Obama’s Policies On Midterm Ballot
By Richard Larsen
“I am not on the ballot this fall. Michelle’s pretty happy about that. But make no mistake, my policies are on the ballot. Every single one of them,” said President Barrack Obama two weeks ago. There can be no doubt that the agenda of the past six years is a factor in the mid-term elections in two weeks, but for the president to so inextricably conjoin his policies with the election increases the significance and possible outcomes.
Reactions to the president’s statement have been predictably mixed in political circles. The comment drew consternation from some Democratic Senate candidates who have been attempting to distance themselves from the president and his policies, even though they’ve historically been supportive. Some have reveled in the declaration believing that linking the president’s policies, and his now dismal approval rating, to the midterms increases the odds of Republicans extending their majority in the House and regaining control of the Senate.
Last Monday the president doubled down on his remarks in an interview with Al Sharpton on MSNBC. Speaking of those congressional and senatorial candidates attempting to distance themselves from his policies, the president said, “These are all folks who vote with me. They have supported my agenda in Congress. I tell them, I said, ‘You know what, you do what you need to win.’”
There are two significant revelations embedded in that counsel. The first is that those of the president’s party are supportive of his agenda, regardless of what they may say. That verity is bourn out by near 100% support of the president by his party member’s votes in congress. The second revelatory counsel is for them to do whatever they need to do to win. Obviously that includes deceit to appear to voters as not amenable with the president’s agenda.
This should be immensely disturbing to voters, that their Machiavellian tactics would so blatantly based on dishonesty. Disavowing the president’s policies, while having actively supported and voted for them, is counting on voter ignorance for success, and is clearly deceitful. In other words, they have to lie to hope for success at the ballot box. This comes as no surprise to many of us, but for it to be so explicitly disclosed by the national figurehead of the party speaks volumes not only of him, but the Party he leads.
A senior Senate Democratic aid said this week, “The ineptitude of the White House political operation has sunk from annoying to embarrassing,” in reference to the president’s statements, and a series of other faux pas which are seen as damaging to Democrat’s election hopes. Another has called the president’s political team the “JV squad,” in clear reference to a January statement by the president when he referred to ISIS as a “JV” terrorist group. Even David Axelrod, Obama’s former senior adviser, said Obama made a big “mistake” tying his policies to the midterm election.
This increases in relevancy due to public perception of the president and his policies. Overall, his job approval numbers are between 39-42%, and his approval numbers on the economy are in the same range. They’re more dismal on his foreign policy, which range mostly from 31-35%. And of those polled on whether the country is headed the right direction, only 23-27% feel that it is.
According to YouGov Obama’s base is the only demographic segment that still supports him and his policies, even though that is somewhat waning. Nearly all of his 39% approval rating is coming from Democrats. Republicans and independents combined register less than 1% approval for the president. Which is not surprising in light of Gallup’s conclusion a couple years ago, “Conservative Democrats, Liberal Republicans Hard to Find.”
The dismal approval of the administration carries over to distrust of the entire government. According to a CNN poll just last month, only 13% of Americans agree that the government “can be trusted to do what is right always or most of the time.”
Clearly the president was right, that his agenda is on the ballot in November. His policies are the Democrat Party policies, and only they support them. This is undoubtedly what Bill O’Reilly was thinking when he said this week, “If a whopping 64% of Americans think the country is out of control under the Obama administration, why would anyone vote for a Democrat?” That is a superb question!
There is no discernable difference between the national party policies and those either implemented or supported at the state and local levels. Their core value, based on what they do, not necessarily what they say, is based in government solutions and control, at the expense individual liberty. This is manifested in all facets of governance from economic and foreign policy, to education and security, with but few exceptions.
If one is supportive of the direction the nation is headed now, it would be understandable to vote accordingly. But for all who are not pleased with the nation’s direction, Bill O’Reilly’s question is apropos, “Why would anyone vote for a Democrat?” Since we know where such policies lead, we might tenably add, “At any level.”
Associated Press award winning columnist Richard Larsen is President of Larsen Financial, a brokerage and financial planning firm in Pocatello, Idaho and is a graduate of Idaho State University with degrees in Political Science and History and coursework completed toward a Master’s in Public Administration. He can be reached at rlarsenen@cableone.net.
Why would anyone want to vote for a Democrat?
Do you see a pattern here?
Conservatives opposed the American Revolution.
Liberals won.
Conservatives supported slavery.
Liberals won.
Conservatives opposed Blacks and women voting.
Liberals won.
Conservatives opposed stopping child labor.
