whembly wrote:
Heh... I wouldn't call Pelosi / Reid anywhere close to "Centerism".

But, right now I think the US is being pulled further apart by the extremes of both side.

 whembly wrote:
Heh...

CNN Poll: Romney tops Obama but loses to Clinton

Buyers remorse?

 sebster wrote:

The absolute least liked person for President is whoever is doing it right now

 sebster wrote:

 whembly wrote:
Heh... I wouldn't call Pelosi / Reid anywhere close to "Centerism".

No, they're really more Centre Right.

But, right now I think the US is being pulled further apart by the extremes of both side.

Nah, not even a little.

I mean, can you honestly claim any Democrat in congress today is anywhere near as left wing as Teddy Kennedy? And yet for all his time in the senate, the country wasn't being 'pulled further apart'.

So it becomes a little silly to claim that the country is being pulled apart from increasing extremism on both sides when the Democrats have moved to the right of where they once were.

Instead it becomes increasingly clear that the move out to the fringes is happening in just one party.

Not saying that its always going to be that way, in fact I suspect that what this period of Republican belligerence will likely produce is a generation of equally minded Democrats.

Automatically Appended Next Post:

 whembly wrote:
Heh...

CNN Poll: Romney tops Obama but loses to Clinton

Buyers remorse?

The absolute least liked person for President is whoever is doing it right now

 dogma wrote:

 sebster wrote:

The absolute least liked person for President is whoever is doing it right now

At least if he is in his second term.

 whembly wrote:

Pretty much true for every 2nd term President... the only question would be "when" does the President's influence starts to wane.

One could argue that it's already happened for Obama.

 whembly wrote:

Yup. It's the Lame Duck President™ mode now... truly.

 dogma wrote:

 whembly wrote:

Pretty much true for every 2nd term President... the only question would be "when" does the President's influence starts to wane.

One could argue that it's already happened for Obama.

Eh, the President's influence isn't just about the President. Its about all the people around the President, in fact I would argue that they're more important than the President himself; and they're influence hasn't diminished.

 whembly wrote:

 sebster wrote:

 whembly wrote:
Heh... I wouldn't call Pelosi / Reid anywhere close to "Centerism".

No, they're really more Centre Right.

In your view... yes, but not in American politics.

See, I find this conversation enlightening because you're an outsider to American politics... just as I'm an outsider to AU's politics.

I'm of the belief that you can't simply throw all the world's politics in one bucket and try to come up with a meaningful "scale".

By that example, can you call Communists Left when in Russia they were the center of the party and therefore Centrist?

Political Scientists do exactly what you claim is impossible all the time. I smell American Exceptionalism in action.

 Easy E wrote:

By that example, can you call Communists Left when in Russia they were the center of the party and therefore Centrist?

Political Scientists do exactly what you claim is impossible all the time. I smell American Exceptionalism in action.

After Larry Lessig's super PAC to end all super PACs narrowly beat its fundraising goal earlier this month, supporters have been waiting to hear just who Mayday PAC plans to back in its effort to elect campaign finance reformers to Congress.

Now, the organization has named two of the five candidates it's expected to promote. First up is Republican Jim Rubens, who's running for Senate in New Hampshire. The second is Democrat Staci Appel, who's seeking election in Iowa's third congressional district. Rubens is a two-term former state senator who's challenging Scott Brown for the Republican nomination; Appel is also a former state senator who served as the assistant majority leader from 2007 to 2011 before being defeated by a Tea Party-backed candidate.

Both candidates have passed Mayday PAC's two-pronged litmus test for support. The informal test requires candidates who might benefit from the super PAC to endorse what Mayday PAC has called "fundamental reform" to campaign finance — a move to small-dollar donations or other ideas. The candidate must also be running in a close race where a win would be clearly a result of Mayday PAC's involvement.

"If a candidate for Congress wants to be inoculated from being on our target list, there is an easy way to do so: get on the right side of reform," Lessig told supporters in an e-mail Tuesday.

Mayday PAC says that it's maximizing its chances of ensuring campaign finance reform by backing Rubens over Sen. Jeanne Shaheen, the incumbent Democrat in New Hampshire who is also in favor of getting money out of politics. By supporting Rubens in the primary fight against Scott Brown — whom the super PAC opposes — Mayday PAC makes it more likely that a reformer (whether Shaheen or Rubens) makes it to Washington, according to the group.

