No no no... First off, I thought we were talking about what Obama's doing now.
>In a political culture that long ago surrendered to the permanent campaign, Obama has managed to take things to a whole new level. According to statistics compiled for a book to be published this summer, the president has already set a record for total first-term fundraisers — 191 — and that’s only through March 6. Measured in terms of events that benefit his reelection bid, Obama’s total (inflated in part by relaxed fundraising rules) exceeds the combined total of George W. Bush, Bill Clinton, George H.W. Bush, Ronald Reagan and Jimmy Carter.
That was talking about Obama running for reelection. Of course he was fundraising in 2012, and of course he was going to exceed the other Presidents. The political fundraising landscape changed in 2010 with the Citizens United decision. How the heck else would he win reelection when someone like Sheldon Adelson could suddenly spend $150 million against him?
And then Milbank essentially makes that point:
>In fairness, it’s not entirely clear what choice Obama has. As with his blessing of a super PAC after condemning such groups, the alternative is unilateral disarmament. Also, his fundraising total has been inflated by a rule change that allows him to hold events that jointly benefit him and the Democratic Party (although his total number of fundraising appearances still eclipses that of each recent predecessor). Republicans, meanwhile, are determined to block the president’s agenda, so it’s an effective use of time to campaign for their defeat.
>Now we see Obama dealing with the economy the only way he knows how, by hitting the campaign trail yet again. I guess you missed the part where Obama blames Washington for the troubles in the economy, as if Obama himself isn't part of the problem.
I didn't miss that. He's right -- he cannot pass anything at this point through the House that would help the economy. He's even offering up corporate tax breaks now (yuck) and Social Security cuts (double yuck) to try to extend an olive branch. But the Republicans are the ones that are saying "no no no," and "take it or leave it."
>Remember, Obama was supposed to be a "transformational figure" in politics. Even Colin Powell said so.
First off, I never for one second agreed with that take. Second, you're getting nowhere with me by quoting a scumbag like Colin Powell.
>But it is clear that Obama isn't doing anything but campaigning. I never saw this much campaigning in the first year of a president's 2nd term. Have you?
Why, as a matter of fact I have... presidentialrhetoric.com
Quite a bit there. It was in 2005 when Bush said he was going to be "spending his political capital" and went on his Social Security privatization barnstorming tour, which flopped.
>It's the post you responded to with nothing but lame excuses and insults to intelligence, then whined about how I didn't take your response "seriously."
Message 29029943
I see some insults there... excuses? Nah.
-Z |
