"'It became necessary to destroy the town to save it,' a United States major said today"
December 4, 2010 4:43 PM Subscribe
Rabbi Michael Lerner, editor of the lefty Jewish magazine Tikkun, wants to save Obama -- by primarying him from the left.
I'm sure it will work as well for Obama as RFK and Teddy Kennedy's runs did for Johnson and Carter.
posted by empath at 5:17 PM on December 4, 2010 [3 favorites]
posted by empath at 5:17 PM on December 4, 2010 [3 favorites]
Nope, primary challenges can only affect policy by changing who gets elected - if Obama did jig to the left, he'd just return to his former policy stances once the primary and general (assuming he won) were over. Or, he'd lose in the general because of the "far"-left positions he'd have to commit to in the primary.
Remember, Obama himself actually espoused lefty positions which he quickly abandoned once elected. Why wouldn't that pattern repeat itself in 2012?
Maybe, making the Dems wander in the wilderness for an election cycle or two would help; or actually replacing Obama in the primary would help (has an incumbent president ever lost a primary?), but this tactic would accomplish nothing except to decrease Obama's reelection chances in 2012.
posted by r_nebblesworthII at 5:18 PM on December 4, 2010 [3 favorites]
Remember, Obama himself actually espoused lefty positions which he quickly abandoned once elected. Why wouldn't that pattern repeat itself in 2012?
Maybe, making the Dems wander in the wilderness for an election cycle or two would help; or actually replacing Obama in the primary would help (has an incumbent president ever lost a primary?), but this tactic would accomplish nothing except to decrease Obama's reelection chances in 2012.
posted by r_nebblesworthII at 5:18 PM on December 4, 2010 [3 favorites]
Lerner rehashed the political platform of Lyndon Larouche. Why?
Page views? Book sales? Chutzpah? Idiocy? YES.
posted by joe lisboa at 5:18 PM on December 4, 2010 [1 favorite]
Page views? Book sales? Chutzpah? Idiocy? YES.
posted by joe lisboa at 5:18 PM on December 4, 2010 [1 favorite]
Lerner rehashed the political platform of Lyndon Larouche. Why?
yeah, i think this policy platform is really bizarre: what does it really mean to be a lefty in the US?
posted by ennui.bz at 5:19 PM on December 4, 2010
yeah, i think this policy platform is really bizarre: what does it really mean to be a lefty in the US?
posted by ennui.bz at 5:19 PM on December 4, 2010
Maybe, making the Dems wander in the wilderness for an election cycle or two would help;
The airy, crystalline distance of this comment leads me to believe that, e.g., extending unemployment benefits would have no immediate impact on you and yours. Enjoy playing RISK but I do not have that luxury.
posted by joe lisboa at 5:20 PM on December 4, 2010 [4 favorites]
The airy, crystalline distance of this comment leads me to believe that, e.g., extending unemployment benefits would have no immediate impact on you and yours. Enjoy playing RISK but I do not have that luxury.
posted by joe lisboa at 5:20 PM on December 4, 2010 [4 favorites]
Economy and (un)employment keep on the tracks they're on, won't much matter what Great Left Hope gets thrown to the wolves; only a Palin nomination will save us from a single-term Obama.
posted by kipmanley at 5:21 PM on December 4, 2010
posted by kipmanley at 5:21 PM on December 4, 2010
I say this as a notorious pessimist who is almost always worrying about the wrong thing. Ask anyone.
posted by kipmanley at 5:22 PM on December 4, 2010
posted by kipmanley at 5:22 PM on December 4, 2010
but this tactic would accomplish nothing except to decrease Obama's reelection chances in 2012.
Kept reading, think we largely agree but I thought your initial framing was suspect. My bad.
posted by joe lisboa at 5:22 PM on December 4, 2010 [2 favorites]
Kept reading, think we largely agree but I thought your initial framing was suspect. My bad.
posted by joe lisboa at 5:22 PM on December 4, 2010 [2 favorites]
Maybe, making the Dems wander in the wilderness for an election cycle or two would help;
The airy, crystalline distance of this comment leads me to believe that, e.g., extending unemployment benefits would have no immediate impact on you and yours. Enjoy playing RISK but I do not have that luxury.
posted by joe lisboa at 5:20 PM on December 4 [+] [!]
In fact, I'm currently unemployed though ineligible for benefits; by the way, it's your precious Democrats who failed to extend them. Nice irrelevant and inaccurate ad hominem, though.
posted by r_nebblesworthII at 5:23 PM on December 4, 2010
Didn't see your follow-up on preview; let's both agree to retract?
posted by r_nebblesworthII at 5:23 PM on December 4, 2010 [7 favorites]
posted by r_nebblesworthII at 5:23 PM on December 4, 2010 [7 favorites]
Didn't see your follow-up on preview; let's both agree to retract?
Done. My bad.
posted by joe lisboa at 5:35 PM on December 4, 2010 [6 favorites]
Done. My bad.
posted by joe lisboa at 5:35 PM on December 4, 2010 [6 favorites]
let's hug!
posted by r_nebblesworthII at 5:40 PM on December 4, 2010 [12 favorites]
posted by r_nebblesworthII at 5:40 PM on December 4, 2010 [12 favorites]
i believe nobody is entitled to win elections, so more power to him; but i have one quibble:
this is more of a reflection of how false is this monolithic thing they call "the left". the left he talks about doesnt exist. disgruntled egomaniac bloggers and frustrated advocacy organizations? there's plety of those. but everybody's interest or issue MUST. COME. FIRST. NOW.
they knew Obama was going to escalate Afghanistan. he said so during the campaign.
the people pushing the public option meme had already an axe to grind against Obama. they couldnt focus on the bigger picture, no. this was about that damn Rahm and that damn spineless Obama and look we can break bread with Grover Norquist to prove a point *side eye*
refusal to proceed with torture hearings? sure, and then have Pelosi's and half the Democrats in Congress' asses so penaed just months after winning the elections?
carbon emissions? are you fucking serious? that's more important than COMPREHENSIVE IMMIGRATION REFORM and all the para-military structure being developed through Homeland Security as a consequence of the country's nativist immigration policies?
and now there's the issue of the billionaire taxes with an asshat like Lieberman voting against the Democrats and Russ Feingold doing so as a farewell fuck you. and that is somehow all Obama's fault.
look, i am as left-wing as they come. i will never ever get security clearance the least of which has to do with my rants about how Obama has handled the Wikileaks fiasco. but even my radical black puerto rican ass knows that all those things together are pony unicorns farting rainbows.
posted by liza at 5:43 PM on December 4, 2010 [5 favorites]
To many liberals and progressives, the president's unwillingness to veto any measure that includes continued tax relief for billionaires is the last straw, building on a record of spinelessness that includes his escalation of the war in Afghanistan, abandonment of a public option for health-care reform, refusal to prosecute those who tortured in Iraq or lied us into that war, and unwillingness to tax carbon emissions.all of these independently need to be tackled; but together, to be accomplished in a year or two? put together like that they are ponies and rainbows and unicorns.
this is more of a reflection of how false is this monolithic thing they call "the left". the left he talks about doesnt exist. disgruntled egomaniac bloggers and frustrated advocacy organizations? there's plety of those. but everybody's interest or issue MUST. COME. FIRST. NOW.
they knew Obama was going to escalate Afghanistan. he said so during the campaign.
the people pushing the public option meme had already an axe to grind against Obama. they couldnt focus on the bigger picture, no. this was about that damn Rahm and that damn spineless Obama and look we can break bread with Grover Norquist to prove a point *side eye*
refusal to proceed with torture hearings? sure, and then have Pelosi's and half the Democrats in Congress' asses so penaed just months after winning the elections?
carbon emissions? are you fucking serious? that's more important than COMPREHENSIVE IMMIGRATION REFORM and all the para-military structure being developed through Homeland Security as a consequence of the country's nativist immigration policies?
and now there's the issue of the billionaire taxes with an asshat like Lieberman voting against the Democrats and Russ Feingold doing so as a farewell fuck you. and that is somehow all Obama's fault.
look, i am as left-wing as they come. i will never ever get security clearance the least of which has to do with my rants about how Obama has handled the Wikileaks fiasco. but even my radical black puerto rican ass knows that all those things together are pony unicorns farting rainbows.
posted by liza at 5:43 PM on December 4, 2010 [5 favorites]
FWIW, my non-snarky response to this article is to point out that the GOP has far better party discipline than the Dems, a GOP prez can whip the party into policy positions whereas a Dem prez can't at this point (esp. not an ineffective neophyte like Obama).
