Skip to main content

View Diary: Daily Kos Elections Live Digest: 9/6 (288 comments)

Comment Preferences

  •  I dont think he misread the situation or (3+ / 0-)
    Recommended by:
    LordMike, MichaelNY, SaoMagnifico

    the public.

    Quite the opposite. I think it looked like they were going to strike without a congressional vote, and he realized that would be a bad idea, given polling showed around 80% wanted a vote.

    If he loses the vote, it will definitely be a loss for the president, no sugarcoating it.

    But I dont know how much it really affects his domestic standing or his legislative agenda.  

    The Syria strike is unpopular politically, which isnt a reason not to do it. But is his approval rate going to fall as a result? I doubt it.

    And as far as a legislative agenda, immigration reform really depends on the House GOP at this point, not Dems. A Syria loss could have some effect on budget negotiations, but I think that is a completely different issue.

    •  That's one thing that never makes any (3+ / 0-)
      Recommended by:
      LordMike, jj32, MichaelNY

      sense: why is he going to suffer if the House votes down something that is politically unpopular? It seems like a stretch to say that the public will reward the Republicans in some way for doing what is already broadly popular, and it should be clear to anyone who isn't quite fickle that they'd vote down anything he says he's behind.

      "At this point, if the president came out in favor of breathing, [Republican leaders would] tell their caucus members to hold their breaths."--Jared Bernstein

      by bjssp on Fri Sep 06, 2013 at 09:40:44 AM PDT

      [ Parent ]

      •  Right, the main effect I could see (1+ / 0-)
        Recommended by:
        MichaelNY

        is that possibly it's hard to bring Dems on board for a budget deal. But to be in a position to get Dems on board, the WH and GOP will have to have struck a deal, and that doesnt look like it was happening anyway.

        And Dems arent the issue with CIR.

        And those are really the only two major legislative priorities for Obama. Climate Change is going to be done through regulation. Obamacare is mostly about implementation.

    •  I guess we can thank Bush (11+ / 0-)

      for making an entire generation of Americans cynical, anti-humanitarian interventionists.

      "Once, many, many years ago I thought I was wrong. Of course it turned out I had been right all along. But I was wrong to have thought I was wrong." -John Foster Dulles. My Political Compass Score: -4.00, -3.69, Proud member of DKE

      by ArkDem14 on Fri Sep 06, 2013 at 10:42:57 AM PDT

      [ Parent ]

      •  GW Bush's coalition is the big loser here... (2+ / 0-)
        Recommended by:
        jj32, MichaelNY

        The evangelicals are not welcome in public campaigns by the GOP anymore (even though they still get what they want from the party as a whole).  They've been forced out of GOP messaging campaigns.  Now, the neocons are officially persona non grata with the public, too.  I suspect they'll be official relegated to the GOP closet like their evangelical friends soon enough.

        GODSPEED TO THE WISCONSIN FOURTEEN!

        by LordMike on Fri Sep 06, 2013 at 10:57:42 AM PDT

        [ Parent ]

        •  I don't necessarily agree (4+ / 0-)
          Recommended by:
          MichaelNY, LordMike, ArkDem14, jncca

          Perhaps the most touted Republican candidate for Senate of this entire cycle is Rep. Tom Cotton, who is an evangelical neoconservative.

          The most touted Republican candidate for Senate in 2010, now-Sen. Marco Rubio, is...drumroll please...an evangelical neoconservative.

          Libertarianism -- or more accurately Paulism, which is basically evangelical libertarianism/anarcho-syndicalism ("small government", but socially conservative and anti-secular) -- has become a much stronger force in the Republican Party than it used to, but I often think that's more a function of having a Democratic president (isn't hating the very idea of government a convenient way to justify obstructing and opposing him at every turn?) and will quickly fade back to the fringes as soon as a Republican wins the White House.

          Pragmatic progressive. Oregonian, Cascadian, and American. Keeper of the DKE glossary.

          by SaoMagnifico on Fri Sep 06, 2013 at 03:06:01 PM PDT

          [ Parent ]

      •  And that was what a lot of people who opposed (1+ / 0-)
        Recommended by:
        MichaelNY

        Iraq back in 2002/2003 said. That if the war didnt turn out well, it would hurt a future presidenti's ability to ever use a military response again, even when it's necessary, because the American wouldnt be so trusting.

        It's obviously debatable whether we should use force here, but the trust an the war weariness is definitely there.

      •  I understand that sentiment (3+ / 0-)
        Recommended by:
        MichaelNY, SaoMagnifico, JGibson

        We invaded Iraq when I was 16 years old, before my political sentiments had really solidified.  At the time, with my basic understanding of politics and foreign policy, I bought into this idea that Saddam Hussein was "bad" and we should do something about it.  One year later, I had turned against the war.  The resulting decade-long involvements in both Iraq and Afghanistan cemented my beliefs.  I promised myself I would never again get swayed into supporting a non-defensive attack on another country.  I think a lot of other people did too.

        •  The problem with the Iraq precedent (3+ / 0-)
          Recommended by:
          MichaelNY, SaoMagnifico, ArkDem14

          is the reasons for that were entirely fictional.  If Sadaam just had used chemical weapons on the Kurds, and Bush said that civilized people can't tolerate that, we would look at the whole situation differently.

          Politically this is a much more clear issue: will the nation support/resist/shrug over taking missile action against one of the most entrenched dictatorships in the world?

          Iraq is not an historical precedent for that.

          Mr. Gorbachev, establish an Electoral College!

          by tommypaine on Fri Sep 06, 2013 at 01:40:45 PM PDT

          [ Parent ]

      •  No kidding (1+ / 0-)
        Recommended by:
        MichaelNY

        We are all living with the scars of the Iraq War. (Oh, and still not really giving a shit about people living with the actual scars, physical and psychological, of the Iraq War, judging by our depressingly shitty VA healthcare system and generally wrongheaded approach to mental health in this country.)

        Pragmatic progressive. Oregonian, Cascadian, and American. Keeper of the DKE glossary.

        by SaoMagnifico on Fri Sep 06, 2013 at 02:58:48 PM PDT

        [ Parent ]

        •  Carville pinned it on Bush (3+ / 0-)
          Recommended by:
          MichaelNY, KingofSpades, kleinburger

          O'Reilly rolled his eyes. But damn truth it is. Republicans would be falling over themselves to vote for this is Bush was proposing it. At least Democrats are consistent with their concerns whoever the CIC happens to be.

          "What do you mean "conspiracy"? Does that mean it's someone's imaginings and that the actual polls hovered right around the result?" - petral

          by conspiracy on Fri Sep 06, 2013 at 03:54:32 PM PDT

          [ Parent ]

    •  Syria has ZERO affect on budget (4+ / 0-)
      Recommended by:
      LordMike, jj32, bythesea, MichaelNY

      They are completely independent.  Leverage is unchanged.  Politics are unchanged.

      45, male, Indian-American, married and proud father of a girl and 2 boys, Democrat, VA-10

      by DCCyclone on Fri Sep 06, 2013 at 11:02:09 AM PDT

      [ Parent ]

Subscribe or Donate to support Daily Kos.

Click here for the mobile view of the site