AdvertisementBut Shaheen so far doesn't seem to be hurting, exactly; recent polls have her up on Brown by around 10 percentage points. That raises the question as to whether the money might be better spent on, say, supporting Sen. Mary Landrieu, the Louisiana Democrat who's been open to backing campaign finance reform in the past and whose race is much closer.

Mayday PAC anticipates announcing its support for three more candidates before the summer is out. Its fundraising campaign passed a $5 million goal on July 4 with a few hundred thousand dollars of breathing room. A pending match, combined with funds raised earlier on, is expected to bring Mayday PAC's war chest to $12 million.

 Easy E wrote:
This story amused me....

 dogma wrote:
At least if he is in his second term.

 whembly wrote:
In your view... yes, but not in American politics.

I'm of the belief that you can't simply throw all the world's politics in one bucket and try to come up with a meaningful "scale".

Absolutely... but, in a different way.

In both parties, there's more of a "statist" mentality than the Ted Kennedy era. I think that exacerbates the extreme tendencies a bit.

Do you have any source to back up those claims, or is that one Aussie's opinion based on his own political perspective?

There you go again... your hatred for the other side is "peeking" through.

Yeah, there's definitely a "waxing/waning" of the influences between political parties.

 whembly wrote:

I'm of the belief that you can't simply throw all the world's politics in one bucket and try to come up with a meaningful "scale".

 whembly wrote:
On that basis, it seems to me that today’s conservatives believe pretty much the same things as conservatives 30 years ago did... ie, strong national defense, restraints on government spending and power, the rule of law under the Constitution, and so on.

 whembly wrote:

Maybe there are differences in degree on some issues, but they aren’t that obvious to me.

 dogma wrote:

 whembly wrote:

Maybe there are differences in degree on some issues, but they aren’t that obvious to me.

The major difference is "feth the Democrats" achieved significant prominence after Democrats went after Bush, which itself happened because Republicans went after Clinton. A process of escalation which pulled lots of adamant conservatives and liberals to both parties.

 whembly wrote:
Eh, you'd really need to look at the substantive policy positions that are now regarded as normal in each party, compared with 20 or 30 years ago in order ascertain the shift. On that basis, it seems to me that today’s conservatives believe pretty much the same things as conservatives 30 years ago did... ie, strong national defense, restraints on government spending and power, the rule of law under the Constitution, and so on. Maybe there are differences in degree on some issues, but they aren’t that obvious to me.

On the other hand, it seems clear that the left has drifted farther to the left. Positions that are common today... ie, an open disavowal of concern about the national debt or the need for federal budgets, gay marriage, advocacy of American weakness abroad as a positive virtue, executive power to disregard federal statutes... would have been considered radical 30 years ago, to the extent they even existed.

And that's not taking into account the major policies such as The Civil Rights and Women's Rights.

 sebster wrote:
In fact, Bush Sr raised taxes because there was a revenue shortfall.

 sebster wrote:

Now Republicans aren't just opposed to tax increases, but any Republican who even suggests accepting tax increases as part of a deal with Democrats will be branded a RINO.

 whembly wrote:
Eh, you'd really need to look at the substantive policy positions that are now regarded as normal in each party, compared with 20 or 30 years ago in order ascertain the shift. On that basis, it seems to me that today’s conservatives believe pretty much the same things as conservatives 30 years ago did...

 Ouze wrote:

 whembly wrote:
Eh, you'd really need to look at the substantive policy positions that are now regarded as normal in each party, compared with 20 or 30 years ago in order ascertain the shift. On that basis, it seems to me that today’s conservatives believe pretty much the same things as conservatives 30 years ago did...

Do you honestly thing someone like Barry Goldwater could be elected on a Republican platform in 2014? A conservative who supports gay rights including marriage, wanted religion out of politics, supported environmental regulation, and supported a woman's right to choose?