Obama has been hobbled by ineffective liberal Dems and obstructionist "blue-dog" DINOS; if people want lefty policies they need to replace conservative Dems in primaries and GOP'ers in the generals; running a lefty against Obama is pretty much pointless (though easier to try and fail at).
posted by r_nebblesworthII at 5:48 PM on December 4, 2010 [2 favorites]
Obama has been hobbled by ineffective liberal Dems and obstructionist "blue-dog" DINOS; if people want lefty policies they need to replace conservative Dems in primaries and GOP'ers in the generals; running a lefty against Obama is pretty much pointless (though easier to try and fail at).
posted by r_nebblesworthII at 5:48 PM on December 4, 2010 [2 favorites]
It disgusts & pains me when well meaning liberals attempt to satisfy their vain idealism through the pointless sabotage of the only reasonably sane possible outcome in a zero-sum two-party election.
History can repeat itself. Without Ralph Nader, the catastrophes and crimes of the Bush years would probably be a nightmare now. However, unlike Nader, Bush had the capacity to become reality.
posted by knoyers at 5:54 PM on December 4, 2010 [2 favorites]
History can repeat itself. Without Ralph Nader, the catastrophes and crimes of the Bush years would probably be a nightmare now. However, unlike Nader, Bush had the capacity to become reality.
posted by knoyers at 5:54 PM on December 4, 2010 [2 favorites]
If Obama faces a credible third-party moderate candidate, the Republican wins. If Obama faces a credible Democratic primary candidate, the Republican wins. Plain and simple.
posted by East Manitoba Regional Junior Kabaddi Champion '94 at 6:00 PM on December 4, 2010
posted by East Manitoba Regional Junior Kabaddi Champion '94 at 6:00 PM on December 4, 2010
Remember, Obama himself actually espoused lefty positions which he quickly abandoned once elected.
Like what? I think part of the problem is that a lot of the people who voted for him projected their own leftist positions onto him. His health care plan was announced last, after he was forced by both Edwards and Clinton. And his was less forceful. I don't think he's abandoned any of his positions at all, although he has failed to successfully pursue many of them.
Obama has always been fairly pragmatic on policy; the question has always been whether or not he'd be effective. The answer, so far, appears to be "no." Lerner's column seems to mirror Krugman's Friday column, i.e. the democrats need to look to leadership beyond Obama.
Despite his failures, I don't think Obama has acted in bad faith, and I think that if he was forced to tack left in the primaries, he'd learn from that "teachable moment." Whether that would translate into effectiveness at getting his policies turned into law is still another matter.
As for the contender, if it was Feingold in particular, Obama would have to fight for my vote. I'm not as liberal as Feingold, but not only is he a smart man, but he's the most principled politician that I am aware of. I've never been a big fan of McCain, but he gave a moving speech mourning Feingold's upcoming departure from the Senate. Feingold's loss in this last election is truly America's loss.
posted by Edgewise at 6:19 PM on December 4, 2010 [1 favorite]
Like what? I think part of the problem is that a lot of the people who voted for him projected their own leftist positions onto him. His health care plan was announced last, after he was forced by both Edwards and Clinton. And his was less forceful. I don't think he's abandoned any of his positions at all, although he has failed to successfully pursue many of them.
Obama has always been fairly pragmatic on policy; the question has always been whether or not he'd be effective. The answer, so far, appears to be "no." Lerner's column seems to mirror Krugman's Friday column, i.e. the democrats need to look to leadership beyond Obama.
Despite his failures, I don't think Obama has acted in bad faith, and I think that if he was forced to tack left in the primaries, he'd learn from that "teachable moment." Whether that would translate into effectiveness at getting his policies turned into law is still another matter.
As for the contender, if it was Feingold in particular, Obama would have to fight for my vote. I'm not as liberal as Feingold, but not only is he a smart man, but he's the most principled politician that I am aware of. I've never been a big fan of McCain, but he gave a moving speech mourning Feingold's upcoming departure from the Senate. Feingold's loss in this last election is truly America's loss.
posted by Edgewise at 6:19 PM on December 4, 2010 [1 favorite]
If Obama faces a credible Democratic primary candidate, the Republican wins.
I agree with what you were saying about a third party candidate, but not this. How is this necessarily the case?
posted by Edgewise at 6:29 PM on December 4, 2010
I agree with what you were saying about a third party candidate, but not this. How is this necessarily the case?
posted by Edgewise at 6:29 PM on December 4, 2010
Ways to save Obama:
1) Go back in time, persuade him not to run a campaign that may inadvertantly convince people he has magical powers immediately before the country plunges into a huge recession.
2) ???
posted by Artw at 6:31 PM on December 4, 2010 [2 favorites]
1) Go back in time, persuade him not to run a campaign that may inadvertantly convince people he has magical powers immediately before the country plunges into a huge recession.
2) ???
posted by Artw at 6:31 PM on December 4, 2010 [2 favorites]
Remember, Obama himself actually espoused lefty positions which he quickly abandoned once elected. Why wouldn't that pattern repeat itself in 2012?
Because re-election wouldn't be an issue in a second term, perhaps.
posted by entropone at 6:32 PM on December 4, 2010
Because re-election wouldn't be an issue in a second term, perhaps.
posted by entropone at 6:32 PM on December 4, 2010
Because re-election wouldn't be an issue in a second term, perhaps.
I don't re-election is problem. Obama will do what he did in 2008: imply that anyone who dares oppose him is an Evil White Racist(tm), then skate to victory.
posted by Yakuman at 6:59 PM on December 4, 2010 [1 favorite]
I don't re-election is problem. Obama will do what he did in 2008: imply that anyone who dares oppose him is an Evil White Racist(tm), then skate to victory.
posted by Yakuman at 6:59 PM on December 4, 2010 [1 favorite]
Remember, Obama himself actually espoused lefty positions which he quickly abandoned once elected. Why wouldn't that pattern repeat itself in 2012?
I'm still waiting for someone to say what a lefty position is in the US right now.
(also, if you read Obama's platform when he was running, his positions were standard Clinton Third Way; is this leftist?)
posted by ennui.bz at 7:02 PM on December 4, 2010 [1 favorite]
I'm still waiting for someone to say what a lefty position is in the US right now.
(also, if you read Obama's platform when he was running, his positions were standard Clinton Third Way; is this leftist?)
posted by ennui.bz at 7:02 PM on December 4, 2010 [1 favorite]
Obama must be primaried and he must be primaried from the left.
The left must be seen to repudiate Obama, and they must be seen to take him down. If the left does not do this, left wing politics and policies will be discredited with Obama. This is important not as a matter of partisan or ideological preference, it is important because left wing policies work. ...
The first step to fixing America is fixing the Democratic party, and the first step in fixing the Democratic party is fixing Barack Obama and destroying, forever, publicly and in the most high profile way possible, the idea that Democrats can ignore and abuse their own base. ...
If you love your country, or if you’re concerned for the future of yourself or your children, primary Obama. If you don’t, you may never get a chance to elect someone who will do what is necessary to save your country.
posted by Joe Beese at 7:09 PM on December 4, 2010 [2 favorites]
The left must be seen to repudiate Obama, and they must be seen to take him down. If the left does not do this, left wing politics and policies will be discredited with Obama. This is important not as a matter of partisan or ideological preference, it is important because left wing policies work. ...
The first step to fixing America is fixing the Democratic party, and the first step in fixing the Democratic party is fixing Barack Obama and destroying, forever, publicly and in the most high profile way possible, the idea that Democrats can ignore and abuse their own base. ...
If you love your country, or if you’re concerned for the future of yourself or your children, primary Obama. If you don’t, you may never get a chance to elect someone who will do what is necessary to save your country.
posted by Joe Beese at 7:09 PM on December 4, 2010 [2 favorites]
Whenever I want the Democratic party to self-destruct in an orgy of bloodletting due to its cowardice, tendency toward plutocracy and general maliciousness disguised in uselessness, I take a look at my actuarial table for 74 year old strict constructionist Supreme Court Justices.
