Werthless wrote:Obama was one of the first "idea man" Presidents who had a light list of accomplishments before the White House.

Pretty sure there was another onetime IL state legislator who did just one term as a Congressman (not even a Senator!), eschewing any executive roles - which we all know ought to be required of any Presidential aspirant - before ascending to the Presidency. Believe he's often thought of as an idea man.

TenuredVulture wrote:He had a chance to make the Republican Party irrelevant. The Republicans did everything they could to help him along.

So you don't think the geomechanics of congressional representation would make that accomplishment a practical impossibility.

I give Jerz a heap of shit for finding that stuff so engrossing but there's no denying that the way votes are apportioned impact how shit happens, or whether it happens

drsmooth wrote:

Werthless wrote:Obama was one of the first "idea man" Presidents who had a light list of accomplishments before the White House.

Pretty sure there was another onetime IL state legislator who did just one term as a Congressman (not even a Senator!), eschewing any executive roles - which we all know ought to be required of any Presidential aspirant - before ascending to the Presidency. Believe he's often thought of as an idea man.

Do you actually disagree, that's it's easier to run for President when you don't have many accomplishments? Obama ran and won because he was able to articulate a vision for America that people wanted to be a part of. McCain/Palin being the alternative certainly helped in the general election.

pacino wrote:What does his popularity have to do with his accomplishments? What are you even suggesting there? Somehow he's the most feckless president while also fundamentally restructuring our country.

Healthcare reform was huge. That basically is all he needed, but he's done a hell of a lot of substantive works as President.

You might want to re-read my post if you're talking about his accomplishments as President. I was comparing Warren the Presidential candidate to Obama the presidential candidate. I assumed your post was responding to mine, but my apologies if I was mistaken.

I think I get what Werthless is saying about Obama and Warren--that they're both selling a kind of extra-political authenticity. I would argue that the difference is that Warren, probably for better and for worse, really isn't a politician... unlike Obama who had been in office for more than a decade and clearly had enormous ambition. (Not a judgment, just a statement.) I first became aware of her as an academic writing about the growing strains on the middle class maybe 11 or 12 years ago, and then in '05 she really came to prominence by calling bullshit on the bankruptcy law. And remember she only ran for office because the Republicans wouldn't confirm her as head of the consumer protection agency created by Dodd-Frank.

I don't think she'll run for president and, to TV's point about experience, I don't feel great confidence she would be all that effective if she won. I do think she's saying something incredibly important, and given how completely Hillary Clinton seems to buy into a lot of the premises that have gotten us into trouble--something way too close to McCain's foreign policy with Robert Rubin's economic policy--I would be happy to support her if she runs.

Don't get me wrong, I like Elizabeth Warren a lot, and I actually think she has appeal that goes well beyond the left of the Dem party. I think she can tap into some of the populist anger that is definitely out there in a way Hillary can't and won't. (I know some pretty conservative women who really enjoyed the way she went after the banking regulators who hadn't prosecuted a single banker.) Elizabeth Warren can make a signficant contribution to changing the conversation. I just don't think running for the Presidency is the best way she can do her thing. I'd much rather have her saying things that need to be said without the burden of doing the kinds of things the smart people say you need to do to win.

I'm also increasingly convinced that good candidates don't make good Presidents, particularly in a political universe where most campaign events are scripted, managed, and rehearsed, but being a President demands the ability to improvise.

Well, that's definitely a concern. Hence my suggestions for alternative debates--one where the candidates basically pick a team of advisors and work through a real time crisis simulation, another where they have to drink a shot every 10 minutes for an hour. The first one tests management and nimbleness, the second self-regulation (and would be funny as shit, probably).

Do politics even matter in a presidential election? Anyone whose mind is not made up months before is likely swung by inconsequential attributes.

We're all fucked after the right takes the Senate anyway.

SK790 wrote:Do politics even matter in a presidential election? Anyone whose mind is not made up months before is likely swung by inconsequential attributes.

Not necessarily. There are an increasing number of sophisticated voters who are not firmly committed to one party or the other. Some are extreme, and could vote 3rd party or stay home, some are moderate, some are libertarian, and so forth.

Also, every election means new voters, who typically are influenced by what's going on as they reach voting age. This is getting volatile--while first time voters went strongly for Obama in 2008, and those people voted for him again in 2012, first time 2012 voters were, not surprisingly, much less enthusiastic about Obama.

Werthless wrote:Do you actually disagree, that's it's easier to run for President when you don't have many accomplishments?

I can't say, I haven't run yet.

But that wasn't the thrust of your "idea man" bit anyway

Speaking of "idea men" and great Republican candidates for Senate seats, how about that Tom Cotton & his notion that ISIS is teaming up with Mexican drug cartels? Ain't he a caution?

drsmooth wrote:

Werthless wrote:Do you actually disagree, that's it's easier to run for President when you don't have many accomplishments?

I can't say, I haven't run yet.

But that wasn't the thrust of your "idea man" bit anyway

?

Here's a depressing article about the Democratic Senate candidate in Kentucky and her beyond-lame campaign. I post it in support of TV's oft-made assertion that political consultants ain't shit.

Werthless wrote:
?

{sigh}

Oh, I see, you're "confused" by my response to your classic-of-its-kind digressive-question-as-reply. Let's try again:

1) I'm not sure if I "actually disagree" because it comes down to 40-odd cases, and I'm not sure you can line up authoritative data on relative resume strength of candidates that produces a base of results on which to ground "actual" or even "theoretical" agreement or disagreement. But anyway

2) I'll let you know how easy or hard I feel it is when I run (the joke you didn't get)

Monica Wehby, another "pretty good" Republican candidate for US Senate. Unfortunately unelectable because evidently kinda pretty nutty.

Another "light on accomplishments" resume - only a brain surgeon or something like. Probably an "ideas gal"

My wife is at the courthouse right now with 2 of our friends being witness to their lesbian nuptials. They actually had the wedding 2 weekends ago but it wasn't legal then.

Mitch McConnell wrote:“Kentucky Kynect is a website. It was paid for by a grant from the federal government,” he said. “The website can continue, but in my view the best interests of the country would be achieved by pulling out Obamacare root and branch.” McConnell explained that Kentucky officials can also maintain the state exchange “if they’d like to.” “States can decide whether or to expand Medicaid or not,” he added. “It’s a state decision.”

What a ridiculous, untrue statement

pacino wrote:

Mitch McConnell wrote:“Kentucky Kynect is a website. It was paid for by a grant from the federal government,” he said. “The website can continue, but in my view the best interests of the country would be achieved by pulling out Obamacare root and branch.” McConnell explained that Kentucky officials can also maintain the state exchange “if they’d like to.” “States can decide whether or to expand Medicaid or not,” he added. “It’s a state decision.”

What a ridiculous, untrue statement

His wife was Bush's Secretary of Labor, you'd think she'd tip him

Somebody made the point that Turtlehead's statement is analogous to saying that Google should be shut down, but google.com would be fine to continue.

Turkey is in the fight!! They didnt help Kurds in Syria but instead they bombed the PKK INSIDE Turkey. They said PKK hit them first, but there's no outside media to verify this. I guess the ISIS issue has reignited Kurd/Turk troubles. Just great.

Fwiw, the Turkish parliament had authorized action in both Iraw and Syria, so I have no idea why they arent around Kobani.