I think Sebster's got you, man. You've admitted that republicans have skewed far right while also stating that current dems are nowhere near as liberal as in the Teddy Kenneday days - I think you're boxed in

 whembly wrote:

Nah.. totally disagree. John Kerry / Harry Reid / Nancy Pelosi / Barney Frank / Dennis Kucinich / Chuck Shumer / et. el are all cut from the same cloth as Teddy Kennedy. Some can be even argued to be even further left of good ol' Kennedy.

Obama Is Seen as Frustrating His Own Party
By CARL HULSE, JEREMY W. PETERS and MICHAEL D. SHEAR AUG. 18, 2014

WASHINGTON — The meeting in the Oval Office in late June was called to give President Obama and the four top members of Congress a chance to discuss the unraveling situation in Iraq.

But Harry Reid, the Senate majority leader, wanted to press another point.

With Mitch McConnell, the Republican leader, sitting a few feet away, Mr. Reid complained that Senate Republicans were spitefully blocking the confirmation of dozens of Mr. Obama’s nominees to serve as ambassadors. He expected that the president would back him up and urge Mr. McConnell to relent.

Mr. Obama quickly dismissed the matter.

“You and Mitch work it out,” Mr. Obama said coolly, cutting off any discussion.

Mr. Reid seethed quietly for the rest of the meeting, according to four separate accounts provided by people who spoke with him about it. After his return to the Capitol that afternoon, Mr. Reid told other senators and his staff members that he was astonished by how disengaged the president seemed. After all, these were Mr. Obama’s own ambassadors who were being blocked by Mr. McConnell, and Secretary of State John Kerry had been arguing for months that getting them installed was an urgent necessity for the administration.

But the impression the president left with Mr. Reid was clear: Capitol Hill is not my problem.

To Democrats in Congress who have worked with Mr. Obama, the indifference conveyed to Mr. Reid, one of the president’s most indispensable supporters, was frustratingly familiar. In one sense, Mr. Obama’s response was a reminder of what made him such an appealing figure in the first place: his almost innate aversion to the partisan squabbles that have left Americans so jaded and disgruntled with their political system. But nearly six years into his term, with his popularity at the lowest of his presidency, Mr. Obama appears remarkably distant from his own party on Capitol Hill, with his long neglect of would-be allies catching up to him.

In interviews, nearly two dozen Democratic lawmakers and senior congressional aides suggested that Mr. Obama’s approach has left him with few loyalists to effectively manage the issues erupting abroad and at home and could imperil his efforts to leave a legacy in his final stretch in office.

Grumbling by lawmakers about a president is nothing unusual. But what is striking now is the way prominent Democrats’ views of Mr. Obama’s shortcomings are spilling out into public, and how resigned many seem that the relationship will never improve. In private meetings, Mr. Reid’s chief of staff, David Krone, has voiced regular dismay to lawmakers and top aides about White House operations and competency across a range of issues, according to several Democrats on Capitol Hill.

“Maybe if something isn’t working, you’d say, ‘What can I do better?’ ” said Senator Joe Manchin III, Democrat of West Virginia, expressing dismay that the president seemed to have little interest in taking a warmer approach with Democrats. “Maybe we wanted something different. But it kind of is what it is.”

Asked to characterize his relationship with the president, Mr. Manchin, a centrist Democrat who has often been a bridge builder in the Senate, said: “It’s fairly nonexistent. There’s not much of a relationship.”

Few senators feel a personal connection to the president.

“In order to work with people, you need to establish the relationship first before you ask for something,” said Senator Angus King of Maine, an independent member of the Democratic caucus. “And I think one of the things the White House has not done well and the president has not done well is the simple idea of establishing relationships before there is a crisis.”

Senator Claire McCaskill, the Missouri Democrat who was an early supporter of Mr. Obama’s presidential bid, said that if her fellow Democrats were hoping for Mr. Obama to transform into a Lyndon B. Johnson late in his second term, they should quit waiting.

“For him, eating his spinach is schmoozing with elected officials,” she said. “This is not something that he loves. He wasn’t that kind of senator.”

White House officials flatly reject the idea that Mr. Obama has failed to build deep ties with Democrats on Capitol Hill.

“The president is fighting to get Democrats elected and keep the Senate this fall because the stakes are too high for the American people,” said Amy Brundage, the White House deputy communications director. “We’re focused on making the case about Democrats’ commitment to building on the progress we are seeing in the economy and growing the middle class, and we will continue to work in close partnership with the Democratic leadership throughout the fall.”