Then I know, at the ballot box I must support them, but in my mind and heart I despise them almost as much as the GOP.
posted by banal evil at 7:14 PM on December 4, 2010 [7 favorites]
Then I know, at the ballot box I must support them, but in my mind and heart I despise them almost as much as the GOP.
posted by banal evil at 7:14 PM on December 4, 2010 [7 favorites]
refusal to proceed with torture hearings? sure, and then have Pelosi's and half the Democrats in Congress' asses so penaed just months after winning the elections?
I would humbly submit the following: if we have truly reached a point in our nation's history where investigating government-backed torture is "politically impossible", then I'm willing to admit that the problem may not be Obama per se, but a much greater, systemic rot that is corrupting our entire civilization from the ground up.
This is not a compliment to Obama, either.
posted by Avenger at 7:16 PM on December 4, 2010 [8 favorites]
I would humbly submit the following: if we have truly reached a point in our nation's history where investigating government-backed torture is "politically impossible", then I'm willing to admit that the problem may not be Obama per se, but a much greater, systemic rot that is corrupting our entire civilization from the ground up.
This is not a compliment to Obama, either.
posted by Avenger at 7:16 PM on December 4, 2010 [8 favorites]
When will we realize that we need to extricate ourselves from the death pact we seem to have with the red states. We can separate amicably,no harm no foul, we can get on with socialism and they can shoot things with machine guns from helicopters. What we are doing right now is killing both of us.
posted by Ad hominem at 7:17 PM on December 4, 2010 [3 favorites]
posted by Ad hominem at 7:17 PM on December 4, 2010 [3 favorites]
... if we have truly reached a point in our nation's history where investigating government-backed torture is "politically impossible", then I'm willing to admit that the problem may not be Obama per se, but a much greater, systemic rot that is corrupting our entire civilization from the ground up.
To be sure, Obama is only a rider on this foul machine.
But his unique contribution to the death of America as a democracy is his enshrinement of permanent war, impunity for torturers, and state surveillance as the bipartisan consensus.
posted by Joe Beese at 7:24 PM on December 4, 2010 [3 favorites]
To be sure, Obama is only a rider on this foul machine.
But his unique contribution to the death of America as a democracy is his enshrinement of permanent war, impunity for torturers, and state surveillance as the bipartisan consensus.
posted by Joe Beese at 7:24 PM on December 4, 2010 [3 favorites]
Obama will do what he did in 2008: imply that anyone who dares oppose him is an Evil White Racist(tm), then skate to victory.
Pat? Pat Robertson? Is that really you?
Oh, no? Then, fuck off with that race-baiting bullshit.
posted by joe lisboa at 7:38 PM on December 4, 2010 [13 favorites]
Pat? Pat Robertson? Is that really you?
Oh, no? Then, fuck off with that race-baiting bullshit.
posted by joe lisboa at 7:38 PM on December 4, 2010 [13 favorites]
The left must be seen to repudiate Obama, and they must be seen to take him down. If the left does not do this, left wing politics and policies will be discredited with Obama. This is important not as a matter of partisan or ideological preference, it is important because left wing policies work. ...
The first step to fixing America is fixing the Democratic party, and the first step in fixing the Democratic party is fixing Barack Obama and destroying, forever, publicly and in the most high profile way possible, the idea that Democrats can ignore and abuse their own base. ...
If you love your country, or if you’re concerned for the future of yourself or your children, primary Obama. If you don’t, you may never get a chance to elect someone who will do what is necessary to save your country.
posted by Joe Beese at 7:09 PM on December 4 [+] [!]
A "fixed" Democratic party is a fantasy far more likely to bring about Republican destruction than its desired ends. What leftist base exists for the purposes of winning a national election? Moderates would certainly go for a Republican before a Democrat running on the left (by your standards). The electoral college system already favors the GOP. Leftist purity in American national (and most local or state) politics is a spiral to hell and nothing more.
...I take a look at my actuarial table for 74 year old strict constructionist Supreme Court Justices.
Then I know, at the ballot box I must support them, but in my mind and heart I despise them almost as much as the GOP.
posted by banal evil at 7:14 PM on December 4
This, plus the fact that I don't deem the Democrats functionally capable, as an organization, of starting a fresh war with their lies, suffices to ensure my extremely consistent Democratic voting patterns.
posted by knoyers at 7:38 PM on December 4, 2010
The first step to fixing America is fixing the Democratic party, and the first step in fixing the Democratic party is fixing Barack Obama and destroying, forever, publicly and in the most high profile way possible, the idea that Democrats can ignore and abuse their own base. ...
If you love your country, or if you’re concerned for the future of yourself or your children, primary Obama. If you don’t, you may never get a chance to elect someone who will do what is necessary to save your country.
posted by Joe Beese at 7:09 PM on December 4 [+] [!]
A "fixed" Democratic party is a fantasy far more likely to bring about Republican destruction than its desired ends. What leftist base exists for the purposes of winning a national election? Moderates would certainly go for a Republican before a Democrat running on the left (by your standards). The electoral college system already favors the GOP. Leftist purity in American national (and most local or state) politics is a spiral to hell and nothing more.
...I take a look at my actuarial table for 74 year old strict constructionist Supreme Court Justices.
Then I know, at the ballot box I must support them, but in my mind and heart I despise them almost as much as the GOP.
posted by banal evil at 7:14 PM on December 4
This, plus the fact that I don't deem the Democrats functionally capable, as an organization, of starting a fresh war with their lies, suffices to ensure my extremely consistent Democratic voting patterns.
posted by knoyers at 7:38 PM on December 4, 2010
Leftist purity in American national (and most local or state) politics is a spiral to hell and nothing more.
In all likelihood.
I would just point out that, from where I sit, your "pragmatism" appears to be taking you to exactly the same place.
posted by Joe Beese at 7:46 PM on December 4, 2010 [1 favorite]
In all likelihood.
I would just point out that, from where I sit, your "pragmatism" appears to be taking you to exactly the same place.
posted by Joe Beese at 7:46 PM on December 4, 2010 [1 favorite]
Also, punishing people who torture in our name really shouldn't be a "leftist" cause, or something only done out of "ideological purity", but cie la vie, I suppose.
posted by Avenger at 7:52 PM on December 4, 2010 [2 favorites]
posted by Avenger at 7:52 PM on December 4, 2010 [2 favorites]
I would just point out that, from where I sit, your "pragmatism" appears to be taking you to exactly the same place.
posted by Joe Beese at 7:46 PM on December 4
Not really, because the amount of containment of Republican damage and insanity by Democratic institutional power can be extremely significant to the world, especially over a longer timespan.
I don't know "where you sit", but would the view be the same, had McCain won? Who knows, but I think that we are all still very lucky & should be grateful that Obama won. And what might the world be like now, had Al Gore been president?
posted by knoyers at 8:02 PM on December 4, 2010 [2 favorites]
posted by Joe Beese at 7:46 PM on December 4
Not really, because the amount of containment of Republican damage and insanity by Democratic institutional power can be extremely significant to the world, especially over a longer timespan.
I don't know "where you sit", but would the view be the same, had McCain won? Who knows, but I think that we are all still very lucky & should be grateful that Obama won. And what might the world be like now, had Al Gore been president?
posted by knoyers at 8:02 PM on December 4, 2010 [2 favorites]
Edgewise: "Obama has always been fairly pragmatic on policy; the question has always been whether or not he'd be effective. The answer, so far, appears to be "no.""
Really? I always thought Obama's problem was that he was quite effective, but in an uninspiring way. He may not have scored any victories as uplifting as the 2008 election, but he has secured health care reform, credit card reform, financial reform, student loan reform, the rescue of the American automotive industry, and a sweeping stimulus package that arguably prevented Great Depression II: Electric Boogaloo. All in two years, and in the face of unprecedented Republican asshattery.
