JFLNYC wrote:Obviously I'm delighted that Obama won and that the forces of honesty and intelligence (I'm looking at you, Nate Silver) triumphed.

Now, though, I want to see Barry stick to his principles and bring his famous competitiveness to the economic problems facing our country. The economy is improving and we'll all benefit. The stimulus package, whatever its inadequacies, was both a political and economic triumph.

But now I want to see him face the partisan challenges straight on and take the next steps to help job growth and reduce the deficit. I don't for a minute mean to minimize the practical hurdles he faces, but I want to see him bring his many personal, political and competitive resources to the task and get it done.

dajafi wrote:NYT (I know, I know) has an article about the strains within the Republican Party. Mike Murphy, who strikes me as one of their smarter strategists, frames it as "the mathematicians (his side) vs. the priests." Ralph Reed, whom I'd like to see torn apart by the feral children of unwanted pregnancies, speaks for the priests, as well as some Tea Party yutz.

What will be interesting here is Fox's take. Ailes is a fanatic but no idiot, and he'll grasp that they won't come back until they figure out an appeal to Hispanics and a way to get social issues off the table so suburban moderates can vote their wallets with a clear conscience. But their viewers aren't easily persuadable on these points and probably are no more eager to hear that they must moderate to win than were Howard Dean supporters in 2004, or Ted Kennedy Dems in the '70s and '80s. The good of his ratings will come into conflict with the good of his party.

The more I think about it, the more it's clear to me that Romney could and maybe should have won this thing. His background as a guy who got incredibly rich by rigging and then dominating a mutant capitalist game didn't help, but his managerial chops and record in MA could have overcome that. His personal goofiness wasn't disqualifying. That he didn't win has less to do with him as a candidate than the party behind him. If he'd been "October Romney" all along, he probably would have won--but of course that guy would have lost to one of the crazies in the primaries.

It's kind of ironic: the party that endlessly touts itself as pro-business is struggling to accept what every successful firm knows in its bones--you evolve or you die off.

RichmondPhilsFan wrote:I just don't see how House Republicans will be able to justify it to their constituents in 2014 if they allow the Bush tax cuts to expire on household incomes under something like $100K due entirely to obstructionism. They need to call out Obama and say that they're willing to negotiate in good faith regarding the budget impasse (haha), but the less fortunate need to get taken care of first. Obama can't say no to that, but there's still plenty of territory to haggle over potential expiration/extensions of the cuts so House Pubs haven't really given up anything.

Grotewold wrote:

RichmondPhilsFan wrote:I just don't see how House Republicans will be able to justify it to their constituents in 2014 if they allow the Bush tax cuts to expire on household incomes under something like $100K due entirely to obstructionism. They need to call out Obama and say that they're willing to negotiate in good faith regarding the budget impasse (haha), but the less fortunate need to get taken care of first. Obama can't say no to that, but there's still plenty of territory to haggle over potential expiration/extensions of the cuts so House Pubs haven't really given up anything.

If they're obstructing on the fiscal cliff, I think Obama needs to speak plainly about what's happening. He could even hold up a signed bill that doesn't affect anyone under 300K or whatever and dare the Republicans to not sign it.

Then deal with the grown-up discussion of the deficit, future, etc.

Gay marriage: Republicans should move on
By Jennifer Rubin
Right Turn has made the point repeatedly that the issue of gay marriage is a generational one, a battle that social conservatives have lost. That was crystal clear yesterday. Maine, Minnesota, Washington and Maryland handled gay marriage the right way in a democracy — proponents went to the voters, made their case and won the support of a majority of their fellow citizens. Minnesota rejected a ban on gay marriage; the other states acted affirmatively to approve it. Conservatives can have no principled opposition to a exercise of democracy that embodies the principles of federalism.

JFLNYC wrote:Obviously I'm delighted that Obama won and that the forces of honesty and intelligence (I'm looking at you, Nate Silver) triumphed.

Now, though, I want to see Barry stick to his principles and bring his famous competitiveness to the economic problems facing our country. The economy is improving and we'll all benefit. The stimulus package, whatever its inadequacies, was both a political and economic triumph.

But now I want to see him face the partisan challenges straight on and take the next steps to help job growth and reduce the deficit. I don't for a minute mean to minimize the practical hurdles he faces, but I want to see him bring his many personal, political and competitive resources to the task and get it done.

Houshphandzadeh wrote:my soon to be uncle has been saying for like two years that his biotech company will have to move to Europe if Obama wins. curious to see if he sticks with that