Comments on: Now that’s a presidential speech

By: hussien

hussien — Sun, 06 Feb 2011 12:54:37 +0000

News articles and shopping renewed

come to show the News , articles , photo and shopping renewed

By: Chris J. Miller

Chris J. Miller — Fri, 27 Feb 2009 23:46:00 +0000

Of course you can bank political capital. And 53% approval in an election is nice, but it’s no match for 80% approval like we’re seeing now.

As for the Republicans, I think they’ve put themselves in a far weaker position than before. Time will tell, though.

By: michael

michael — Fri, 27 Feb 2009 23:23:30 +0000

Why did he need a bigger mandate? You can’t put it aside for a rainy day. And the Republicans are now emboldened by the credibility they received as the loyal opposition that must be consulted—this after they were publicly spanked by the electorate. Now they will destroy his budget, and do so with the credibiliyt his “olive branch” has bestowed on them.

By: Chris J. Miller

Chris J. Miller — Fri, 27 Feb 2009 07:59:27 +0000

Actually, I think he’s played the bipartisanship card brilliantly. He’s very publicly extended an olive branch, and the GOP has very publicly refused to reciprocate. This has only increased the “overwhelming mandate” Obama has to put behind future policy initiatives—several of which were, in fact, outlined in the speech.

But, yeah, that’s not necessarily a guarantee that all that political capital will necessarily be used as well as it might. In re: the banking system, for instance, see my next post.

By: michael

michael — Thu, 26 Feb 2009 19:09:41 +0000

So where are the policy proposals worthy of the oratory? Why aren’t we nationalizing banks, as even the Ayn Rand-worshipping Wall Street traders are now urging? Where’s the single-payer healthcare plan? Why is he diddling around with the bipartisanship fantasy when he has an overwhelming mandate to put his policies in place? Elocution aside, so far this administration is Clinton 3.0.