Sure, he's achieved these things in a thoroughly pragmatic, grinding style of politics that leaves those supporters fired up by his campaign rhetoric feeling disappointed (and which leaves him vulnerable to various and sundry "shellackings"). But if you're talking about sheer pragmatism, I can't see how he's been anything but effective, especially considering the political and economic circumstances.
Ad hominem: "When will we realize that we need to extricate ourselves from the death pact we seem to have with the red states. We can separate amicably,no harm no foul, we can get on with socialism and they can shoot things with machine guns from helicopters. What we are doing right now is killing both of us."
The divide in America is not between red states and blue states, but between urban and rural. Austin and Cleveland are far more liberal than eastern Washington state or the Inland Empire.
posted by Rhaomi at 8:11 PM on December 4, 2010 [5 favorites]
Really? I always thought Obama's problem was that he was quite effective, but in an uninspiring way. He may not have scored any victories as uplifting as the 2008 election, but he has secured health care reform, credit card reform, financial reform, student loan reform, the rescue of the American automotive industry, and a sweeping stimulus package that arguably prevented Great Depression II: Electric Boogaloo. All in two years, and in the face of unprecedented Republican asshattery.
Sure, he's achieved these things in a thoroughly pragmatic, grinding style of politics that leaves those supporters fired up by his campaign rhetoric feeling disappointed (and which leaves him vulnerable to various and sundry "shellackings"). But if you're talking about sheer pragmatism, I can't see how he's been anything but effective, especially considering the political and economic circumstances.
Ad hominem: "When will we realize that we need to extricate ourselves from the death pact we seem to have with the red states. We can separate amicably,no harm no foul, we can get on with socialism and they can shoot things with machine guns from helicopters. What we are doing right now is killing both of us."
The divide in America is not between red states and blue states, but between urban and rural. Austin and Cleveland are far more liberal than eastern Washington state or the Inland Empire.
posted by Rhaomi at 8:11 PM on December 4, 2010 [5 favorites]
president russ feingold has a good sound to it - it won't happen, but it sounds good
posted by pyramid termite at 8:21 PM on December 4, 2010 [1 favorite]
posted by pyramid termite at 8:21 PM on December 4, 2010 [1 favorite]
Remember, Obama himself actually espoused lefty positions which he quickly abandoned once elected.
Do you have two or three examples of a "lefty position" he took throughout the campaign that he abandoned since he was elected?
It was widely remarked that he shifted to the center for the general election. The main themes of his best-selling book The Audacity of Hope were moderation, pragmatism, and bipartisanship, not uncompromising liberalism/leftism. I don't know what "lefty positions" you're referring to.
posted by John Cohen at 8:44 PM on December 4, 2010 [1 favorite]
Do you have two or three examples of a "lefty position" he took throughout the campaign that he abandoned since he was elected?
It was widely remarked that he shifted to the center for the general election. The main themes of his best-selling book The Audacity of Hope were moderation, pragmatism, and bipartisanship, not uncompromising liberalism/leftism. I don't know what "lefty positions" you're referring to.
posted by John Cohen at 8:44 PM on December 4, 2010 [1 favorite]
For this to work you'd need to have a left wing in this country. And if you had that, you wouldn't need this to work.
posted by condour75 at 8:57 PM on December 4, 2010 [2 favorites]
posted by condour75 at 8:57 PM on December 4, 2010 [2 favorites]
In other news:
Dude's not a god, and has done pretty well considering the new supermajority rule that Congress apparently requires for every damn piece of legislation.
posted by Rhaomi at 9:00 PM on December 4, 2010 [5 favorites]
Mr. Obama’s plan, approved by the House on Thursday, would have extended the lower rates on income up to $250,000 a year for couples and $200,000 for individuals, but Democrats did not have the 60 votes required under Senate rules to muscle it forward.So Republicans straight-up filibustered a policy of his that a clear plurality of Americans want. And thanks to the condition of the media in this country, you won't hear a peep about the party "going against the will of the people."
Nor could they muster the votes needed for an alternative proposal, championed by Senator Charles E. Schumer, Democrat of New York, to end the breaks only on income exceeding $1 million.
Dude's not a god, and has done pretty well considering the new supermajority rule that Congress apparently requires for every damn piece of legislation.
posted by Rhaomi at 9:00 PM on December 4, 2010 [5 favorites]
Ok we can negotiate on the split. I want the upper west side though.
posted by Ad hominem at 9:10 PM on December 4, 2010
posted by Ad hominem at 9:10 PM on December 4, 2010
Dude's not a god
When Paul Krugman begins referring to you as "the Incredible Shrinking President", you have a problem.
posted by Joe Beese at 9:36 PM on December 4, 2010
When Paul Krugman begins referring to you as "the Incredible Shrinking President", you have a problem.
posted by Joe Beese at 9:36 PM on December 4, 2010
Has the press made this point clear: that those who are making 250K a year won't be facing any change in their tax rate, whereas those who are making, say, 260K a year will, by keeping Bush's tax plans in place, only pay higher taxes on the extra 10K?
No, they haven't. The idea that Democrats are waging class warfare is a sneaky and perverse lie, and it is a shame that Obama, as president, can't use his position to make this simple point clear. Keeping Bush's real class warfare tax cuts in place will increase our deficit by 700 billion dollars.
Republicans: please be honest about the repercussions of this travesty. All I hear before I turn off the evening news is sound bites from the Republicans about "small business owners" and "the American people."
Sure, Rush and Glenn and Sarah might be nuts and liars, but the MSM is Pravda.
posted by kozad at 10:22 PM on December 4, 2010 [1 favorite]
No, they haven't. The idea that Democrats are waging class warfare is a sneaky and perverse lie, and it is a shame that Obama, as president, can't use his position to make this simple point clear. Keeping Bush's real class warfare tax cuts in place will increase our deficit by 700 billion dollars.
Republicans: please be honest about the repercussions of this travesty. All I hear before I turn off the evening news is sound bites from the Republicans about "small business owners" and "the American people."
Sure, Rush and Glenn and Sarah might be nuts and liars, but the MSM is Pravda.
posted by kozad at 10:22 PM on December 4, 2010 [1 favorite]
His health care plan was announced last, after he was forced by both Edwards and Clinton. And his was less forceful.
His campaign materials include his progressive support for a public option, quickly abandoned upon election.
I realize not everyone feels that a public option is an important part of HCR, but as an Obama voter, I admit disappointment that I was lied to in such a bald-faced manner.
posted by Blazecock Pileon at 10:58 PM on December 4, 2010 [2 favorites]
His campaign materials include his progressive support for a public option, quickly abandoned upon election.
I realize not everyone feels that a public option is an important part of HCR, but as an Obama voter, I admit disappointment that I was lied to in such a bald-faced manner.
posted by Blazecock Pileon at 10:58 PM on December 4, 2010 [2 favorites]
I'd like to take the time to issue a citation for what I said, as this seems to be a matter of historical contention on Metafilter: The public option that President Obama promised during his campaign is made clear in his campaign materials.
In addition to enforcing anti-trust laws that increase competition and reduce vast inefficiencies in private care, this would have provided individual Americans with more alternatives:
(2) NEW AFFORDABLE, ACCESSIBLE HEALTH INSURANCE OPTIONS. The Obama-Biden plan will create a National Health Insurance Exchange to help individuals purchase new affordable health care options if they are uninsured or want new health insurance. Through the Exchange, any American will have the opportunity to enroll in the new public plan or an approved private plan, and income-based sliding scale tax credits will be provided for people and families who need it. Insurers would have to issue every applicant a policy and charge fair and stable premiums that will not depend upon health status. The Exchange will require that all the plans offered are at least as generous as the new public plan and meet the same standards for quality and efficiency. Insurers would be required to justify an above-average premium increase to the Exchange. The Exchange would evaluate plans and make the differences among the plans, including cost of services, transparent. (PDF)
Obama promised a public option and reneged on it. I don't regret voting for him, but let's at least be honest about this stuff.
