------------------------------
Some of these people are “clueless”:
Posted on 12/08/2010 7:44:31 PM PST by 2ndDivisionVet
Good lord. Is The One starting to direct some of the same condescending nonsense he aimed at voters during the campaign back at … his own base? This sounds a bit like his now infamous stump speech about people not thinking clearly in preferring the GOP.
“I know that there’s some folks who are angry about it,” he said. “They are confused about the extensions on the tax cuts for the wealthiest Americans, and there are policy and political objections. Some people are saying, ‘Well, did we fight hard enough for our position? Did we position ourselves properly on this?’”
The president said the bottom line is the votes weren’t there.
“We put up the best and smartest fight that we could under the circumstances. That means without 60 votes in the Senate,” the president said, “not a single Republican would support our position in the Senate, and as a consequence we could not get the 60 vote we needed to overcome their filibuster.”
Well, according to lefties, the “best and smartest fight” would have been to let the cuts expire and then dare the new Republican House to hold out for across-the-board cuts while middle-class voters howled about their rates going up. In fact, watch the clip below and you’ll see that Obama’s counting on a version of that strategy to boost him in 2012. We are indeed going to have this debate again, and I can’t wait to hear him explain how he’s going to get a middle-class-only cut through a still-Republican House and an even more Republican Senate come 2013. Assuming he’s still in the White House at the time, that is.
Exit question via Jay Cost: Was it liberals’ own insane demonization of American conservatives that made Obama’s tax cut “betrayal” possible in the first place? Quote: “Liberals are understandably grinding their teeth right now over Obama’s tax cut deal. They are angry that he is not as liberal as they thought he was, or at least that he is not as willing to fight for his liberal beliefs as they would like. But when push comes to shove, they will be there full tilt for the president because they will detest whomever the Republicans nominate. One cannot win the presidential nomination in the conservative-dominated Republican Party without thoroughly antagonizing American liberals. Look, for instance, at how the liberals came to hate John McCain, who was much more conciliatory than whomever the Grand Old Party will nominate in 2012. All of the well-known Republican candidates (Huckabee, Romney, Palin) already bother the liberals, and if a currently lesser-known candidate wins the nomination, the left will come to despise him or her with all the intensity they can muster.” Yep. No matter how far towards the center he goes, Obama can count on total enthusiastic support from the left once the next Republican Satan rises.
How could the votes not be there? The Dems control 59% of both houses of Congress.
Everybody is confused. Or they don’t understand.
Because he is smarter than us. Did you forget that?
That only thing I’m “confused” about is how Americans could be stupid enough to vote for this dweeb.
they were confused before they were confused
He’s living in a land of confusion . . . and not much love to go around.
------------------------------
Some of these people are “clueless”:
“Clinging bitterly to their lattes and arugula....
Isn’t it just that Obambi hasn’t explained it well enough yet? You know, like usual?
The same reason the votes weren’t there for Bush to open ANWR. Or for him to get Miguel Estrada confirmed. Or for him to get his original tax cut passed. Even though he had majorities in both houses. You need 60 votes in the Senate to get anything major done. He could have 300 seats in the House and 59 in the Senate and it wouldn’t matter.
Re Jay Cost, the issue isn’t how intensely they despise the GOP nominee, it’s how many of them show up or vote for a potential 3rd party out of spite.
In 2000 they despised W, but enough still voted for Nader to hand him the WH. There weren’t as many dems as there were in 96. 40% to 37%.
In 2010 it was 35-35 Dem-Rep. In 2008 it 39-32 Dem-Rep. In 2004 they were tied at 37. A narrowing(or even a GOP edge) in 2012 would be a huge deal.
In 2010 liberals were 20% of the total electorate. In 2008 they were 21%. If they decline again to say 18 or 19 that could be a huge difference.
Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.