that this is what Christie is talking about? Bringing people together, having discussions about problems, priorities, and bringing the key players to a deal that most can accept?

AReasonableMan said...

Hard to understand the conservative disdain for Christie. He is the best politician on the Republican side by a large margin (no pun intended).

Ann Althouse said...

"Isn't this Chris Christie's appeal, supposedly? He's the average guy who doesn't make issues more complicated than they are, who uses straight talk and just gets things done?"

It's the appeal for those who find him appealing. What I am saying to those people is, step back. Think about it. If and when he's actually a candidate for President, this kind of thing will only work so far. Don't be in denial. You think this kind of thing is cool? Do a thought experiment: pretend you're someone who wants to cut him down. See how easy it will be?

sonicfrog said...

Hard to understand the conservative disdain for Christie. He is the best politician on the Republican side by a large margin (no pun intended).

Yep. For the modern conservative, the "true conservative", principles trump actual accomplishment. Given what I know of his tenure as NJ Governor, though I don't vote for either major party, he'd be one Republican I'd support for the nomination in 2016.

Jay said...

AReasonableMan said...
Hard to understand the conservative disdain for Christie


It is "hard to understand" because you're not a conservative.

Duh.

betamax3000 said...

Re: "pretend you're someone who wants to cut him down."

Naked Ed Gein Robot suggests a strong saw and a winch.

sonicfrog said...


It's the appeal for those who find him appealing. What I am saying to those people is, step back. Think about it. If and when he's actually a candidate for President, this kind of thing will only work so far. Don't be in denial. You think this kind of thing is cool? Do a thought experiment: pretend you're someone who wants to cut him down. See how easy it will be?


We all know that saying the magic words "Fix it" isn't going to make a deal materialize. But just having the mentality of "get this done now", can be a great motivator. Teachers who give the hard deadline for project or assignments due dates get most of the work turned in on time. The one who have a policy of "OK, it's dues today, but if you turn it in late I'll cut you some slack". The students in those classes will more often than not turn in the work late.

Maybe this isn't the best example, but you know what I'm getting at. There is no sense that anyone is leading the ship right now. We're just passing through with no one at the wheel.

Balfegor said...

Seriously, if that was your dad, what would you say to him?

Isn't . . . isn't that more or less exactly what Christie did in New Jersey?

betamax3000 said...

Naked Ed Gein Robot suggests a strong saw and a winch.

and:

Elbow grease. LOTS of elbow grease.

phx said...

Fat jokes NEVER get tiresome when talking about Christie.

I saw someone on another website refer to him as "Baby Huey."

LM(fat)AO!

Balfegor said...

It's the appeal for those who find him appealing. What I am saying to those people is, step back. Think about it. If and when he's actually a candidate for President, this kind of thing will only work so far. Don't be in denial. You think this kind of thing is cool? Do a thought experiment: pretend you're someone who wants to cut him down. See how easy it will be?

That's what they thought in New Jersey, when the unions went after him for browbeating the legislature into slashing spending. Evidently, it hasn't worked.

It would be one thing if the browbeating were just Obama-style -- hectoring people without putting forward a serious proposal. If Christie tried that, I think he'd had failed miserably. But he had a plan, and was willing to sit down and hash out the details. Sometimes the spending cuts were reversed. Taxes were increased.

They cut spending in 2010, and increased some taxes. He vetoed about $1 billion in spending in 2011. In 2012, there were some cuts, but overall spending increased. My impression from outside is that all the hatred Christie attracted for his governing style wasn't enough to block him. Yes, it looks like he was helped by a line-item veto of some sort, but he's also worked out deals -- like getting public employees to contribute more to their pensions and health care -- that required buy-in from the Democrats.

When he says to get people in a room and have them "fix it," he's not saying that in a vacuum. It's what he did, and it more or less worked. For the time being.

Astro said...

Well, when the 'person in charge' doesn't seem to know what the real problems are, it's difficult to come to any agreement on what 'the' problem is how to solve 'the' problem.

Obama doesn't think massive deficit spending is a problem. He doesn't think a lack of private corporation jobs is a problem. He doesn't think cutting spending can get the economy moving. He thinks raising income taxes will.
How do you go into a meeting with him and say, 'The problem is you," and expect to get anywhere?

phx said...

