home

Some Things Are True

"I think the College Republicans here would say I'm a pretty liberal President but if you read the Huffington Post you think I was some right wing tool of Wall Street. Both things can't be true. - President Barack Obama

I came across that video at Hullabaloo and Digby points to d-day's reaction to it. I want to share my own before I react to d-day's. It is in my title - some things are true. For example, it is true that:

(1) the 2009 stimulus was inadequate for the problems in the economy; (2) HAMP was a failure; (3) the Bush tax cuts were extended in December 2010 without an agreement on the budget or the debt ceiling; (4) the debt ceiling deal Obama seems on the verge of making will not be good for the economy; (5) Democrats were walloped in the 2010 elections; (6) the 2012 election looks like it is gonna be close, much closer than the 2008 election.

Let's assume for the moment that the truths described above are not what the President intended. What is his explanation for these results? Do these truths justify his approach to politics and the Presidency? If so, why? After all, the president is basically justifying himself in that video. Perhaps he could explain why the truths I list occurred if his approach was the right one. More . . .

d-day writes:

In the whole of his public life [. . . Obama] has [. . .] defined compromise as the necessary element of the most important thing a politician can do, which is to get something done. To “do big things,” as he has been saying throughout the debt limit fight. And you cannot separate the appearance of this last lecture, produced four months ago, on the heels of his efforts to engineer a grand bargain, a compromise that would include major cuts to the social safety net.

I think that this particular criticism is off on the Grand Bargain. Here's why -- for once the President seems to be fighting for a policy he believes in "strengthening" Medicare and Social Security and reducing the deficit. I don't think that the President is fighting for compromise on this issue. Instead I think he is fighting for his viewpoint on that issue.

It so happens that I agree with him on some of this (for example, I am for making the rich pay more for Medicare and Social Security, yes at the risk of making more like "welfare.") I do not agree with the timing of this initiative at all. It's the economy, stupid. that's Obama's big challenge. He seems uninterested in tackling it. Which is strange, given its importance to his reelection chances.

And indeed, this to me is where the President went off the rails, both in terms of policy and politics - his failures in terms of economic policy have been huge.

The President does not like that "progressives" disagree with his policy and political approach on the economy. I'm not sure if the President is saying that he needed to "compromise" to achieve his economic policy, but if he is, the missing piece of the puzzle here is the President demonstrating that he in fact was compromising from what he believed was the proper economic policy.

d-day writes that:

[Obama] doesn’t just acknowledge the need for compromise. He glories in it. He sees it as “part of the process of growing up.” It’s juvenile to act on your own beliefs, to draw bright lines that cannot be crossed, to express core convictions. “Don’t set up a situation where you’re guaranteed to be disappointed,” Obama says. [. . .]

This fetish of bipartisanship and compromise would have been the elements of a very good President circa 1954, or maybe 1975. In 2011, with one party that has swore to never compromise on any principle ever again, it’s just a recipe for failure to hear this from the head of the other party. It guarantees bad outcomes. And with an economy in tatters and urgency (the fierce urgency of now, I would say) the order of the day, it has enormous consequences.

Now, some would say that Obama is just reflecting the belief system prevalent in America, where Democrats and independents favor compromise, but Republicans don’t. Is he reflecting that, or is he teaching it? This is his last lecture. A President has an enormous capacity to sway the opinions of the constituents in the party he leads. If we’re talking about which came first, the chicken or the egg, I’d say Obama has been trying to teach this for many, many years. It was evident in his 2004 DNC keynote. It was a feature of his only engagement at Daily Kos in 2005. He’s been telling this story for many years. It’s not a surprise that people predisposed to him are getting that message.

Regular readers know of my disdain for the Post Partisan Unity Schtick. It was a regular feature of my Talk Left writing for the past 5 years, indeed, from my first Talk Left post in July 2006, What Obama Needs To Learn From Richard Hofstadter, Abraham Lincoln and FDR:

Obama has learned nothing from Lincoln and nothing from Hofstadter. As wonderfully talented a politician he is, until he does, he will not best serve the interests of progressives and the Democratic Party.

[. . . .] FDR changed our philosophy of government and the FDR liberal philosophy remains that which we follow today.

How did FDR do it and can Democrats defend FDR liberalism today? Maybe not by calling it FDR liberalism but they surely can and do when they have the courage of their convictions. The most prominent of these instances was the fight to save Social Security Faced with Media hostility, Republican demagogy and flat out lies, Democrats rallied to the FDR liberalism banner and crushed the Republican attempts to roll back the clock. FDR would have been proud of Democrats in that fight. No triangulation. Good old fashioned political populism won the day.

And that is FDR's lesson for Obama. Politics is not a battle for the middle. It is a battle for defining the terms of the political debate. It is a battle to be able to say what is the middle.

Nearly 5 years later, I think my critique stands up. The President has a different conception of what works in these times. I disagree. I'll continue to say so.

Speaking for me only

< What "Winning" On The Debt Ceiling Looks Like Now | UK Phone Hacking Whistleblower Found Dead >
  • The Online Magazine with Liberal coverage of crime-related political and injustice news

  • Contribute To TalkLeft


  • Display: Sort:
    I have not one shred of evidence (5.00 / 4) (#1)
    by Militarytracy on Mon Jul 18, 2011 at 12:12:06 PM EST
    indicating that Obama's idea of "strengthening" Medicare and Social Security has anything to do with raising the tax cap.

