With all of the spotlights on the high-stakes debt maneuverings by President Obama and Speaker John Boehner the last few days, few people noticed what Vermont’s Sen. Bernie Sanders said:
“I think it would be a good idea if President Obama faced some primary opposition.”
This is political treason 469 days before a presidential election. Yes, yes, this is just a crusty old New England independent for now, albeit one who caucuses loyally with Harry Reid’s Democratic posse.
But while most of the media focuses on Republican Boehner and the tea party pressures on him to raise the debt limit not one Liberty dime, Sanders’ mumblings are a useful reminder that hidden in the shadows of this left-handed presidency are militant progressives like Sanders who don’t want to cut one Liberty dime of non-Pentagon spending.
Closely read the transcript of Obama’s Monday statement on the debt talks stalemate. The full transcript is right here. And the full transcript of Boehner’s response is right here.
An Unbalanced Approach to a Balanced Approach
Using political forensics, notice any clues, perhaps telltale code words that reveal to whom he was really addressing his Monday message? Clearly, it wasn’t congressional Republicans — or Democrats, for that matter.
The nation’s top talker uttered 2,264* words in those remarks. He said “balanced approach” seven times, three times in a single paragraph.
That’s the giveaway. Obviously, David Plouffe and the incumbent’s strategists have been polling phrases for use in this ongoing debt duel, which is more about 2012 now than 2011. “Balanced approach” is no sweet talk for old Bernie or tea sippers on the other side.
Obama is running for the center already, aiming for the independents who played such a crucial role in his victorious coalition in 2008. They were the first to start abandoning the good ship Obama back in 2009 when all the ex-state senator could do was talk about healthcare, when jobs and the economy were the peoples’ priority.
Democrats lost the New Jersey and Virginia governor’s offices largely as a result of that and Ted Kennedy’s Senate seat in Massachusetts. And then came last November’s midterms when voters chose the approach of that historic pack of House-bound Republicans.
Republicans have their own poll problems in some areas. But even without an identified GOP presidential alternative, we’ve had a plethora of recent polls showing Obama’s fading job approval, especially on the economy.
Now, comes a new ABC News/Washington Post poll with a whole harvest of revelations, among them, strong indications that Obama’s liberal base is starting to crumble. Among the nuggets:
Given his actions up to now, only the clinical insane or a total idiot could possibly be convinced that Obama has “moved to the middle.” This tossing around of Regan’s name is part of the con-job that Obama’s campaign is trying to create. I seriously doubt they are going to pull the wool over American voter’s eyes a second time.
Political polls go up and down–Reagan had his share of negative polls. I’m still waiting for this site to report the fact when Obama’s number are up in the polls–but I guess right-wing sites don’t do that (that’s why they’re right-wing). They’ve got to appeal to the bias of their base.
@Liberal1 (objectivity):
Why wait?
Report on the Obama Approval numbers whenever the fancy strikes you.
I distinctly remember seeing reports HERE when Obama got his SOTU bounce as well as when Obama got his bin Laden-is-dead bounce.
All the way up until July of 2009 Obama’s positives outnumbered his negatives.
And, hey!
Since yesterday (and the day before) when Obama was at a -21 he has bounced up.
Today his three-day running average is only a -17!