Why Did Obama Have To Move To The Middle To Raise His Ratings (Ron Paul, polls)
Please register to participate in our discussions with 2 million other members - it's free and quick! Some forums can only be seen by registered members. After you create your account, you'll be able to customize options and access all our 15,000 new posts/day with fewer ads.
For him to win he needs to maintain his base and appeal to the independents. To keep his base all he has to do is run, to win the independents he needs to govern from the center and be more appealing than the Republican nominee.
Spot on, and he'll do just that. Unless he really screws up or the economy implodes, I don't see much potential for the Rs in 2012. The only person who could appeal to the base and moderates would have to be a moderate like Michael Bloomberg, but the moderates are pretty unlikely to win in the primaries. And the current republican party is chasing them out with burning torches as RINOs. I don't see anyone with Obama's level of center-based appeal. It will be interesting to see if I am wrong. Perhaps Rand Paul or someone like that might make a good run, but he would have to move to the center too, and that might rile up his base.
Spot on, and he'll do just that. Unless he really screws up or the economy implodes, I don't see much potential for the Rs in 2012. The only person who could appeal to the base and moderates would have to be a moderate like Michael Bloomberg, but the moderates are pretty unlikely to win in the primaries. And the current republican party is chasing them out with burning torches as RINOs. I don't see anyone with Obama's level of center-based appeal. It will be interesting to see if I am wrong. Perhaps Rand Paul or someone like that might make a good run, but he would have to move to the center too, and that might rile up his base.
I think things will have to get better for him to be re-elected, unemployment will have to be 8% and the deficit will have to be reduced with a plan to continue to reduce it. If he can do that I don't think a Republican could win if things are going well.
The most common misconception that libs have of RomneyCare over ObamaCare is that the 2 programs may be the same, they are fundamentally different. One is constitutional (RomneyCare) while the other is not (ObamaCare) Why? Because it specifically states in the 10th Amendment of the Constitution, "The powers not delegated to the United States by the Constitution, nor prohibited by it to the States, are reserved to the States respectively, or to the people." The Constitution does not grant the federal government to provide health care, therefore that type of program is a power delegated to the states or to the people. That's why RomneyCare is constitutional, because it is a STATE program, not a federal program. If Oregon voted on to institute KitzhaberCare or whatever they want to call it, it would be perfectly legal
Good legal distinctions. However, do you believe for a second the republican indignation has anything to do with legality, or protecting their corporate supporters and winning? I wish it were a matter of abstruse legal principal. It is about protecting those in power and retaining political advantage, while screwing the American people, all under the guise of false piety. Nearly every civilized country in the world cares for its people. It is right up there with a military and public schools. Hardly an evil expansion of federal power.
Good legal distinctions. However, do you believe for a second the republican indignation has anything to do with legality, or protecting their corporate supporters and winning? I wish it were a matter of abstruse legal principal. It is about protecting those in power and retaining political advantage, while screwing the American people, all under the guise of false piety. Nearly every civilized country in the world cares for its people. It is right up there with a military and public schools. Hardly an evil expansion of federal power.
If it has nothing to do with legality then why have more than half of the States filed suit against its constitutionality?
If it has nothing to do with legality then why have more than half of the States filed suit against its constitutionality?
That is entirely fine. However, I do not think that is why the congressional Rs opposed it. We all know that mandated payments by the healthy are the only way to buffer the risk for the infirm. It isn't rocket science. If that gets axed everyone puts off paying until they feel the lump in their breast and then they sign up real. Bad economics and bad health policy.
That is entirely fine. However, I do not think that is why the congressional Rs opposed it. We all know that mandated payments by the healthy are the only way to buffer the risk for the infirm. It isn't rocket science. If that gets axed everyone puts off paying until they feel the lump in their breast and then they sign up real. Bad economics and bad health policy.
I am not saying we do not need health care reform, I am saying the way Obama is going about it is unconstitutional. He should have spent more time on it and listened to and had support from the right. He should have also known what the hell was in it and made it clear to the folks before strong arming it through as well don't you think?
I am not saying we do not need health care reform, I am saying the way Obama is going about it is unconstitutional. He should have spent more time on it and listened to and had support from the right. He should have also known what the hell was in it and made it clear to the folks before strong arming it through as well don't you think?
To be honest, I am not sure. I have heard both side on the legality of it. Some say it will stand, others say it will fall. I don't think it is a terrible expansion of federal powers. The feds can do big things sometimes, when it is important enough. But I don't want to come across more confident than I am. I am no lawyer.
As for Obama biding his time, My read is that we are all mortals, with limited time and resources. I think Obama wanted a better health care system, with a public option, and he went after it. He worked years in Chicago with many poor people, and I think he knows what our system does to those in the nonprofessional classes. He tried to move it through, and he encountered pretty fierce resistance, but he kept up the momentum. He was looking for compromise, and he did a little compromise, but in the end he wanted to get the damn thing done. Republcans would have made tremendous political hay if he had failed. And momentum would have been lost for another decade. So, he won, and I think he will get some of what he wanted and we need. So, I think he did the right thing. The bill can and probably should be improved, but repeal and replace is simply Republican politics, not anything for the people. As I said, a public option would have been best, but the insurance companies were having none of it. So, saying the current bill, which by necessity is largely individual or employer-based, is a job killer, seems like dirty pool.
To be honest, I am not sure. I have heard both side on the legality of it. Some say it will stand, others say it will fall. I don't think it is a terrible expansion of federal powers. The feds can do big things sometimes, when it is important enough. But I don't want to come across more confident than I am. I am no lawyer.
As for Obama biding his time, My read is that we are all mortals, with limited time and resources. I think Obama wanted a better health care system, with a public option, and he went after it. He worked years in Chicago with many poor people, and I think he knows what our system does to those in the nonprofessional classes. He tried to move it through, and he encountered pretty fierce resistance, but he kept up the momentum. He was looking for compromise, and he did a little compromise, but in the end he wanted to get the damn thing done. Republcans would have made tremendous political hay if he had failed. And momentum would have been lost for another decade. So, he won, and I think he will get some of what he wanted and we need. So, I think he did the right thing. The bill can and probably should be improved, but repeal and replace is simply Republican politics, not anything for the people. As I said, a public option would have been best, but the insurance companies were having none of it. So, saying the current bill, which by necessity is largely individual or employer-based, is a job killer, seems like dirty pool.
My 2 cents.
It seems that "winning" was more important than what the people wanted because most of the people want it repealed.
Perhaps. Obama is a politician, like the others. That said, I think it is an important issue, and there are many people in power who don't want it to go anywhere, so perhaps he made a run for the end zone. If he had stopped, or lost momentum and lost, he knew his base would drop kick him in 2012. A tough issue!
Please register to post and access all features of our very popular forum. It is free and quick. Over $68,000 in prizes has already been given out to active posters on our forum. Additional giveaways are planned.
Detailed information about all U.S. cities, counties, and zip codes on our site: City-data.com.
Please register to participate in our discussions with 2 million other members - it's free and quick! Some forums can only be seen by registered members. After you create your account, you'll be able to customize options and access all our 15,000 new posts/day with fewer ads.
Obama is a centrist
