If you can read this, either the style sheet didn't load or you have an older browser that doesn't support style sheets. Try clearing your browser cache and refreshing the page.

(Politico)   The top ten political blunders of 2011, including Rick Perry choosing to debate, Mitch Daniels sitting the election out and whatever the hell Tim Pawlenty is   (politico.com) divider line 46
    More: Amusing, Tim Pawlenty, human beings, House Speaker John Boehner, Naruto characters, Minnesota Governor, Mr. Burns, Gray Davis, Jean Claude Van Damme  
•       •       •

3133 clicks; posted to Politics » on 28 Dec 2011 at 12:56 PM (2 years ago)   |  Favorite    |   share:  Share on Twitter share via Email Share on Facebook   more»



46 Comments   (+0 »)
   
View Voting Results: Smartest and Funniest

Archived thread
 
2011-12-28 12:50:44 PM  
I think Huckabee sitting it out was the bigger blunder. But maybe he is self-aware and intelligent enough to know he probably wouldn't win the general.
 
2011-12-28 01:02:27 PM  
Missing from that list were Walker and the WI GOP's shenanigans, Donald Trump thinking he successfully trolled Barack Obama on the birth certificate issue, and... oops.
 
2011-12-28 01:04:34 PM  
Missing from the list: awarding your political "Lie of the Year" to a claim that was true, in a partisan attempt to make your website look more nonpartisan
 
2011-12-28 01:12:13 PM  
#1,2,...,n) Republicans.
 
2011-12-28 01:12:18 PM  
How about the Republican congress trying to defeat the payroll tax?

Or the GOP debt ceiling hostage negotiations?
 
2011-12-28 01:13:51 PM  
I agree Obama focusing on deficit reduction was dumb. If Romney gets in you think they are going to care about deficit reductions? NO. It was just a trap to try to keep the economy down under Obama's watch.

The only people who care are people who are never going to vote for Obama.
 
2011-12-28 01:21:32 PM  
How is Congress not being able to do it's job Obama's fault?
 
2011-12-28 01:25:07 PM  
Mitch would be polling lower than Huntsman. He's not just a boring nobody, it's a short bald boring nobody.
 
2011-12-28 01:35:16 PM  
"The trouble was, most Americans were still more alarmed by 9 percent-plus unemployment than they were by the ballooning size of the national debt. That didn't stop the president from spending months emphasizing deficit reduction, avoiding any new economic stimulus that might require additional spending and chasing a grand bargain on the national debt."

Damned if he does, damned if he doesn't.
 
2011-12-28 01:36:09 PM  
Odd how the biggest political blunder of the year -- the way House Republicans tried to play chicken over the payroll tax extension and ran for cover at the last minute -- was left off the list. It made them look like they are solidly anti-middle class and pro-oligarchs and handed the whole class warfare issue over to Obama for what I'm sure will be a level-headed, calm political debate next year.
 
2011-12-28 01:37:27 PM  
This whole country is one big blunder.
 
2011-12-28 01:41:08 PM  
I wasn't a mistake For Daniels to sit out. He's a cuckold and you can be sure the rest of the candidates would have made sure everyone in America knows it.
 
2011-12-28 01:43:53 PM  
The 'supaaah-committee'. If these 12 people who we know can't come up with an agreement don't come up with an agreement, we'll slash-and-burn basically along the lines Obama wants to slash-and-burn (largely military bloat, and mostly after 2012) and the Bush tax-cuts won't be extended.

How he got the GOP to that, I'll never know.
 
2011-12-28 01:45:06 PM  
This applies to 2010 and 2011:

1) Obama ignoring or failing to propose the recommendations of members of his deficit commission.
 
2011-12-28 01:47:08 PM  
FTA: "Dems pick Charlotte"

While not the best decision, the real test won't be until it happens in 2012, so how can this be a political blunder in 2011? It hasn't and might not blunder at all.
 
2011-12-28 01:51:14 PM  
2) House Republicans failing to pass any budget that the Senate might agree to. Understandable that they would pass their wacky 'ideal' Ryan plan, but they needed to express 2nd and 3rd options.