How do you go into a meeting with him and say, 'The problem is you," and expect to get anywhere?

First, win the Presidential election.

furious_a said...

I'd imagine leadership comes easier to Gov. Christie because, in addition to obvious personal attributes, he polls much more favorably than NJ's legislature and is covered fairly, at least compared to nat'l Republicans by the DC press, by the local Jersey press.

A little tailwind never hurts...unless one is taking off from an aircraft carrier.

...from Balfegor's link:

The budget, approved by the Assembly early Tuesday morning and by the Senate hours earlier, is close to the one Gov. Chris Christie introduced in March amid some blunt talk about the state's bleak finances.

[••]

Christie was scheduled to sign his first budget Tuesday afternoon. The fiscal year starts Thursday.


Imagine an Executive Branch that not only leads on the budget but meets its constitutional duty to submit and implement it on time. Imagine basic civic and managerial competence.

garage mahal said...

Why can't the president work with the party that wants to see his birth certificate?????

Jay said...

garage mahal said...
Why can't the president work with the party that wants to see his birth certificate?????


Note that accountability is something stupid people like you only shout at elected Republicans.

Also note, there isn't a single, not one, Republican dealing with the President on the budget issue who wants to see his birth certificate.

You give the black guy a pass because you think he's dumb, right?

furious_a said...

Why can't the President work with his own party to get his own budget voted out of a legislative chamber his own party controls?

Why does the Minority Leader in the legislative chamber the President's own party controls have to resort to parliamentary tricks to bring the President's own budget to the floor for a vote?

And why won't anyone in the President's own party in that chamber vote for the President's own budget?

Link.

Nathan said...

I don't think cutting him down would be very easy, much as I might like someone to do so. Responses to his rhetoric could easily twisted against his opponent: "These issues are more complicated than a soundbite." "That's because you're making them too complicated! You're trying to confuse the American people. You're playing politics while people's lives are at stake."

Successful use of his ethical appeal requires a strong approval rating and favorable coverage. So far he has both.

Tank said...

If you cut Christie down, he might fall on you.

Rim shot.

BarrySanders20 said...

Our federal government has an overconsumption problem. Christie says "Just fix it!" Stop consuming so much, tax a little if you have to.

Christie has an overconsumption problem. Easy for me to say "Just fix it." Stop consuming so much, exercise a little if you have to.

There. I'm a leader.

Seeing Red said...

Ann, it's an easy fix.

It's not politically easy.

Seeing Red said...

Bonehead should just say the president can't work with his own party to get things done, until that happens, there's nothing we can do.

By Constitutional Law, the Senate needs to submit a budget which Dem Sen Maj Leader Harry Reid hasn't done in 4 years as head of the Senate.

Seeing Red said...

Hubby heard what BIG Sis said and pointed out in this economy, she expects 2x as many people to travel?

How can the lines be 2x as long?

Rusty said...

phx said...
Fat jokes NEVER get tiresome when talking about Christie.

I saw someone on another website refer to him as "Baby Huey."

LM(fat)AO!

He makes me look thin by comparison.

Rusty said...

He is good looking though. Whereas I'm singularly hideous.

phx said...

Bonehead should just say the president can't work with his own party to get things done, until that happens, there's nothing we can do.

That's gonna be a hard sell. Coffee's for closers.

Alex said...

phx - what exactly did I say that you agree with?

phx said...

Alex, that leadership in itself isn't enough.

Alex said...

Morals are more important. Now combine a strong morality with leadership and you get Ronald Reagan.

"Tear down that wall"

Baron Zemo said...

Well they are starting early. A Reasonable Man is already pumping Christie as the Republican he could vote for when you know he never would.

Christie is just another Rhino and a sure loser if he is the Republican nominee. Plus all the crooked shit he did as Freeholder in Jersey will come out. And the stuff he did for Tony Soprano when he US Attorney for Newark.

There are a lot of skeletions in his closet and not just of the horses he ate. Just sayn'

Baron Zemo said...

Scott Walker for President!

Baron Zemo said...

I want to see Garage Mahal's head explode!

phx said...

"Tear down that wall"

No doubt, that was one of the great moments in presidential leadership. Reagan had his moments.

George W. also stepped up in a big way in the immediate aftermath of 9/11. Unfortunately IMO he botched it badly further down the road.