Regarding the meeting with Mr. Reid, White House aides said that the senator had caught the president off guard by abruptly shifting the conversation away from a sober discussion of the security threats in Iraq. Later, Mr. Obama called Mr. McConnell to press him to clear the way for more confirmations.

The aides also cite 18 meetings this year that the president has held with groups of lawmakers, not including one-on-one phone calls or meetings. They say administration advisers routinely consult Democrats when crafting policy on climate change, the Affordable Care Act and the economy.

They point to four social events for Democrats that the president hosted this year, and said Mr. Obama had extended 250 invitations to members of Congress for bill signings so far this year.

But in interviews, several Democrats said that small talk at large, formal White House gatherings was not the kind of relationship they had in mind.

“I can count them on both hands, and they’re big,” said Senator Richard Blumenthal of Connecticut, referring to the number of times he has been to the White House since he took office in 2011, and to the size of the events. “It’s more the interaction that I think has been somewhat lacking — the personal.”

Early in his presidency, Mr. Obama largely outsourced his relations with congressional Democrats to Rahm Emanuel, his hyper-energetic first chief of staff. In the meantime, some Democrats say, they have just learned to accept the president’s solitary nature and move on.

Representative Steny H. Hoyer of Maryland, the No. 2 House Democrat, said that compared with Presidents Bill Clinton and George W. Bush, Mr. Obama “is more self-contained, less gregarious.” He added: “Does it somewhat take away from his spending more time with members of Congress and the Senate and politics? Yes.” But, Mr. Hoyer said, “this president has reached out as much as any president in my view, been open to compromise as much as any I’ve observed.”

If there was an opportunity amid the Washington paralysis for Mr. Obama to build relationships, it might have been during his frequent golf games. But only twice in more than 180 rounds has the president invited members of Congress to play with him, and only one Democratic official — Senator Mark Udall of Colorado — has joined a presidential foursome.

Democratic senators, for their part, do not always show up at White House events. Twelve were invited to a St. Patrick’s Day reception this year, for example, but only one showed up.

Aides tried to encourage Mr. Obama to broaden his invitation list, to the White House and the links, but the idea went nowhere.

Several people noted that Mr. Obama’s path to the White House helped prevent the kind of close relationships that other presidents forged with Democrats.

Unlike Mr. Clinton, who worked hard as a candidate to court every Democrat he could — from county chairmen to the socialite Pamela Harriman and Vernon Jordan, the superlawyer — Mr. Obama presented himself as unencumbered by the kind of close ties to the Democratic establishment that would mark him as a creature of Washington.

Senator Richard J. Durbin of Illinois, who said he had a “closer personal relationship with Mr. Obama than most” of his colleagues, said that while he was satisfied that the president had tried to reach out, Mr. Obama would never be a “creature of Washington” like Mr. Clinton. “I don’t think that was ever in the cards, and I still don’t,” Mr. Durbin said.

Another point of tension between Senate Democrats and the White House has been the extent of the president’s participation in the party’s effort to retain the Senate this fall. A group with ties to Mr. Reid has established a “super PAC” to compete with the efforts by the billionaire brothers Charles G. and David H. Koch to tip control of the Senate to Republicans.

But the White House and Democrats have sparred over conditions that the administration has put on the president’s participation, and Mr. Obama has no appearances currently scheduled for the group.

The back and forth is reminiscent of the 2008 campaign, when Mr. Obama and his aides made a decision that he would not appear on stage side by side with Democratic lawmakers, given the low popularity of Congress.

That thinking has continued in the White House. Members of Congress are usually invited to Mr. Obama’s speeches, but they sit in the audience. The result is that Democratic members are robbed of a triumphant picture with the president that they can show their family members, while the White House sacrifices the loyalty of a once grateful lawmaker.

“The White House has something in common with the rest of America, and that is disdain for Congress,” Ms. McCaskill said. “It is hard to blame them.”

 whembly wrote:
They don't call Obama the "Semi-Retired President™" for nuthin... ya know?

 Ouze wrote:
I wonder if that's partially due to the poor efficacy of our government - that it's a waste of money when so little legislation actually gets through.