3) House Democrats failing to propose anything with the sweep or heft of the Ryan plan to address the long term deficit.

4) House Republicans' choice (as part of the Ryan plan) to propose reform to the tax code via an "optional" flat tax (rather than a mandatory one)- a change which would make every single taxpayer have to calculate their tax burden twice.
 
2011-12-28 01:51:45 PM  
"Not meant to be a factual statement."
 
2011-12-28 01:53:08 PM  
5) House Republicans ignoring or failing to propose the Obama deficit committee's plans. After Obama wouldn't do it, this was a golden opportunity for them to catch Obama off balance. Instead, they revealed that their true loyalties lie not with policy achievement but rather with Grover Norquist.
 
2011-12-28 02:04:38 PM  
Needs more Boehner.

i.huffpost.com
 
2011-12-28 02:06:54 PM  

GentDirkly: 3) House Democrats failing to propose anything with the sweep or heft of the Ryan plan to address the long term deficit.


Just because you haven't heard of it, doesn't mean it doesn't exist.

Obama also proposed a budget on the lines of the Bowles-Simpson Commission
 
2011-12-28 02:18:38 PM  

DarnoKonrad: GentDirkly: 3) House Democrats failing to propose anything with the sweep or heft of the Ryan plan to address the long term deficit.

Just because you haven't heard of it, doesn't mean it doesn't exist.

Obama also proposed a budget on the lines of the Bowles-Simpson Commission


Funny, so you're saying "House Progressive Caucus" is the same thing as "House Democrats"? Weird.
 
2011-12-28 02:21:32 PM  
DarnoKonrad:

Obama also proposed a budget on the lines of the Bowles-Simpson Commission


And this is false. He proposed a budget, but did not include tax reform of any kind in that effort, other than 'let the Bush tax cuts expire'. The bulk of Simpson-Bowles was tax reform.
 
2011-12-28 02:40:06 PM  

GentDirkly: DarnoKonrad: GentDirkly: 3) House Democrats failing to propose anything with the sweep or heft of the Ryan plan to address the long term deficit.

Just because you haven't heard of it, doesn't mean it doesn't exist.

Obama also proposed a budget on the lines of the Bowles-Simpson Commission

Funny, so you're saying "House Progressive Caucus" is the same thing as "House Democrats"? Weird.



Funny, you seem to think the "Paul Ryan Plan" is the same thing as "House Republicans." When you're shown to be wrong, don't try to spin your way out of it.


GentDirkly: DarnoKonrad:

Obama also proposed a budget on the lines of the Bowles-Simpson Commission

And this is false. He proposed a budget, but did not include tax reform of any kind in that effort, other than 'let the Bush tax cuts expire'. The bulk of Simpson-Bowles was tax reform.



No, the bulk of Simpson-Bowles (new window) was discretionary spending. 2:1 over tax reform. And that doesn't even include the gutting of entitlements.
 
2011-12-28 03:00:20 PM  

DarnoKonrad: Funny, you seem to think the "Paul Ryan Plan" is the same thing as "House Republicans." When you're shown to be wrong, don't try to spin your way out of it.


You mean the same ryan plan that the house republicans passed?

Link (new window)
 
2011-12-28 03:05:21 PM  

DarnoKonrad:


No, the bulk of Simpson-Bowles (new window) was discretionary spending. 2:1 over tax reform. And that doesn't even include the gutting of entitlements.


Obama's ratio of discretionary cuts (rate of only 100 billion per year) to tax reform was 1:0, a singularity, because he had none.
 
2011-12-28 03:17:16 PM  

Torgo_of_Manos: DarnoKonrad: Funny, you seem to think the "Paul Ryan Plan" is the same thing as "House Republicans." When you're shown to be wrong, don't try to spin your way out of it.

You mean the same ryan plan that the house republicans passed?

Link (new window)


Yep. I would have thought that was pretty common knowledge. You can't fault Democrats for not passing a budget in a body they don't control -- especially the house. The minority party has zero power.

The question is if Democrats had a real plan that was also bold about reform, and they did.