posted by Blazecock Pileon at 11:20 PM on December 4, 2010 [3 favorites]
In addition to enforcing anti-trust laws that increase competition and reduce vast inefficiencies in private care, this would have provided individual Americans with more alternatives:
(2) NEW AFFORDABLE, ACCESSIBLE HEALTH INSURANCE OPTIONS. The Obama-Biden plan will create a National Health Insurance Exchange to help individuals purchase new affordable health care options if they are uninsured or want new health insurance. Through the Exchange, any American will have the opportunity to enroll in the new public plan or an approved private plan, and income-based sliding scale tax credits will be provided for people and families who need it. Insurers would have to issue every applicant a policy and charge fair and stable premiums that will not depend upon health status. The Exchange will require that all the plans offered are at least as generous as the new public plan and meet the same standards for quality and efficiency. Insurers would be required to justify an above-average premium increase to the Exchange. The Exchange would evaluate plans and make the differences among the plans, including cost of services, transparent. (PDF)
Obama promised a public option and reneged on it. I don't regret voting for him, but let's at least be honest about this stuff.
posted by Blazecock Pileon at 11:20 PM on December 4, 2010 [3 favorites]
Blazecock Pileon, Obama continued to voice measured support for the public option throughout the healthcare negotiations despite not making it a centerpiece of his 2008 campaign and only dropped it after Lieberman made it clear that he would join a Republican filibuster against any bill that contained one. Without his vote, it would have been nearly impossible to pass the bill, and Obama chose pragmatism over ideological purity (which has been a running theme of his). Losing the public option was disappointing, but losing the battle for healthcare reform and thus returning it to the backburner for the next few elections would have been even more disappointing.
posted by Rhaomi at 11:32 PM on December 4, 2010
posted by Rhaomi at 11:32 PM on December 4, 2010
Obama chose pragmatism over ideological purity
I have no opinion about political science. That'll be up to the historians to figure out. I just wanted to provide some kind of answer to the invariable comments on Metafilter about how Obama never took "lefty" positions, which is factually false, and that progressives have no cause to issue dissenting opinions on matters where Obama has been found to reverse on previously held "lefty" positions. The history is there for people to read for themselves.
posted by Blazecock Pileon at 11:43 PM on December 4, 2010 [1 favorite]
I have no opinion about political science. That'll be up to the historians to figure out. I just wanted to provide some kind of answer to the invariable comments on Metafilter about how Obama never took "lefty" positions, which is factually false, and that progressives have no cause to issue dissenting opinions on matters where Obama has been found to reverse on previously held "lefty" positions. The history is there for people to read for themselves.
posted by Blazecock Pileon at 11:43 PM on December 4, 2010 [1 favorite]
I just take issue with the idea that he "lied" about it, "promised" it then "abandoned" it, etc. Looking at his actual words and campaign materials, he did mention it as part of his overall plan (but didn't put a lot of emphasis on it), continued to support it modestly throughout 2009 ("boringly consistent" was Gibbs' description of their stance), and then let it drop only after it became politically impossible (thanks a bunch, Independent Joe).
There's this weird tendency of some Obama critics to always assumebad worst faith and to describe every action and reaction of his in the strongest possible negative terms. So he didn't just horse-trade or settle for less, he swindled us, he betrayed us, he's a lying liar who lied. It seems overblown in context of what the guy's actually said and done.
posted by Rhaomi at 12:00 AM on December 5, 2010 [1 favorite]
There's this weird tendency of some Obama critics to always assume
posted by Rhaomi at 12:00 AM on December 5, 2010 [1 favorite]
Obama promised a public option and reneged on it. I don't regret voting for him, but let's at least be honest about this stuff.
He promised he would sign a healthcare bill containing a public option if it crossed his desk. THIS IS STILL TRUE. Krugman's "shrinking president" quite makes sense in a way -- unlike his predecessors, Obama is acting largely in line with the constitutionally-defined role of the presidency. As far as legislation goes, he can choose to sign, or not to sign any legislation that is passed by both houses of Congress. Beyond that, there's not a whole lot he can do. From what I can tell, he's passed more of his campaign agenda than Bush ever was able to.
If you want to be angry at somebody, you should be livid with your congresspeople. Barack Obama did everything in his power to make a bill containing a public option appear on his desk. Ultimately, this did not happen, and the threat of a veto was essentially meaningless to the self-proclaimed "Party of No." When your opponent's negotiating position is an automatic "No," there's literally no political leverage that you can apply, as long as there are a sufficient number of people who take that stance.
posted by schmod at 12:12 AM on December 5, 2010
He promised he would sign a healthcare bill containing a public option if it crossed his desk. THIS IS STILL TRUE. Krugman's "shrinking president" quite makes sense in a way -- unlike his predecessors, Obama is acting largely in line with the constitutionally-defined role of the presidency. As far as legislation goes, he can choose to sign, or not to sign any legislation that is passed by both houses of Congress. Beyond that, there's not a whole lot he can do. From what I can tell, he's passed more of his campaign agenda than Bush ever was able to.
If you want to be angry at somebody, you should be livid with your congresspeople. Barack Obama did everything in his power to make a bill containing a public option appear on his desk. Ultimately, this did not happen, and the threat of a veto was essentially meaningless to the self-proclaimed "Party of No." When your opponent's negotiating position is an automatic "No," there's literally no political leverage that you can apply, as long as there are a sufficient number of people who take that stance.
posted by schmod at 12:12 AM on December 5, 2010
Man.. You Democrats are idiots, Obama's doing a pretty decent job from where I'm standing. You don't understand how to pragmatically get behind your representative - you only want to bicker about how things are not perfect. This is why you can't have nice things, this is why you let Bush in causing hundreds of thousands if not millions of people to die, and this is why the global nightmare of President Sarah Palin is edging closer to horrific reality.
posted by dickasso at 12:15 AM on December 5, 2010 [1 favorite]
posted by dickasso at 12:15 AM on December 5, 2010 [1 favorite]
So he didn't just horse-trade or settle for less, he swindled us, he betrayed us, he's a lying liar who lied. It seems overblown in context of what the guy's actually said and done.
From an interview with former Senator Ted Daschle, there were two stories the White House gave about the status of the public option during negotiations. One narrative was provided to the public through press releases, and another, separate narrative was worked out privately between healthcare companies and government officials.
I don't think I have used language such as what you accuse me of ("he swindled us, he betrayed us, he's a lying liar who lied") but I would say that the facts show him crossing a threshold of dishonesty that goes beyond simple wordplay or doublespeak, under the guise of "pragmatism".
Feel free to accuse me of whatever rhetorical embellishments you like, I guess, but at the end of the day, with his progressive supporters (at least) he seems his administration has not been straightforward, up-front, or whatever rhetorical equivalent suffices.
posted by Blazecock Pileon at 12:16 AM on December 5, 2010 [2 favorites]
From an interview with former Senator Ted Daschle, there were two stories the White House gave about the status of the public option during negotiations. One narrative was provided to the public through press releases, and another, separate narrative was worked out privately between healthcare companies and government officials.
I don't think I have used language such as what you accuse me of ("he swindled us, he betrayed us, he's a lying liar who lied") but I would say that the facts show him crossing a threshold of dishonesty that goes beyond simple wordplay or doublespeak, under the guise of "pragmatism".
Feel free to accuse me of whatever rhetorical embellishments you like, I guess, but at the end of the day, with his progressive supporters (at least) he seems his administration has not been straightforward, up-front, or whatever rhetorical equivalent suffices.
posted by Blazecock Pileon at 12:16 AM on December 5, 2010 [2 favorites]
Blazecock Pileon: "From an interview with former Senator Ted Daschle, there were two stories the White House gave about the status of the public option during negotiations. One narrative was provided to the public through press releases, and another, separate narrative was worked out privately between healthcare companies and government officials."
In an update to that same interview, Daschle clarifies:
Blazecock Pileon: "I don't think I have used language such as what you accuse me of ("he swindled us, he betrayed us, he's a lying liar who lied")"
I said that was the rhetoric of "some Obama critics," not you in particular. You did exhibit an example of that in "I was lied to in such a bald-faced manner," but you're hardly the worst offender there (see: Greenwald, Glenn).
posted by Rhaomi at 12:56 AM on December 5, 2010
In an update to that same interview, Daschle clarifies:
"In describing some of the challenges to passage of the public option in the health reform bill, I did not mean to suggest in any way that the President was not committed to it. The President fought for the public option just as he did for affordable health care for all Americans. The public option was dropped only when it was no longer viable in Congress, not as a result of any deal cut by the White House.Even in the original statement, Daschle only said that it was "assumed" (by who?) that the public option would probably have to be conceded in order to make the deal with the hospitals work, and even then it wasn't taken off the table "completely." Not exactly scandalous, IMHO.