Liberals won.
Conservatives opposed a minimum wage.
Liberals won.
Conservatives opposed the 40 hour work week.
Liberals won.
Conservatives opposed the 8 hour work day.
Liberals won.
Conservatives opposed workplace safety regulation.
Liberals won.
Conservatives opposed unemployment insurance.
Liberals won.
Conservatives opposed workman’s compensation.
Liberals won.
Conservatives opposed compulsory education.
Liberals won.
Conservative opposed Social Security.
Liberals won.
Conservatives opposed Medicare.
Liberals won.
Conservatives opposed the Affordable Care Act.
Liberals won.
Think about this trend when you vote this November.
Conservatives, as such, weren’t even around back then, dude. That movement took root rather firmly about the 1980s.
Indeed think about what theidahokid wrote above and vote against Obama’s abuse of them. There are so many things wrong and wrong headed about what he wrote that I don’t dare even start on one. I’d end up writing an encyclopedia on the subjects.
http://trailblazersblog.dallasnews.com/2014/10/abbott-tv-ad-equates-wendy-davis-with-barack-obama.html/
Click on the ad at the bottom of the article.
Liberals and winning come in the context of debt and more debt that never ends. That kind of liberal. We cant afford their losing versions of the above list.
Indeed Obama is on the ballot and we wait to see whether the naïve are going put a stop to the idiocy of the past 6 years or not. You choice folks and yes, you pay, don’t you?
“Why would anyone vote for a Democrat?”
You have to be kidding me? Why not? In the thirties and forties the ideological shift took the country by storm. If you weren’t a Democrat you weren’t an American. The McCarthy era changed all that. Still very shady when you talk about the usurpation of democratic principles for political aggrandisement.
I can think of a whole lot of reasons to vote Democrat–but I can’t think of one to vote Republican.
As Robin Williams put it so succintly,
“The smart one’s named JEB.
Robin only knew one?
I think Bob Hope pretty well nailed it.
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=RWpU8sX10_4
Idahokid,
I’m not going to directly disagree with you on any of what you post, per se, but it is worth noting that the Democrats were on the wrong end of most of the points you bring up.
It was the GOP that founded the NAACP.
It was the Dems that founded the KKK.
The GOP was founded on an anti-slavery platform.
The Dems were the staunches opponents to abolition.
…and on and on…
Larsen,
This is a bit of a “yawner” for me. Regardless of how good or bad the President would ever be at his job, the sixth year of a President’s tenure is almost always going to be a bad year for his party. Besides that, mid-term elections tend to be somewhat more favorable to Republicans because minority blocs tend not to show up in the same quantities as they do during presidential elections.
Remember this: even the Gipper lost seats during both of his own mid-term elections. I suspect that in 1982 and 1986 there was more than a few liberals who wrote a column not unlike your own.
“There is no discernable difference between the national party policies and those either implemented or supported at the state and local levels. Their core value, based on what they do, not necessarily what they say, is based in government solutions and control, at the expense individual liberty.”
This is a falsehood born of zealotry and narrow mindedness as bi-product of undue loyalty to party. Both parties are guilty of infringing upon individual liberty and advocate for varying forms of “government control.”
It illustrates what Washington warned about in his farewell address. And I suspect that 53% of unaffiliated registered voters in Idaho feel the same.
For example, the vote in the local county clerk race or the local legislative contests, whether it be for a Republican or Democrat, is not any indication of support for a national platform of either Democrats or Republicans. Rather, it is indicative of voting for the individual who can best address the local issues or manage the specific duties of their elective position. The Bannock County clerk has no bearing on implementation of Obamacare and party affiliation should have no bearing on the impartial administration of elections, maintenance of judicial records among many other duties. In all reality, the clerk’s race should be non-partisan.
As voters in the District 29 contest between Roy Lacy and Kert Howard, we are fortunate to have a choice between two quality individuals and great people who have demonstrated service to their community and who care about the local challenges we face irrespective of the national scene.
They are two of the few who actually understand the productivity gap and the issue of low per capita income in Idaho, particularly Bannock County. They both have proposed ideas on how to address this issue. Lacy has done legislative work with the GOP in this area for which he has not requested undue credit. They both demonstrate the interests of Bannock County, not their respective parties. Howard actually ran as a write in via the GOP closed primary to provide voters two quality options in the Senate.
We need to evaluate candidates and issues objectively, rationally, and without the filters offered by both Republicans and Democrats who offer false ideology and have yielded unfavorable outcomes based upon objective measures of policies proposed or implemented.