I see very very few real leaders or statesmen in this time. I genuinely like Boehner, but he seems to be failing miserably as a leader. On the other hand that might not really be his fault. A leader can have outstanding skills but if others will not be led, you can't just assume it's the leader's failing.

Balfegor said...

Re: phx:

First, win the Presidential election

Yeah, see, Obama thought that in 2009 ("I won"), and he thought that this time around too. Doesn't work like that, especially in the House, where they just got elected too. If you need a relationship of trust to negotiate mutual concessions, blowing it up with a gratuitous "screw you" out the gate is just dumb. It's stupid, stupid, stupid.

SeanF said...

Wow. Chris Christie just said this now, but Saturday Night Live made fun of it four years ago...

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=hki-833OxLE

Balfegor said...

More generally, Obama should decide what he wants, internally, and then get the hell out of the way and let Biden do the negotiating. Biden's smarter than he sounds, and -- despite his history of lying and plagiarism and his occasionally histrionic rhetoric -- he spent long years in the Senate working alongside his Republican colleagues. He can bring to the negotiating table a good faith and credibility that Obama simply does not have.

phx said...

If you need a relationship of trust to negotiate mutual concessions, blowing it up with a gratuitous "screw you" out the gate is just dumb.

"The single most important thing we want to achieve is for President Obama to be a one-term president..." Sen McConnell

Sunslut7 said...

Ann,
The most like reason is two fold: one, he does not exercise enough to burn enough calories to consume the fat stored in his body.

And, two, he its too much of the wrong foods.

I suspect that the signaling mechanism in his body is dysfunctional. Consequently, his brain is getting the wrong instructions from his gut. He probably feels hungry all the time.

Leptin is his problem.

Balfegor said...

Re: phx:

"The single most important thing we want to achieve is for President Obama to be a one-term president..." Sen McConnell

You really think McConnell and Obama are in analogous positions? You think their incentives are the same? For reals?

If Obama wants to get stuff done (Constitutionally) he needs to get it through Congress. The House is now controlled by Republicans, and the Senate has enough Republicans to fillibuster. This wasn't the case in 2009, when Pelosi and Reid were able to get much of his agenda through, and -- despite his soothing campaign pablum about unifying the country -- Obama may have calculated then that he would never need to work with Republicans so screw them. But now he needs to get Republicans on board if he wants to get anything done with Congress. I mean, if he doesn't, then he's doing exactly what he needs to do. But he probably does need to get at least a few things through Congress.

McConnell's incentives are radically different. He understands that Republicans have approximately 0 chance of implementing a positive agenda while the President stands ready to veto anything they do. His default position is thus going to be standing athwart history yelling "STOP!" And he's telegraphing that. He doesn't really need to work with the President because his voters can't really expect him to get anything done. The President will block anything good he tries to do, just as he will block whatever the President tries to do. So if he doesn't get any of the legislation his supporters want passed, well, can they really fault him? Furthermore, the President has the burning lidless eye of the whole American people upon him. How many people have any idea who the hell McConnell even is? Even in his own state? To most, he's probably just that odd turtle-faced man in the corner on the news sometimes.

And House Republicans have even less incentive to work with the President. They were re-elected in 2012 with a mandate to block his agenda, so their default position is that that's what they're going to do.

That's not to say a deal is impossible, and it's not to say that a deal is even desireable. Just that if the President wants a deal -- and if the President wants Republicans to cooperate on getting anything else through Congress -- he can't go dicking over the exact people he needs to make a deal with. He needs to control himself better. He needs to cajole them over and build trust.

Now, I think the President thinks he is cleverly pursuing an alternative strategy, which is to get the Volk to rise up in a great Volkisch mass to put pressure on the Republicans to give up all their principles. He tried to do this with "Obamacare" and it backfired so badly it led to the election of a Republican governor in New Jersey and a Republican Senator in Massachussetts. Please, throw me into that briar patch again! But maybe he thinks it will work this time. It's certainly working better than it did with Obamacare (as in, it's not failing spectacularly), but I seriously doubt it's going to work well enough in Republican-leaning districts to have the effect he wants. Byron York is a partisan writer (Republican) but I don't think he's off base when he writes that Obama basically lost the battle this time around. Doesn't mean the President will lose next time, but Baldrick needs a new strategy.

