home

Transformation: Obama Goes From "Impotent" To FDR In A Flash

I watched with some amusement a rehash of the Impotent President debate of last year during the health bill debate. This time it was the New Beltway (the former JournOListers) repeating their arguments in response to Glenn Greenwald's complaints about President Obama's performance regarding civil liberties. The not so new mantra emanated from Jonathan Bernstein:

The Presidency Is Weak. Really.

[Greenwald's piece [. . .] is ignorant nonsense that betrays a deep lack of understanding of how the government of the United States works. Is the idea of an "Impotent, Helpless President" a joke? No, it's basic American politics.

(Emphasis supplied.) One of Glenn's responses here. I always thought this line of defense would have a short shelf life because, honestly, calling Obama weak and impotent is not a very good political strategy for Democrats, even of the Beltway variety. And lo and behold, not a week later Obama is now FDR. In this recommended dkos diary, Rachel Maddow is toasted for finally seeing the light. And this morning, dkos' DemfromCt favorably links to this Economic Times piece:

Barack Obama is about to affix the tightest handcuffs on Wall Street in decades, adding a finance reform bill to his historic health overhaul, and boosting his claims for a transformative presidency.

Jonathan Bernstein must think Rachel Maddow, DemfromCt and the Economic Times are "betraying a deep lack of understanding of how the United States government works."

Actually, what the New Beltway demonstrated yet again was a lack of good faith in this discussion. As Greenwald pointed out:

As I've acknowledged from the start, the President does have some constraints in the area of domestic policy and will not always be able to move Congress to do what he wants. The complaint has been not that Obama is omnipotent and thus failed to get good progressive bills, but that he did not use his substantial leverage to try (again, just contrast what the White House did on the war supplemental bill). But the claim that he has virtually no leverage to influence what Congress does on domestic policy is silly, and to see how true that is, just look at the central role the White House played in killing the public option and -- according to its own Treasury official -- is now playing by dictating which progressive provisions will be killed from the financial reform bill and which ones will remain.

One thing that has always baffled me is why the New Beltway gets so angry at activists agitating? What precisely would they have them do?

For the most part, this is a stale debate meaning precisely nothing intellectually, politically or in terms of policy. At one point I thought it had some ramifications regarding whether there would be Netroots issue activism and whether the New Beltway would be perceived as the Netroots. In the end it had none. There is no Netroots activism and the New Beltway is just the latest version of Democratic Party media advocates.

Much noise signifying nothing.

Speaking for me only

< "Very Serious Person" In Favor Of Debtors Prisons | Sunday Morning Open Thread: >
  • The Online Magazine with Liberal coverage of crime-related political and injustice news

  • Contribute To TalkLeft


  • Display: Sort:
    The decision to defer to BP for so long (5.00 / 7) (#1)
    by inclusiveheart on Sun Jun 27, 2010 at 09:38:33 AM EST
    and the negative consequences of that decision might have finally shown the Obama cheerleading squad that there are big risks associated with portraying a leader as "impotent".

    It is comedy in a way.  Monty Python couldn't have written it better.  "It's not his fault!  He's in charge!!!"  That's been their line up until now.

    Now he's FDR.

    Okay.  Whatever.

    But my guess is they'll return to the first line soon enough and claim that he's can't be Superman because he can't find a phone booth to change in in America anymore.

    Such a waste of a series of huge opportunities.

    Have they figured out yet (5.00 / 5) (#2)
    by Edger on Sun Jun 27, 2010 at 09:50:14 AM EST
    when the new deal is being delivered? Since he's only been in office a year and a half. ;-)

    Scheduled to arrive as soon as (5.00 / 5) (#3)
    by inclusiveheart on Sun Jun 27, 2010 at 10:00:10 AM EST
    the Republicans buy into it.

    Parent
    Heh! (5.00 / 2) (#4)
    by Edger on Sun Jun 27, 2010 at 10:02:16 AM EST
    Are they holding their breath?

    Parent
    Well, I am and I'm getting dizzy. nt (5.00 / 2) (#5)
    by inclusiveheart on Sun Jun 27, 2010 at 10:05:41 AM EST
    I'd be careful (5.00 / 3) (#6)
    by Edger on Sun Jun 27, 2010 at 10:09:35 AM EST
    In this case that could lead to permanent oxygen deprivation, and make you say things like "Leave Obama alone! He's only be in office for...! Isn't he just that greatest!" ;-)

    Parent
    Gee, those "handcuffs" (5.00 / 10) (#9)
    by Anne on Sun Jun 27, 2010 at 11:21:09 AM EST
    that Obama snapped onto Wall Street are so onerous that the stocks of all the mjor banks and investment houses went up...kind of like the stock in health care companies went up after Obama really stuck it to that industry...

    Come on...the most stringent and consumer-friendly and -protectionist provisions of FinReg were taken out of the bill...in much the same way that the best of the health whatever elements got stripped out.  Why?  Because the people Obama's been playing footsie with didn't want them; now there's some FDR-like leadership for you.