Blazecock Pileon: "I don't think I have used language such as what you accuse me of ("he swindled us, he betrayed us, he's a lying liar who lied")"
I said that was the rhetoric of "some Obama critics," not you in particular. You did exhibit an example of that in "I was lied to in such a bald-faced manner," but you're hardly the worst offender there (see: Greenwald, Glenn).
posted by Rhaomi at 12:56 AM on December 5, 2010
If all Democrats can do is contain the Republicans, but can't run as Democrats, or really govern as Democrats (e.g. cribbing the Heritage Foundation's '94 health care proposal as their own; passing financial reform that doesn't really address the causes of the Great Collapse), then what it all amounts to is that a further and continual rightward slide is inevitable.
posted by r_nebblesworthII at 6:02 AM on December 5, 2010
posted by r_nebblesworthII at 6:02 AM on December 5, 2010
And thanks to the condition of the media in this country, you won't hear a peep about the party "going against the will of the people."
It's even worse than that.
AP: Bill blocked to let upper-income tax cuts expire
posted by dirigibleman at 6:07 AM on December 5, 2010
It's even worse than that.
AP: Bill blocked to let upper-income tax cuts expire
posted by dirigibleman at 6:07 AM on December 5, 2010
It's my considered opinion that the only reason Kucinich is unelectable is because the man has no visible eyebrows.
Don't dismiss this view without having looked at lots of presidential pictures first.
posted by flabdablet at 6:52 AM on December 5, 2010 [1 favorite]
Don't dismiss this view without having looked at lots of presidential pictures first.
posted by flabdablet at 6:52 AM on December 5, 2010 [1 favorite]
Lerner simply does not know the nation he talks about. If Obama can scarcely get anything done because of the conservative voters, both in the public and in Congress, how is he to get a far left figure to get elected and and far left congress to support that president? This is simply Nader Redux.
posted by Postroad at 8:16 AM on December 5, 2010
posted by Postroad at 8:16 AM on December 5, 2010
Well, let's not dismiss all his suggestions out of hand; no need to throw out the baby with--
Why not Rachel Maddow, Bill Moyers, Susan Sarandon or the Rev. James Forbes?
what
posted by Halloween Jack at 9:05 AM on December 5, 2010
Why not Rachel Maddow, Bill Moyers, Susan Sarandon or the Rev. James Forbes?
what
posted by Halloween Jack at 9:05 AM on December 5, 2010
Rhaomi: Really? I always thought Obama's problem was that he was quite effective, but in an uninspiring way.
You've got a good point. I have to amend what I said about Obama being ineffective to say that his actions may be "tactically" sound, but when it comes to "strategy," I believe that his administration has been ineffective.
For instance, you could say he was effective in helping to get health care passed. But in the process, the white house made many concessions to conservatives and the health care industry, leaving a bill that many tolerated but nobody loved. And was this the best time to push through health care legislation? In the process, the white spent so much political capital on health care that there's nothing left for economic reform or midterm elections.
If democrats aren't careful and let the GOP get in the next election cycle, too, then I think the health care legislation itself may end up gutted in a variety of ways. And I don't see the president getting anywhere on the tax issue anytime soon, without making some of his famous concessions (in a change of pace, he's waiting for actual resistance before giving ground...too little, too late).
posted by Edgewise at 10:45 AM on December 5, 2010 [1 favorite]
You've got a good point. I have to amend what I said about Obama being ineffective to say that his actions may be "tactically" sound, but when it comes to "strategy," I believe that his administration has been ineffective.
For instance, you could say he was effective in helping to get health care passed. But in the process, the white house made many concessions to conservatives and the health care industry, leaving a bill that many tolerated but nobody loved. And was this the best time to push through health care legislation? In the process, the white spent so much political capital on health care that there's nothing left for economic reform or midterm elections.
If democrats aren't careful and let the GOP get in the next election cycle, too, then I think the health care legislation itself may end up gutted in a variety of ways. And I don't see the president getting anywhere on the tax issue anytime soon, without making some of his famous concessions (in a change of pace, he's waiting for actual resistance before giving ground...too little, too late).
posted by Edgewise at 10:45 AM on December 5, 2010 [1 favorite]
Let's remember that this whole "Obama is a leftist" thing is a creation of the right-wing media. And now that he's not, it is causing confusion to the lefties who believed that tripe. It's all part of the plan.
I agree that his presidency has been less inspiring than his campaign. But these are uninspiring times, and he is doing what he can. I doubt we'd be better off with the other guy. The country is doing what it has to do, and that is rebuilding a real economy, as opposed to the George Bush one where all the "growth" was in finance and magic housing prices.
posted by gjc at 10:52 AM on December 5, 2010 [1 favorite]
I agree that his presidency has been less inspiring than his campaign. But these are uninspiring times, and he is doing what he can. I doubt we'd be better off with the other guy. The country is doing what it has to do, and that is rebuilding a real economy, as opposed to the George Bush one where all the "growth" was in finance and magic housing prices.
posted by gjc at 10:52 AM on December 5, 2010 [1 favorite]
Has the press made this point clear: that those who are making 250K a year won't be facing any change in their tax rate, whereas those who are making, say, 260K a year will, by keeping Bush's tax plans in place, only pay higher taxes on the extra 10K?
No, they haven't. The idea that Democrats are waging class warfare is a sneaky and perverse lie, and it is a shame that Obama, as president, can't use his position to make this simple point clear. Keeping Bush's real class warfare tax cuts in place will increase our deficit by 700 billion dollars.
Republicans: please be honest about the repercussions of this travesty. All I hear before I turn off the evening news is sound bites from the Republicans about "small business owners" and "the American people."
Not to mention that nobody is reporting that small businesses won't be hurt in the slightest by this: business doesn't pay tax on revenue, it pays tax on profit. But that's the lie opponents of progressive taxation have been using forever. They aren't taxed more, they pay the same tax per level of income that everyone else does. And they get MORE benefit from deductions than us poor schlubs to.
posted by gjc at 10:57 AM on December 5, 2010
No, they haven't. The idea that Democrats are waging class warfare is a sneaky and perverse lie, and it is a shame that Obama, as president, can't use his position to make this simple point clear. Keeping Bush's real class warfare tax cuts in place will increase our deficit by 700 billion dollars.
Republicans: please be honest about the repercussions of this travesty. All I hear before I turn off the evening news is sound bites from the Republicans about "small business owners" and "the American people."
Not to mention that nobody is reporting that small businesses won't be hurt in the slightest by this: business doesn't pay tax on revenue, it pays tax on profit. But that's the lie opponents of progressive taxation have been using forever. They aren't taxed more, they pay the same tax per level of income that everyone else does. And they get MORE benefit from deductions than us poor schlubs to.
posted by gjc at 10:57 AM on December 5, 2010
I used to scoff at those who would say as late as 2006 that there was no difference between the parties. How can you say that, I’d ask: do you really think the country would’ve been different under President Gore? But now, Obama has made that argument much more difficult.posted by Joe Beese at 1:02 PM on December 5, 2010
By continuing the Bush/Cheney Wall Street bailouts, amplifying the War on Terror in Afghanistan and Pakistan, enhancing the worst of the executive power grabs, refusing to investigate or prosecute the criminality of the Bush/Cheney terror policies, failing to champion serious environmental reforms, by doing a stimulus bill that was loaded up with tax cuts to attract GOP votes, extending the irresponsible Bush tax cuts for the rich — and of course, delivering a Republican health insurance bill, stripped of its meager progressive elements — Obama has all but obliterated the meaningful differences between the Republican and Democratic parties. ...
Really, to get the GOP position on anything, just add the word “more” to the Obama’s: more tax cuts, more war, more corporatism, more fealty to Wall Street, more screwing of the American worker.