GentDirkly: Obama's ratio of discretionary cuts (rate of only 100 billion per year) to tax reform was 1:0, a singularity, because he had none.



He's proposed discretionary cuts in 2012 (new window)

2011

and 2010 (new window)
 
2011-12-28 03:21:08 PM  
Can we please all admit we have no idea what we are talking about considering none of us have any shot in politics?

Thank you.
 
2011-12-28 04:01:53 PM  

McPoonDanlcrat: FTA: "Dems pick Charlotte"

While not the best decision, the real test won't be until it happens in 2012, so how can this be a political blunder in 2011? It hasn't and might not blunder at all.


What's wrong with Charlotte?
 
2011-12-28 04:03:54 PM  

DarnoKonrad: Torgo_of_Manos: DarnoKonrad: Funny, you seem to think the "Paul Ryan Plan" is the same thing as "House Republicans." When you're shown to be wrong, don't try to spin your way out of it.

You mean the same ryan plan that the house republicans passed?

Link (new window)

Yep. I would have thought that was pretty common knowledge. You can't fault Democrats for not passing a budget in a body they don't control -- especially the house. The minority party has zero power.

The question is if Democrats had a real plan that was also bold about reform, and they did.


GentDirkly: Obama's ratio of discretionary cuts (rate of only 100 billion per year) to tax reform was 1:0, a singularity, because he had none.


He's proposed discretionary cuts in 2012 (new window)

2011

and 2010 (new window)


Oooh don't know if I should blame my writing or your reading comprehension. Yes I agree Obama proposed discretionary cuts. He did not propose any income tax reform. That's the 0. Zero tax reform. Zero major loopholes proposed to be closed. Zero attempts at a new approach to taxation. He has proposed some changes to the corporate tax code, like with deductions for aircraft (small potatoes). He is in favor of letting the ethanol subsidy expire, but letting something expire is not reform.
 
2011-12-28 04:37:16 PM  
If right wing journalism blogs weren't such rabid nut-jobs, politico would be recognized as the joke that it is. Their analysis is paper thin and exceptionally speculative, but always hedged with enough "coulds" and "mights" to give the appearance of reasoned caution.

Charlotte is a bad choice for a convention because its a risk that may or may not pay off? So if it pays off it is still a blunder?
 
2011-12-28 04:39:01 PM  
During all that time, the subject Obama didn't own was jobs - the most important issue of the 2010 campaign, and likely the 2012 race as well.

...the most important issue of a presidential election. And no candidate is even making a mention of it.

Your "democratic" presidential process, ladies and gentlemen.
 
2011-12-28 04:40:05 PM  

Corvus: The only people who care are people who are never going to vote for Obama.


...they only care because they want Obama to fail. Rush said it right out at the beginning.
 
2011-12-28 06:23:02 PM  

FarkedOver: This whole country is one big blunder.


Way to throw us all under the blunderbus.
 
2011-12-28 07:24:22 PM  

DarnoKonrad: Mitch would be polling lower than Huntsman. He's not just a boring nobody, it's a short bald boring nobody.


A short, bald, boring nobody who also had the distinction of serving as Bush's budget director.
 
2011-12-28 08:47:44 PM  
They could only come up with ten?
 
2011-12-28 10:23:54 PM  

King Something: Missing from that list were Walker and the WI GOP's shenanigans, Donald Trump thinking he successfully trolled Barack Obama on the birth certificate issue, and... oops.


It seems like they were more concerned with actual political mistakes than with dumbasses falling into Burmese Tiger Traps they dug for themselves.
 
2011-12-28 10:29:37 PM  

Lawnchair: The 'supaaah-committee'. If these 12 people who we know can't come up with an agreement don't come up with an agreement, we'll slash-and-burn basically along the lines Obama wants to slash-and-burn (largely military bloat, and mostly after 2012) and the Bush tax-cuts won't be extended.

How he got the GOP to that, I'll never know.


Because after January 20, 2013, President Obama has the ultimate card: he can't get re-elected. At that point, he can support anything he wants as long as the Dems control 35 Senate seats and he's indestructible. The tards can scream about impeachment or socialism, but they can't touch the man. He knows it.