One’s vote for the county clerk, sheriff, coroner, or legislator is neither an endorsement of the national Republican agenda or referendum in support of Obamacare.
“One’s vote for the county clerk, sheriff, coroner, or legislator is neither an endorsement of the national Republican agenda or referendum in support of Obamacare.”
When the ‘ones’ vote keep popping up as not being in the democrats side doesn’t exactly show as an endorsement for their side either. Quite the opposite, in fact.
“One’s vote for the county clerk, sheriff, coroner, or legislator is neither an endorsement of the national Republican agenda or referendum in support of Obamacare.”
When the ‘ones’ vote keep popping up as not being in the democrats side doesn’t exactly show as an endorsement for their side either. Quite the opposite, in fact.
CAPCHA Code required says h9Rm but I’ll enter H9RM instead.
Bingo
DR and Jason,
Voting for clerk, sheriff and coroner (but not legislator) is nonsense anyway. How the hell could I really be expected to make any kind of an intelligent decision on this matter anyways?
These type of jobs should be left to the Mayor hire/fire. The Mayor can be much more in tune with finding competent people to fill those positions. Incompetent people will reflect poor on the person whom we elect into office, thereby incentivizing the person in power to make a decision that is at least slightly more intelligent/responsible than the populace could ever be expected to make.
ike,
Sounds like a good idea but in more cases than not, the Mayor wasn’t a good one and all sorts of unqualified people ended up in the positions. Worst one was a coroner who was so drunk they could remember doing an autopsy and everyone told them bluntly that a large number were murders and he had ruled them ‘natural causes’. Ever since we’ve been electing them ever since. There are some (clerks) who are part of the appraisal districts that don’t come under either elections nor mayors. Thus fare they’ve been rather independent which is what they needed to be.
ike,
The list that theidahokid used appears on Facebook and get repeated from there quite often.
It’s attributed to a “Roland Vincent” who middle initial changes quite often.
The only Roland Vincent I know that is widely known is the following:
PEOPLE v. VINCENT
No. B229075.
THE PEOPLE, Plaintiff and Respondent, v. ROLAND WINDSOR VINCENT, Defendant and Appellant.
Court of Appeals of California, Second District, Division One.
Filed March 28, 2012.
Kamala D. Harris, Attorney General, Dane R. Gillette, Chief Assistant Attorney General, Pamela Hamanaka, Assistant Attorney General, Scott A Taryle and Stephanie A. Miyoshi, Deputy Attorneys General, for Plaintiff and Respondent.
Roland Vincent, a law school graduate with a long-inactive license to practice in Nevada (and no admission to the California Bar), agreed to assist acquaintances in California with their California legal problems, and took money from them for that purpose. A jury found him guilty of the unauthorized practice of law (Bus. & Prof. Code, § 6126, subd. (a)), of receiving money on false pretenses (theft) (Pen. Code, § 487, subd. (a)) from one of the acquaintances, and of petty theft with a prior (Pen. Code, § 666) from the other acquaintance.
Vincent challenges his convictions for theft and petty theft with a prior, contending primarily that by virtue of his inactive Nevada license his status as an attorney was not a false pretense. He argues also that under Penal Code section 654 he cannot be sentenced to both the unauthorized practice of law and receiving money under false pretenses because both those offenses were motivated by the same intent and objectives. He urges that the prosecution should not have been permitted to impeach his credibility with his prior misdemeanor convictions, and that his wife should not have been questioned about her use of various names. Finally, he contends that his theft conviction and sentence of three years in prison must be reduced to a misdemeanor based on a change in Penal Code section 487, subdivision (a) before his conviction became final. We disagree with all his contentions except the need to reduce the count 1 conviction from a felony to a misdemeanor. We will otherwise affirm the convictions.
http://www.leagle.com/decision/In%20CACO%2020120328041
If indeed that is who they’re quoting, not good.
fare=far
ike:
I agree with you regarding positions such as Sheriff, Assessor, Clerk, Coroner. I would even include Secretary of State (unless Secretary of State constitutionally is equivalent to Lt. Governor which sometimes is the case), Comptroller, Treasurer, and Superintendent of Public Instruction.
How can the citizens trust their chief elections officer to avoid either real or perceived conflicts of interest after they have been nominated by a political party or selected through the closed primary process and then have to campaign from a partisan posture?
Comptroller and Treasurer need to be skilled professionals, not politicians.
We need to get the politicians out of the schools, so Superintendent of Public Instruction should not be elected office either. We don’t elect our superintendants at the district level. We hold our trustees accountable for the chief operatiing officer’s actions as superintendent in a local district. So why do we politicize education by electing a superintendent of public instruction?
