Will Obama be able to adjust

When President Obama gave a poor answer during a debate with Hillary Clinton, he continued to cling to his answer. He did not want to be wrong. Will he adjust to not having a filibuster proof senate?

Jumping Ship

Will Joe Lieberman jump ship? He is already in a small boat being towed by the Democratic ship. President Obama would need to be careful how he responds to this election. If his response is aggressive, he may find that he has others willing to jump ship. My question is would Webb or even Bayh jump ship if it appears that President Obama and the other democrats respond aggressively.

Coakley

Martha Coakley became the Sarah Palin of Democrats in Massachusetts. It became difficult to defend someone who did not have a good grasp on the issues.. Had Sarah Palin ran for a Senate seat in Alaska, and made similar mistakes, people would have been ridiculing her. They also does not seem to be any thing to lose in voting for Scott Brown. The desire to see the health care bill pass was not high enough to want to elect Coakley over someone who seemed better aquatinted with the issues.

This should be a good wake-up call for the Democrats and President Obama to make some changes. I would like to see proposing a budget where spending is limited to revenues. And not delaying the balancing of the budget for some time in the future. I would want to see President Obama force congress to work together by vetoing any bill that does not have a reasonable number of Senators and Representatives from both sides of the aisle. Learn some lessons from Bill Clinton. (No No! Not that lesson! I did not mean it that way!) Take polls and use focus groups to determine what the American people want. With today’s technology, one no longer need to hope theirs action will be approved of by their constituents. We the people… can seek out enough information to know what is being purposed. They can have nearly instant feedback on their actions. Learn to listen to the PEOPLE.

Elected office is not a birthright. If the incumbent is not polling well by Feb 1st, you began looking for someone to replace them. With out 60 democratic votes in the Senate, you may see some (Lieberman) who will defect to the Republicans. You will need to negotiate with some Republicans and get them to cross over to the Democratic party. This will be difficult when one looks at how Specter was treated.

When will Scott Smith be sworn into office? Looking through the Wikipedia article about the Late Ted Kennedy, I found something interesting. Ted Kennedy was elected in a special election held on November 6th, 1962. Ted Kennedy was sworn into the Senate on November 7th, 1962. In both cases their was someone who had been appointed to the Senate to replace a Kennedy. So what has changed between 1962 and 2010 to justify any delay in the swearing in of Senate elect Scott Brown of Massachusetts? So with Coakley conceding the election would the Secretary of State of Massachusetts need to certify the election results? Will Paul Kirk be allowed to continue to serve or is he now n

TAXES

Most people consider what they pay in taxes is what they have to pay on April 15th. The withholding tables were adjusted to allow an individual keep $13 more each week ($676 a year). But was anything done to insure that the savings, from the adjustment to the withholding tables, would not be taken back? How many people will find that their refund is less than prior years or they still owe more taxes than expected? To some it will seem like a tax increase. And most people will not buy that the change of withholding tables was a tax cut. Taxpayers will be so pissed off that polls will fall for democrats.

Palin

Palin is polling well but keep in mind the person who will be the Republican nominee for President in 2012 is not yet on the radar screen.

The desire of non-republicans to have Palin become the nominee is in order for them to have an easy election. Two things. 1) Since most would be expecting Obama as the Democratic nominee you should be hoping that Obama does a great job as president, and will not be in a position to need an easy opponent when running for re-election. 2) You do not want the person who will be a horrible president to have a lot of money. If the person would receive the nomination and some scandal hit the Obama camp, it could be enough of a shift to allow the person to win. It’s the old ‘be careful what you wish for’ saying. A mistake is in thinking that you want the person you view as being the worse President to be the nominee. Then you find out the person does well as a candidate. You would want the WORST candidate of those who could be a GOOD President. Palin’s popularity demonstrates a great desire for a conservative leader in the Republican Party.
People who are supporting Palin are doing so because they are thirsting for a conservative candidate. George HW Bush won because of peoples love of Reagan and lost when he went away from there, broke his promise and allowed new taxes. George W Bush won only a close election. Gore just needed to win his own HOME State of Tennessee. When the Republicans lose they think ‘we must be too far to the right’ not recognizing that it may be because voters have decided to not vote. As you move further and further to the left you lose more and more. IF moving to the left was the correct direction you would see better results.

Mainstream Sotomayor

Each time a person is nominated to the Supreme Court, people will ask ‘Is the nominee in the mainstream?’ So what does it mean to be in the ‘mainstream’? I see one definition has being “The prevailing current of thought, influence, or activity”.
If the prevailing current of thought is outside of the US Constitution then I do not want the nominee to be in the ‘mainstream’. If the ‘mainstream’ view of the second amendment would have crossed the line of constitutionality but the ‘mainstream’ has not changed the constitution, then I would expect the Supreme court to rule against them. I expect the nominee to follow the US constitution, not what is popular. If its truly popular, I would expect the constitution to change.