Revenant said...

I'm kind of amused that garage is, on the same day, complaining about (a) birthers and (b) the "theft" of the 2000 election.

Self-awareness... whassat?

Revenant said...

When he says to get people in a room and have them "fix it," he's not saying that in a vacuum. It's what he did, and it more or less worked.

For New Jersey, sure, but New Jersey politics aren't especially diverse compared to those of the United States. Working out a compromise between big-government liberal Democrats and big-government moderate Republicans is comparatively easy.

phx said...
This comment has been removed by the author.
phx said...

You really think McConnell and Obama are in analogous positions? You think their incentives are the same? For reals?

No, I'm not saying McConnell's position is analogous or his incentives are the same. I'm saying that the Republicans have been pretty dickish themselves.

Trust is a two-way street, and from the rhetoric I've heard over the last several years you will not be able to sell me on the idea that Obama is the only stupid one at this negotiating table.

You might be right about Obama pursuing an alternative strategy, although in my low-information-voter opinion Christie may possibly have won the election for him (unintended consequences and all that). And who knows, the Governor may finish his term out as a Democrat after all! After Obamacare I'm astonished (and pleased) that Obama is still around. IMO the only reason he is is that the GOP has not played their cards very well. Stupid, stupid, stupid.

You're entitled to your opinions of course, but your Volk, Vokisch, Volkssturm rhetoric is pissing in the well a little bit, I think. Personally I really don't know how to evaluate Obama's strategy other than after the fact: did we get a deal or not. But if you want to go there, well, that kind of stuff is all over the right-wing sites these days, isn't it? We know what a socialist Obama is, too.

But all of us want a deal, right? And I'm not taking issue with your idea that the President may need to control himself a little better - you might be right.

I'm just saying it's pretty apparent the Republican Party, which has some pretty serious leadership responsibilities regardless of how little-known McConnell is, has some pertinent control problems itself. Americans generally may not be able to identify a single Tea Party member, but they're aware that that faction has created a division within the GOP that is complicating the negotiations.

Revenant said...

But all of us want a deal, right?

In a general sense, sure, everyone wants Congress to reach "a deal". Do people think that the act of "reaching a deal" is more important than what's in the deal, though? I'd say no.

Right now you have Obama and the Democrats saying that more tax increases are a mandatory part of any deal, while the Republicans are flatly refusing to consider more tax increases. Compromise between the two positions is logically impossible.

phx said...

In a general sense, sure, everyone wants Congress to reach "a deal". Do people think that the act of "reaching a deal" is more important than what's in the deal, though? I'd say no.

I understand. But in chess they say a bad plan is better than no plan. In this case too I'm thinking a bad deal is better than no deal.

rcocean said...

Christie is sprouting the same old "pragmatic" nonsense that RINO's and Independents love. See Arnold, Jesse, Perot, etc.

Y'know.. "If only we had a REAL leader who kicked butt and took names all those DC Pols would get their act together, blah, blah."

Independents and low information voters love this crap, everyone else, not so much.

Revenant said...

I understand. But in chess they say a bad plan is better than no plan. In this case too I'm thinking a bad deal is better than no deal.

Why?

phx said...

Why?

Libtard intuition. It really doesn't make much of a difference to me though.

jr565 said...

Yeah, this should be pretty easy to fix. Get everybody in a room and yell fix it! at them and don't let them leave until it's fixed. That's what they oughta do.

Seriously, if that was your dad, what would you say to him?

Just fix it sounds an awful lot like Obama's hope and change rhetoric. Because just fixing it doesn't actually mean anything. What does "Fixing" it entail.
For Obama spending cuts are not "fixing" anything.
So, when two parties are at totally cross purposes and have a totally diffferent idea of what fixing it would entail, you're not going to get anywhere saying "Fix it". How is he suggesting that the issue be fixed.

For my part, there is only one side that is even attempting to try to fix it, and there is the other side digging in trying to maintain the status quo.

jr565 said...

Revenant wrote:
Right now you have Obama and the Democrats saying that more tax increases are a mandatory part of any deal, while the Republicans are flatly refusing to consider more tax increases. Compromise between the two positions is logically impossible.


But we just got a tax increase not a month ago. Why should they give on yet more taxes?