DR,
I’d like to think of myself as a news junkie in need of therapy. I would suspect that I’m more informed on the issues and the people surrounding those issues than I should be due to the sacrifices I take from other important things.
…but I still have absolutely no idea who to pick between candidate “A” or “B” when it comes to city Clerk. I’m not really even sure what the clerk does to begin with. I have gone to the ballot box only to vote for the guy/gal whose name sounds better.
The mayor, on the other hand, is slightly easier to gage. His/her position is a performance based position. The people she hires is part of the performance evaluation. If she play crony politics, fine. I’ll cast my vote to fire her.
Otherwise, I’m just flipping a coin – and that is coming from a person such as myself that is much more educated about politics than a vast majority of people.
ike,
I put computers in all of the offices you talk about. I got to know the difference between somebody who was ‘family’, i.e. same political party and someone who was truly qualified.
I remember one here who when there were 254 counties In Texas and they all ran the PIX operating system on specific brands of computes and he was put in and he bought an IBM computer that ran Unix and wasn’t compatible with the other 253 counties and all the grief that caused. By law he had to produce reports in a certain format that Unix didn’t know squat about at the time. The new system that was $3 dollars cheaper ended up costing the county over $4 million in extras to produce the reports required by law. Did I mention his brother-in-law was the mayor?
Some mayors are indeed based on good things with some obvious problem children in the mix. Anise Parker of Houston comes to mind, she was elected because she’s a lesbian and it was the PC thing to elect her. She has since made a royal mess of a huge number of things in her headlong rush to make sure .3% of the populace has ‘special rights’ that they abuse something horrible. But all “pro bono” but in the cities name, however.
I offered to work with the democrats when I moved here 45 years ago only to be told my name wasn’t ‘hispanic’ enough. I went to the other party and when they put a lawyer in charge that had never attended a single meeting we all bailed and they’ve been hard up ever since. Lots of independents here.
Have you considered a two-headed coin?
Here is another trick used by Larsen, bringing Obama into this election.
Obama is NOT running, Pelosi is NOT running.
I have not forgot the Filibusters in the US Senate by the “Conservative Republicans” (the only thing Conservative about a Conservative is increasing the Rich Man’s money, ensure low tax rates like Mitt Romney’s 14% and paying nothing into Social Security, able to put money in Offshore banks with a postal box number to avoid taxes), will not close the 1980 loophole that enables Mitt to pay at a 15% tax rate avoiding a 39% tax arte, continued shift to the 99% while the 1% continue to benefit financially from “Conservative Politicians” who kiss our babies and rob us, shifting the tax burden to the 99% of us.
Lest I forget the two shutdowns in the last two years, 50 filibusters of Obamacare, and the State of Idaho not expanding Medicaid under the new law to provide affordable health care premiums for 55,000 Idahoans including 31,000 children. It is obvious the Republicans have lost touch with people.
Seen any Simpson signs lately?
Of course the PAC’s, the dark money will be hitting us on “Election by Television” in the next four days.
Interesting articles this author creates, right out of the Koch Brothers handbook.
Demonize the government, the President, elected officials, government regulatory agencies, and wanting to destroy our Democracy and put in place an Oligarch run Plutocracy.
I certainly hope that people vote with their gut instead of “Election by Television” and distorted information contained in this article.
We are being fleeced by the likes this author has as clients in his business.
I hope people realize that voting the same way and expecting different results is really really Stupid.
We need change and guys the author supports with every article are not the guys who can make the changes necessary to get our economy moving, higher paying jobs and enough money to support our schools and give our kids and grandkids a fair chance of competing with the rest of the United States.
Mike, it usually helps to read the piece before you display your inanity so publicly. The first line of the column was a quote, “‘But make no mistake, my policies are on the ballot. Every single one of them,’ said President Barrack Obama two weeks ago.”
If that was a “trick,” it was Obama’s, not mine.
What a dirty trick for Larsen to invoke Obama’s policies. It’s simply unfair to use his name when his approval rating is 40%, compared to broccoli at 45%
http://elections.huffingtonpost.com/pollster
But what do they know, right?
Click on ‘How is Obama doing’?
Obama’s policies died yesterday, a long slow 6 year death.
House?
http://www.nationaljournal.com/politics/here-s-what-a-republican-takeover-looks-likes-20141105
Senate?
http://www.270towin.com/2014-senate-election/
Strange, it’s not what the liberal media predicted is it?