Take the D.C. voting rights Bill. It would give the Washington D.C. a vote in the U.S. House. But this is reserved for States. Washington D.C. has not chosen to become our 51st state, and no one is changing the Constitution to allow D.C. to have votes. Allowing them to have a vote may have ‘mainstream’ support but it’s not constitutional. If it has sufficient support it would not be tough to make it constitutional. Simply passing legislation does not make it constitutional.


The Constitution is not living and breathing. It’s static. Its interpretation is not to change as each generation desires. Each generation may chose to change the Constitution, but you change the Constitution. You don’t pass unconstitutional legislation because you think it would be the right thing to do. You don’t pass laws to grant powers to the executive branch because you want them to do something. Congress can not just pass any legislation it wants. Yet that is what it does, and it seems to be accepted by the American people.

If being mainstream means not being constitutional, then don’t be mainstream.

The Obama Back Step.

Lets look at what President Obama said on Friday June 12 2009
From a pool report:

“We are excited to see what appears to be a robust debate taking place in Iran and obviously, after the speech that I made in Cairo, we tried to send a clear message that we think there’s a possibility of change and, ultimately, the election is for the Iranians to decide but just as what has been true in Lebanon, what can be true in Iran as well, is that you’re seeing people looking at new possibilities [sic], and whoever ends up winning the election in Iran, the fact that there’s been a robust debate hopefully will help advance our ability to engage them in new ways.”

President Obama is taking credit for how the election is going in Iran.
Read what was written in the economist.com.

“Last week, Hizbullah lost elections in Lebanon, and today Iranians are voting for president after a surprisingly hard-fought campaign. Yet critics of Mr Obama are not prepared to give him credit for a breakthrough that relies on Arab and Persian opinion swinging towards America. So they're pre-spinning the insignificant results. It might be smarter, though, if Iran's president loses, to follow Mr Krauthammer's lead and take credit for years of controversial Republican diplomacy that is only now bearing fruit. Either that, or quit making political issues out of the president saying "shukran" to an Arabic-speaking audience, and seriously consider whether Mr Obama's brand of diplomacy is actually working.

Update: His critics may not give him any credit for the events in the Middle East, but Mr Obama is claiming it nonetheless.”

If you did not click on the economist.com blog entry and follow the link here is where they linked to The New Republics Blog “The Spine” by Marty Peretz here it is

It appears that Obama was the one who was expressing a desire to see Ahmadinejad lose and Mousavi to win. Such a result would allow Obama to claim success in his foreign policy.
And now what does Obama say?

“Now, it's not productive, given the history of U.S.-Iranian relations, to be seen as meddling -- the U.S. President meddling in Iranian elections. What I will repeat and what I said yesterday is that when I see violence directed at peaceful protestors, when I see peaceful dissent being suppressed, wherever that takes place, it is of concern to me and it's of concern to the American people. That is not how governments should interact with their people.

”


http://www.whitehouse.gov/the_press_office/Remarks-by-President-Obama-and-President-Lee-of-the-Republic-of-Korea-in-Joint-Press-Availability/

“Now, it's not productive, given the history of U.S.-Iranian relations, to be seen as meddling -- the U.S. President meddling in Iranian elections. What I will repeat and what I said yesterday is that when I see violence directed at peaceful protestors, when I see peaceful dissent being suppressed, wherever that takes place, it is of concern to me and it's of concern to the American people. That is not how governments should interact with their people.”

“[A]lthough there is amazing ferment taking place in Iran, that the difference between Ahmadinejad and Mousavi in terms of their actual policies may not be as great as has been advertised.”

And in a press conference on June 15, 2009 with Prime Minister Berlusconi of Italy

“I think that the democratic process -- free speech, the ability of people to peacefully dissent -- all those are universal values and need to be respected. And whenever I see violence perpetrated on people who are peacefully dissenting, and whenever the American people see that, I think they're, rightfully, troubled.”

Did you see it? President Obama made a back step. The question is was it a bit too late? Many hold the view that the election in Iraq would not make any difference since all candidates would be under the authority of the Maulas. So they could allow for free and fair elections but when Obama made his statement it made the Iranian leaders mad for Obama to suggest that his Cairo speech was what made the difference. So they simply announced Ahmadinejad won and by a large majority and the hell with Obama.
They however did not expect such a revolt from the people.

Congressman Pence would like congress to say what?

And up to this point, they have not received the unqualified affirmation of the most powerful free nation in the history of the world. I think it's important that Congress say "we affirm the right of the dissidents to step forward. We affirm them seeking freedom of expression and free and fair elections." I'm hoping that the American people will be able to be heard on an American stage, even if the administration is taking a more measured approach.

William Kristol

Question for White House spokesman Robert Gibbs: As "things" have continued to unfold, is President Obama now willing to condemn the brutal actions of a violently illiberal regime? If not, what would the regime have to do to generate clear moral and political condemnation from our "deeply troubled" president?

If Obama is not being strong enough, it because he is going to have to deal with Iran when all this is over. If he wants success he can’t seem to promote the overthrow of the Iranian government. He will also have to speak out for the people of Iran to have free speech.