Unless a progressive Democrat challenges Obama from the left, the Democratic Party will be synonymous with Obama’s corporatist, hawkish agenda for years — an agenda which seems to please only the Evan Bayh/Blue Dog wing of the Democratic Party. It certainly does not appeal to independents — whose support of Obama has cratered recently, and certainly not the base of the Democratic Party, who delivered such resounding victories in ’06 and ’08 in opposition to Bush.
Obama’s presidency might be a lost cause, but for the good of the country, the soul of the Democratic Party must be saved. And the only way to do that is to challenge him for the Democratic nomination in 2012.
Signed financial reform law allowing shareholders of publicly traded companies to vote on executive pay
Cut prescription drug cost for medicare recipients by 50%
Provided $12.2 Billion in new funding for Individuals With Disabilities Education Act
Extended Benefits to same-sex partners of federal employees
Appointed more openly gay officials than any other president in US history
Created more private sector jobs in 2010 than during entire Bush years
Reversed 'global gag rule', allowing US aid to go to organizations regardless of whether they provide abortions
[and so on]
Firedoglake, and everyone else who says Obama hasn't done anything, is just full of horseshit. People who say "well why hasn't he done this or this or this or this" are no better than a goddamned toddler crying over why they can't get another cookie after dinnertime.
posted by mark242 at 1:51 PM on December 5, 2010 [2 favorites]
Cut prescription drug cost for medicare recipients by 50%
Provided $12.2 Billion in new funding for Individuals With Disabilities Education Act
Extended Benefits to same-sex partners of federal employees
Appointed more openly gay officials than any other president in US history
Created more private sector jobs in 2010 than during entire Bush years
Reversed 'global gag rule', allowing US aid to go to organizations regardless of whether they provide abortions
[and so on]
Firedoglake, and everyone else who says Obama hasn't done anything, is just full of horseshit. People who say "well why hasn't he done this or this or this or this" are no better than a goddamned toddler crying over why they can't get another cookie after dinnertime.
posted by mark242 at 1:51 PM on December 5, 2010 [2 favorites]
Firedoglake, and everyone else who says Obama hasn't done anything...
Who is saying that? I haven't heard anyone saying that. I've only seen that presented as a straw man so people can triumphantly say, "Aha, he actually has signed legislation!" Well, everyone knows he's signed legislation. In fact, that Firedoglake post (in the comment before yours) lists many things he's accomplished; the author just doesn't like those things.
posted by John Cohen at 2:00 PM on December 5, 2010
Who is saying that? I haven't heard anyone saying that. I've only seen that presented as a straw man so people can triumphantly say, "Aha, he actually has signed legislation!" Well, everyone knows he's signed legislation. In fact, that Firedoglake post (in the comment before yours) lists many things he's accomplished; the author just doesn't like those things.
posted by John Cohen at 2:00 PM on December 5, 2010
Poor Obama really must be a centrist since both the left and the right are so eager to punish him.
By continuing the Bush/Cheney Wall Street bailouts, amplifying the War on Terror in Afghanistan and Pakistan, enhancing the worst of the executive power grabs, refusing to investigate or prosecute the criminality of the Bush/Cheney terror policies, failing to champion serious environmental reforms, by doing a stimulus bill that was loaded up with tax cuts to attract GOP votes, extending the irresponsible Bush tax cuts for the rich — and of course, delivering a Republican health insurance bill, stripped of its meager progressive elements — Obama has all but obliterated the meaningful differences between the Republican and Democratic parties. ...
Had Obama allowed the financial system to free-fall, who knows where or when we would have landed. Moreover, "continuing the Bush/Cheney Wall Street bailouts" is a description that reflects a simplistic stereotype, rather than encompassing the reality of, Obama's huge and admittedly haphazard stimulus.
Anyone who was genuinely surprised that the Obama administration did not rush to prosecute the previous administration while trying to pass all kinds of major legislation through Congress is not wearing their thinking cap.
Obama would have ended the Bush tax cuts had he been able to.
The health bill that Obama managed somehow to pass in the face of an opposition of such determination and fury is still a huge achievement despite the great distance it wandered from an imaginary ideal health bill.
Obama had no good choices regarding Afghanistan and Pakistan. Thus I am reluctant to second guess the ones he made, as if I know.
"Serious environmental reforms" possess an insignificant political constituency and very little popularity in the United States (i.e. a devoted small following amid the indifferent masses), since Americans will not voluntarily sacrifice lifestyle, lifestyle aspirations, or the notion of prosperity (at least, not before the point when choice is less of a factor). Perhaps Obama is at fault for failing to educate or impart a message to the people about these issues (as with other important things) but I can't pin the blame on him for failing to give life to what was, at best, a stillborn impetus when so much else was going on.
A government that made itself a true antagonist to corporations would quickly fail abismally, since so much of our country's wealth is due to corporations, and since voters understandably get angry if they hear that politicians are killing jobs.
posted by knoyers at 2:04 PM on December 5, 2010
By continuing the Bush/Cheney Wall Street bailouts, amplifying the War on Terror in Afghanistan and Pakistan, enhancing the worst of the executive power grabs, refusing to investigate or prosecute the criminality of the Bush/Cheney terror policies, failing to champion serious environmental reforms, by doing a stimulus bill that was loaded up with tax cuts to attract GOP votes, extending the irresponsible Bush tax cuts for the rich — and of course, delivering a Republican health insurance bill, stripped of its meager progressive elements — Obama has all but obliterated the meaningful differences between the Republican and Democratic parties. ...
Had Obama allowed the financial system to free-fall, who knows where or when we would have landed. Moreover, "continuing the Bush/Cheney Wall Street bailouts" is a description that reflects a simplistic stereotype, rather than encompassing the reality of, Obama's huge and admittedly haphazard stimulus.
Anyone who was genuinely surprised that the Obama administration did not rush to prosecute the previous administration while trying to pass all kinds of major legislation through Congress is not wearing their thinking cap.
Obama would have ended the Bush tax cuts had he been able to.
The health bill that Obama managed somehow to pass in the face of an opposition of such determination and fury is still a huge achievement despite the great distance it wandered from an imaginary ideal health bill.
Obama had no good choices regarding Afghanistan and Pakistan. Thus I am reluctant to second guess the ones he made, as if I know.
"Serious environmental reforms" possess an insignificant political constituency and very little popularity in the United States (i.e. a devoted small following amid the indifferent masses), since Americans will not voluntarily sacrifice lifestyle, lifestyle aspirations, or the notion of prosperity (at least, not before the point when choice is less of a factor). Perhaps Obama is at fault for failing to educate or impart a message to the people about these issues (as with other important things) but I can't pin the blame on him for failing to give life to what was, at best, a stillborn impetus when so much else was going on.
A government that made itself a true antagonist to corporations would quickly fail abismally, since so much of our country's wealth is due to corporations, and since voters understandably get angry if they hear that politicians are killing jobs.
posted by knoyers at 2:04 PM on December 5, 2010
The health bill that Obama managed somehow to pass in the face of an opposition of such determination and fury is still a huge achievement despite the great distance it wandered from an imaginary ideal health bill.
This is one place where I would take some exception. During the Summer of Yelling prior to the actual passing of the bill, Obama's voice and vision seemed to be conspicuously absent. He seemed to be letting congress and the media hash it out. I believe that was a mistake. He should have known that he was going to get the blame for anything that went wrong, so he should have been more vocal about what he wanted. And I'd like to know what the opposition was. He had majorities in both houses. Delaying just gives the screamers more power.
Anyone who was genuinely surprised that the Obama administration did not rush to prosecute the previous administration while trying to pass all kinds of major legislation through Congress is not wearing their thinking cap.
And that's where he (rightly) deferred to Congress. They are the ones with oversight over the Presidency- we cannot have Presidents leading charges against Presidents, especially when they don't have any authority to do so. Congress should have held hearings- that's their job.
Had Obama allowed the financial system to free-fall, who knows where or when we would have landed. Moreover, "continuing the Bush/Cheney Wall Street bailouts" is a description that reflects a simplistic stereotype, rather than encompassing the reality of, Obama's huge and admittedly haphazard stimulus.