    And then, there's the Cat Food Commission, conveniently stacked with the 14 votes - out of 18 - it will take to make recommendations to Congress for cutting the deficit - recommendations that won't be made until after the mid-term elections, so that (1) the recommendations and the vote will not factor into the elections, and (2) so that any lame duck member of Congress on his or her way out the door will have one last chance to stick it to the great unwashed.

    For more Obama-approved leadership, check out David Dayen's piece on "America Speaks," the not-so-subtle propaganda effort headed by Peter G. Peterson:

    The America Speaks meetings held in 19 cities across the country today, funded to the tune of $1 billion dollars by the Peter G. Peterson Foundation, were a study in how subtle messaging and deficit hyping can mold and shape opinions that move the public toward right-wing solutions about slashing social spending. Despite an insistence of neutrality, organizers of this series of town hall meetings allowed their agenda to show through, particularly in their presentation of options for how to deal with the nation's fiscal future. But attendees in Los Angeles and around the country weren't totally buying it in the first half of the meeting.

    [snip]

    America Speaks has the support of a number of Washington-based organizations, and they claim to represent a broad spectrum of ideological interests. But the main funder is Pete Peterson, who has waged a decades-long effort to cut Social Security, Medicare and Medicaid. And this emphasis was certainly reflected in the event today.

    One interesting note for those who think Obama shouldn't be velcroed to Pete Peterson: Peterson's foundation is providing the funding for the deficit (Cat Food) commission staff.

    If $1 billion dollars is being spent on this "advocacy group," and the head of the Foundation which is spending that money is also funding the staff of the Cat Food Commission, if one of the co-chairs of the commission - Alan Simpson - is also a big detractor of Medicare and Social Security, can anyone make a convincing argument that the fix isn't in?  This is Obama's commission, so isn't it fair to believe that this is also Obama's agenda?

    I'm pretty sure that FDR is rolling in his grave at top speed.

    Hey, if you're on the side of Corporate America, if you think the sick, the disabled, the poor and the elderly are living the sweet life on your dime and don't deserve help, if you think preventive detention makes sense, think privacy is only for people who have something to hide, and think women really would be happier barefoot and pregnant, then I guess Obama's everything you hoped he would be - and more.

    And isn't it great to think that these are the things people are beginning to identify as the Democratic Party agenda?

    Hmmmm.... (5.00 / 1) (#11)
    by Romberry on Sun Jun 27, 2010 at 11:25:31 AM EST
    Gee, those "handcuffs" that Obama  snapped onto Wall Street are so onerous that the stocks of all the mjor banks and investment houses went up...kind of like the stock in health care companies went up after Obama really stuck it to that  industry...

    Noticed that, didya? Obviously they need to come up with new distractions. "Look over there! Sarah Palin!" seems to be losing some of its effect. Here, let's talk about Dave Weigel...


    Parent

    Cat Food Comm shows early success (none / 0) (#16)
    by waldenpond on Sun Jun 27, 2010 at 12:38:27 PM EST
    Peterson's $1 billion is being well spent.  Liberal sites are touting more progressive ideas but Peterson must be celebrating.....Two preferred options out of the initial city forums... to Reduce spending on health care and non-defense discretionary spending by at least 5% and to raise the age for receiving full Social Security benefits to 69 has been a great return for him.  Huge, huge wins for the Cat Food Commission directly hitting their target of MCR, MCL and SS.  I don't see how he could have asked for more.


    Parent
    I haven't dug into it yet (none / 0) (#25)
    by Militarytracy on Sun Jun 27, 2010 at 02:42:07 PM EST
    I'm too exhausted from spin right now.  Anyone know where the forever kickbacks to the banks are? If their stock went up its in there somewhere.  Debtors prison for the rest of us though.  Things couldn't be more pathetic!  Maybe when DemfromCT and the Britney Spears wing of the Democratic party (I really like that labeling) have some handcuffs snapped on them they'll lose their penchant for cheerleading.  Being bubbly simply for the sake of being bubbly, pulling bubbly right out of your arse, it borders on sociopath :)

    Parent
    "The Presidency is Weak" (5.00 / 4) (#13)
    by shoephone on Sun Jun 27, 2010 at 12:10:55 PM EST
    Funny how nobody thought that when GWB was busy taking us into wars and ruining our economy with tax cuts for the rich.

    The "It's not Obama's fault!" crowd bores me.

    Frank Rich, in his Sunday Opinion piece, (5.00 / 2) (#14)
    by KeysDan on Sun Jun 27, 2010 at 12:13:03 PM EST
    makes a point of the coziness of media-types and the affect on reporting by indicating their wonderment on Michael Hasting's Rolling Stone's scoop.  Politico, Rich notes, derisively theorized that Hastings got the McChrystal story because he was a freelance journalist rather than a beat reporter and could risk "burning bridges by publishing many of McChrystal's remarks."--a sentence edited out later, seemingly under criticism by Andrew Sullivan.

    Moreover, Rich reminds his readers that then uncelebrated reporters such as Woodward and Bernstein and Seymour Hersh brought the unvarnished truth to their work.  Since lunching with the president on June 17 at the White House, it has been interesting to watch for tamping down of some of the Obama administration criticisms by attendees, Rachel Maddow, Gail Collins and Eugene Robinson.  N