Chuck Todd On Obama's Speech

Chuck Todd On Obama's Speech


He thought it showed a toughness we haven’t seen yet from the candidate.

Of note, I’ve always thought that Todd is one of the savvier, intellectually honest pundits out there. Perhaps even more so than the late Tim Russert. So something tells me that his will be the consensus opinion come tomorrow.

We shall see…

  • mw

    Yeah. I don’t understand why we are even bothering with the election. Just a waste of time and money. Isn’t there some way we can have coronation over the weekend?

  • TheMiddle

    MW, is there honestly ANYTHING that he could’ve said or done that would’ve improved your opinion of him which has obviously never been high? Or did you just make up your mind when Hillary lost that you hated him so much that you wouldn’t even listen? Because pretty much every single post you make, even the good ones (and there are plenty of those), just make you seem like a bitter whiner.

  • mw

    “…you seem like a bitter whiner.”– middle

    Ah. I see the confusion. Simple misunderstanding. You see, it’s in my job description.

    Actually, my problem is less with Obama (who I have written complimentary about, and who I respect as an intellect, speaker, and Bear fan) and more with Obama supporters and their uncritical, unquestioning support of some fairly conventional liberal policies.

    I would not even have that much of a problem with the Obama supporters if it were not for what I consider to be a the extremely dangerous government state we are likely to inherit when he wins. We will have a charismatic leader with a large mandate walking into a Cheney designed and expanded unitary executive role, with no meaningful opposition from widely expanded Democratic majorities in either the Senate or House. This will be the greatest concentration of unfettered power in the White House in my lifetime (55 years) and arguably ever in the history of the US. I don’t care if it was Jesus Christ on the ballot, I would work vigorously against that government state.

  • krabbie

    MW has a lot said about misgivings about the “if Obama wins” situ about congress. When Bubba came in, he had a dem congress and they tried to ram a lot through. After 12 Repub presidential years it seemed natural. The country didn’t like it and we ended up with a Repub congress till 06. And we have now!!!! Congressional gridlock on so many issues. The lowest polling on congress and a president since the numbers came off stone. Now euphoria. I don’t want the dems to lick their chops and do too much doo doo when Jan 09 comes. Obama is my guy, but he still can’t walk on water.
    And the “SPEECH”!!!!!!!! only a WOW comes to mind.

  • Shazzar

    like krabbie said “WOW”. 38 million people at home felt the same way. i think

  • steeeve

    MW to me all those things you just said as if they were bad sound like GREAT things… if he gets elected with a majority in the house and senate maybe this country will actually make some forward progress

  • mw

    Well you are a partisan Steeeve. You believe that Democrats are angels and Republicans are devils. There are many partisans like you who feel Republicans are angels and Democrats are devils. You are in good company. I’d guess 80% of the electorate are partisan.

    I am not a partisan. I believe in what James Madison wrote in Federalist #51

    “Ambition must be made to counteract ambition. The interest of the man must be connected with the constitutional rights of the place. It may be a reflection on human nature, that such devices should be necessary to control the abuses of government. But what is government itself, but the greatest of all reflections on human nature? If men were angels, no government would be necessary. If angels were to govern men, neither external nor internal controls on government would be necessary. In framing a government which is to be administered by men over men, the great difficulty lies in this: you must first enable the government to control the governed; and in the next place oblige it to control itself.”

    This was the philosophical framework for the design of our constitution and the rationale for separation of powers with checks and balances. The founders did not anticipate that with a sufficiently strong political party controlling the legislature and the executive, the checks and balances fail. We get bad government. We get government that abuses power. We get corrupt government. And only a partisan can believe that single party democratic government will be any less corrupt, or any less abusive of their power and damaging to the country than single party Republican government was. Check the corruption record of the Democratic congress in the first two years of the Clinton administration. Or just wait. You’ll soon see it again.

    And BTW – Read David Mahew’s book “Divided We Govern.” It absolutely debunks the notion that there is any correlation in “something getting done” legislatively and unified single party vs. dividied government.

  • Jasmine T

    hey wow thanks for posting this you got some great responses and to continue the coments flow mw said:” We get government that abuses power. We get corrupt government.”
    we sure do and that aint right but what can we do to change this??

  • Ian Jones

    MW, I completely agree that the separation of powers encourages a government that abuses power, but fail to see any current political system that would provide a viable alternative. Surely without the power checking safe guard, the threat of power abuse by the government would be even greater? At least the structure in place allows a degree of debate and discussion, even if the party controlling the legislature are overly strong. Clearly the system has its flaws, and you have pointed out one of them, but political theory rarely translates perfectly to reality.