Agreed. He did it all wrong, message-wise, except for one thing: some segments of the population needed to have confidence that the bottom wasn't going to drop out, and that the government would act if it did. The price paid was not just in dollars, but in having to hear the other people who were doing just fine, scream about it. While Rick Santelli was griping about imaginary future taxes, and whipping idiots into a frenzy, he was still making money. If having to have the Tea Party is the price the country had to pay to make sure all of our banks, insurance and retirement savings didn't disappear, it was well worth it. Meanwhile, the cost of TARP keeps going down. The money is getting paid back. Trillions of dollars in assets disappeared, we needed to create a bunch of money to keep the pumps from losing their prime. That's no problem as long as they start skimming back some of that money when the time comes.
posted by gjc at 3:15 PM on December 5, 2010 [1 favorite]
This is one place where I would take some exception. During the Summer of Yelling prior to the actual passing of the bill, Obama's voice and vision seemed to be conspicuously absent. He seemed to be letting congress and the media hash it out. I believe that was a mistake. He should have known that he was going to get the blame for anything that went wrong, so he should have been more vocal about what he wanted. And I'd like to know what the opposition was. He had majorities in both houses. Delaying just gives the screamers more power.
Anyone who was genuinely surprised that the Obama administration did not rush to prosecute the previous administration while trying to pass all kinds of major legislation through Congress is not wearing their thinking cap.
And that's where he (rightly) deferred to Congress. They are the ones with oversight over the Presidency- we cannot have Presidents leading charges against Presidents, especially when they don't have any authority to do so. Congress should have held hearings- that's their job.
Had Obama allowed the financial system to free-fall, who knows where or when we would have landed. Moreover, "continuing the Bush/Cheney Wall Street bailouts" is a description that reflects a simplistic stereotype, rather than encompassing the reality of, Obama's huge and admittedly haphazard stimulus.
Agreed. He did it all wrong, message-wise, except for one thing: some segments of the population needed to have confidence that the bottom wasn't going to drop out, and that the government would act if it did. The price paid was not just in dollars, but in having to hear the other people who were doing just fine, scream about it. While Rick Santelli was griping about imaginary future taxes, and whipping idiots into a frenzy, he was still making money. If having to have the Tea Party is the price the country had to pay to make sure all of our banks, insurance and retirement savings didn't disappear, it was well worth it. Meanwhile, the cost of TARP keeps going down. The money is getting paid back. Trillions of dollars in assets disappeared, we needed to create a bunch of money to keep the pumps from losing their prime. That's no problem as long as they start skimming back some of that money when the time comes.
posted by gjc at 3:15 PM on December 5, 2010 [1 favorite]
This is one place where I would take some exception. During the Summer of Yelling prior to the actual passing of the bill, Obama's voice and vision seemed to be conspicuously absent. He seemed to be letting congress and the media hash it out. I believe that was a mistake. He should have known that he was going to get the blame for anything that went wrong, so he should have been more vocal about what he wanted. And I'd like to know what the opposition was. He had majorities in both houses. Delaying just gives the screamers more power.
I agree that Obama failed to articulate a positive vision for health care. But after that failure, he managed to muddle a bill through. The majority that recently dissipated included a lot of new, vulnerable members of Congress in shaky districts who were terrified that Republican fearmongering over healthcare would prove ruinous to them, which is just what happened. Plus the Republicans were extremely united, extremely concentrated on preventing any Democratic success in this area. And they are tougher, better organized, more focused on message, and more resilient as a party than the Democrats (who are more of a broad, passive coalition). They also have more resources of state power at their disposal, which they use to their best advantage in a way that the Democrats don't. And for-profit healthcare and health insurance is just a huge part of the economy anywhere and everywhere in the country and a very entrenched, powerful lobbying group. So there were genuine, significant obstacles that Obama overcame.
And that's where he (rightly) deferred to Congress. They are the ones with oversight over the Presidency- we cannot have Presidents leading charges against Presidents, especially when they don't have any authority to do so. Congress should have held hearings- that's their job.
Really, Congress should have remembered what oversight is when these crimes were actually taking place before their eyes. Alas. Why would one expect Congress, as an institution, to bring attention to this?
posted by knoyers at 4:15 PM on December 5, 2010
I agree that Obama failed to articulate a positive vision for health care. But after that failure, he managed to muddle a bill through. The majority that recently dissipated included a lot of new, vulnerable members of Congress in shaky districts who were terrified that Republican fearmongering over healthcare would prove ruinous to them, which is just what happened. Plus the Republicans were extremely united, extremely concentrated on preventing any Democratic success in this area. And they are tougher, better organized, more focused on message, and more resilient as a party than the Democrats (who are more of a broad, passive coalition). They also have more resources of state power at their disposal, which they use to their best advantage in a way that the Democrats don't. And for-profit healthcare and health insurance is just a huge part of the economy anywhere and everywhere in the country and a very entrenched, powerful lobbying group. So there were genuine, significant obstacles that Obama overcame.
And that's where he (rightly) deferred to Congress. They are the ones with oversight over the Presidency- we cannot have Presidents leading charges against Presidents, especially when they don't have any authority to do so. Congress should have held hearings- that's their job.
Really, Congress should have remembered what oversight is when these crimes were actually taking place before their eyes. Alas. Why would one expect Congress, as an institution, to bring attention to this?
posted by knoyers at 4:15 PM on December 5, 2010
When Paul Krugman begins referring to you as "the Incredible Shrinking President", you have a problem.
Oh, is it that time of the month already?
The Incredible Shrinking President
The Incredible Shrinking President
The Incredible Shrinking President
posted by anigbrowl at 9:49 PM on December 5, 2010
Oh, is it that time of the month already?
The Incredible Shrinking President
The Incredible Shrinking President
The Incredible Shrinking President
posted by anigbrowl at 9:49 PM on December 5, 2010
Republicans essentially win by hammering points over and over and over, even when the proof is completely to the contrary. 'nuff said.
posted by the cydonian at 6:18 AM on December 6, 2010
posted by the cydonian at 6:18 AM on December 6, 2010
When Paul Krugman begins referring to you as "the Incredible Shrinking President", you have a problem.
I would submit that Paul Krugman has made a living bitching ineffectively about the president for going on a decade.
posted by empath at 8:11 AM on December 6, 2010
I would submit that Paul Krugman has made a living bitching ineffectively about the president for going on a decade.
posted by empath at 8:11 AM on December 6, 2010
This is the first time I ever found something with the New York Times search engine that I could not find with google. There was a fantastic article on the cover of the New York Times Sunday Magazine in 1993 titled "Saint Hillary" by Michael Kelly which included references to Lerner who was an adviser to her at the time. An example paragraph:
Mrs. Clinton has been groping toward an answer to that question for much of her life. She has read her way from the Methodist founder John Wesley to Paul Tillich, Reinhold Niebuhr and Dietrich Bonhoeffer, three left-of-center theologians who sought to link their religious beliefs to a critical involvement in politics and government, to, most recently, Michael Lerner, a liberal Jewish thinker who coined the phrase "politics of meaning," which Mrs. Clinton adopted in her Austin speech.
Link to article.
posted by bukvich at 2:06 PM on December 6, 2010
Mrs. Clinton has been groping toward an answer to that question for much of her life. She has read her way from the Methodist founder John Wesley to Paul Tillich, Reinhold Niebuhr and Dietrich Bonhoeffer, three left-of-center theologians who sought to link their religious beliefs to a critical involvement in politics and government, to, most recently, Michael Lerner, a liberal Jewish thinker who coined the phrase "politics of meaning," which Mrs. Clinton adopted in her Austin speech.
Link to article.
posted by bukvich at 2:06 PM on December 6, 2010
I would submit that Paul Krugman has made a living bitching ineffectively about the president for going on a decade.
Yeah, I know, why didn't Paul Krugman get Bush kicked out of office? What kind of pundit is he, anyway?
posted by Edgewise at 4:53 PM on December 6, 2010
Yeah, I know, why didn't Paul Krugman get Bush kicked out of office? What kind of pundit is he, anyway?
posted by Edgewise at 4:53 PM on December 6, 2010
« Older New Weird Australia | Sugaring is never that far off Newer »
This thread has been archived and is closed to new comments
Lerner rehashed the political platform of Lyndon Larouche. Why?
posted by Yakuman at 5:12 PM on December 4, 2010 [1 favorite]