I'm still disappointed in the President for his attitude the first term, but he's still orders of magnitude better than anything the GOP has put forward.

As a fellow Farker so eloquently put it: If politics were academics, Barrack Obama has written a C- term paper, but the Republicans have turned in a coloring book smeared with feces
 
2011-12-28 10:45:45 PM  

Snarcoleptic_Hoosier: Because after January 20, 2013, President Obama has the ultimate card: he can't get re-elected. At that point, he can support anything he wants as long as the Dems control 35 Senate seats and he's indestructible. The tards can scream about impeachment or socialism, but they can't touch the man. He knows it.


I remember some people (in particular, one last-page article in Time) saying this about Bush, and I don't particularly remember Bush going crazy right at any point during his second term compared to his first.

//If anything, Bush got more done in his first.
 
2011-12-29 12:25:57 AM  

meyerkev: Snarcoleptic_Hoosier: Because after January 20, 2013, President Obama has the ultimate card: he can't get re-elected. At that point, he can support anything he wants as long as the Dems control 35 Senate seats and he's indestructible. The tards can scream about impeachment or socialism, but they can't touch the man. He knows it.

I remember some people (in particular, one last-page article in Time) saying this about Bush, and I don't particularly remember Bush going crazy right at any point during his second term compared to his first.

//If anything, Bush got more done in his first.


Any president can. In their second term, Presidents have consolidated their power base, they're comfortable with sitting at the helm of the most powerful nation on earth, they know what can and can't be done, AND they don't have to spend four years campaigning, they can actually, you know, President.

It would be so much more realistic for all concerned if we just had a six-year or eight-year Presidential term with NO consecutive re-election by Constitutional amendment; let the guy have a while to get the job done, and stop making his first term a dog&pony show.
 
2011-12-29 01:01:58 AM  

meyerkev: Snarcoleptic_Hoosier: Because after January 20, 2013, President Obama has the ultimate card: he can't get re-elected. At that point, he can support anything he wants as long as the Dems control 35 Senate seats and he's indestructible. The tards can scream about impeachment or socialism, but they can't touch the man. He knows it.

I remember some people (in particular, one last-page article in Time) saying this about Bush, and I don't particularly remember Bush going crazy right at any point during his second term compared to his first.

//If anything, Bush got more done in his first.


Two reasons:

A, Bush all ready got almost everything he wanted in his first erms.

B, Bush lost seats Obama may possibly gain the House and might keep the Senate much closer then expected.

Bush was on fingernails getting reelected, and promptly fell off after winning relection.
 
2011-12-29 01:18:58 AM  
Dear Mr. Gingrich,
You had been warned by your colleagues, and you had surely heard about us and our antics in the news and halls of Congress. Yet you willfully hired our volunteers to gather signatures, so you can't blame us for getting "newtered" by Virginia.

Yours truly,
ACORN
 
2011-12-29 01:51:56 AM  
I find it interesting that bipartisan support for indefinite detention didn't make the list.
 
2011-12-29 02:25:27 AM  

rjakobi: Can we please all admit we have no idea what we are talking about considering none of us have any shot in politics?

Thank you.


Funny, here I thought having no idea what you're talking about was the prerequisite for running for office.
 
2011-12-29 02:52:10 AM  
Rick Perry IS the blunder.
 
2011-12-29 02:54:37 AM  

sammyk: McPoonDanlcrat: FTA: "Dems pick Charlotte"

While not the best decision, the real test won't be until it happens in 2012, so how can this be a political blunder in 2011? It hasn't and might not blunder at all.

What's wrong with Charlotte?


She's a slut.
 
2011-12-29 11:16:29 AM  

rjakobi: Can we please all admit we have no idea what we are talking about considering none of us have any shot in politics?

Thank you.


Please! Reasoned arguements and facts have NO PLACE in a Political discussion on FARK!
 
Displayed 46 of 46 comments

View Voting Results: Smartest and Funniest


This thread is archived, and closed to new comments.

Continue Farking
Submit a Link »






Report