    "Strengthening" is Newspeak (5.00 / 1) (#14)
    by Coral on Mon Jul 18, 2011 at 12:56:47 PM EST
    It's the new euphemism for "cutting." And if you're a Republican, for "eliminating."

    Sort of like "war" is "peace".

    Parent

    In the language of Orthanc... (5.00 / 1) (#64)
    by lambert on Mon Jul 18, 2011 at 08:57:24 PM EST
     ....  help means ruin, and saving means slaying, that is plain.

    Parent
    He does not appear to me (5.00 / 3) (#3)
    by Edger on Mon Jul 18, 2011 at 12:18:06 PM EST
    to want a second term.

    I hope he gets his wish (none / 0) (#11)
    by Bornagaindem on Mon Jul 18, 2011 at 12:55:33 PM EST
    At least if SS and medicare are going to be gutted the blame will rest with the republicans. And if the economy is going to fail big time it will do so because the republicans did their usual of cutting taxes and cutting spending and they will be blamed for the fall. With Obama as pres he is to blame for the ascendence of these republican ideas and I would like not to be responsible for them so Obama and his enablers will never ever get my vote.

    Parent
    The blame problem (none / 0) (#18)
    by cal1942 on Mon Jul 18, 2011 at 01:43:11 PM EST
    Republicans will make sure that Obama is blamed for cuts in Social Security.  Obama offered up Social Security for damage this year not the Republicans.  They'll run Obama video on that matter in ad after ad in 2012.   Obama also now owns the economy.  While a recent poll indicates that the American people primarily blame the Bush Administration for our weak economy, expect Republicans to spend a king's ransom to move that opinion. Still other polls indicate most people believe the ARRA was wasteful and ineffective.  Obama has also bought into the cuts in spending.  It's questionable whether a majority of people understand that cuts lower demand and that demand drives investment.

    Parent
    The public (none / 0) (#26)
    by NYShooter on Mon Jul 18, 2011 at 02:57:28 PM EST
    will believe anything....if one side pushes it over & over, and hard enough.....while the others side remains silent.

    Parent
    Yes indeed (5.00 / 2) (#4)
    by ruffian on Mon Jul 18, 2011 at 12:20:19 PM EST
    Politics is not a battle for the middle. It is a battle for defining the terms of the political debate. It is a battle to be able to say what is the middle.

    The story of the Obama era has been his rejection of that premise, and other bloggers finally catching up to you on what is going on, even though it has been clear from Obama's first steps on the public stage.

    He has been making a good case for 'raising revenues' in the last week, in the context of closing loopholes and achieving the 'grand bargain'. If he really did believe in the need to raise revenues, and had been trying to move the public that way from the beginning of his term, we would be having an easier time of it right now. It is impossible to tell what he really believes about policy because of his attempts to follow the middle rather than lead the conversation.

    Dayen's not the only one, either: (5.00 / 2) (#6)
    by Anne on Mon Jul 18, 2011 at 12:25:17 PM EST
    Matt Stoller at naked capitalism speaks in much the same way, contrasting Obama's "leadership" with that of Elizabeth Warren, who told a Republican congressman, who was hammering her about whether she was trying to push the CFPB, "I always try to convince people that I'm right:"

    Contrast this with Barack Obama, a person who never fails to wrap his true agenda in gauzy opaque process jargon. Obama won't back his own NLRB or Boeing workers, or even Boeing itself; he thinks that neither side should waste time in court. He won't announce Social Security or Medicare cuts, he wants it to be part of a Grand Bargain for whom no one has to take responsibility. He demands an end to earmarks, or something, but we need an infrastructure bank or something. As a result, the Democratic Party is enmeshed right now in a guessing game about the true goals of their leader, paralyzed and unable to govern. When Warren is present, by contrast, the Republicans are able to argue strongly that they do not believe in government as an agent of good, while Democrats are able to articulate the opposite. It's a real, open, honest debate. There's no sliding around with 11 dimensional chess nonsense, it's straight up democracy.

    [snip]

    Many people are "disappointed" with Obama. But, while it is certainly true that Obama has broken many many promises, he projected his goals in his book The Audacity of Hope. In Audacity, he discussed how in 2002 he was going to give politics one more shot with a Senate campaign, and if that didn't work, he was going into corporate law and getting wealthy like the rest of his peer group. He wrote about how passionate activists were too simple-minded, that the system basically worked, and that compromise was a virtue in and of itself in a world of uncertainty. His book was a book about a fundamentally conservative political creature obsessed with process, not someone grounded in the problems of ordinary people. He told us what his leadership style is, what his agenda was, and he's executing it now.

    My question is, if we can't change who or what Obama is, and the Democratic caucus seems to have been Stepford-ized, what is our recourse?  How do we change this?  

    I'm still searching for the answer to that.

    Leave (5.00 / 5) (#9)
    by waldenpond on Mon Jul 18, 2011 at 12:44:52 PM EST
    There is a simple answer.... tell the people that are effing you over to eff off.  It's liberating.  It was awkward to not vote for the D the first time only.  Then it was easy.  The Dem party and Dem supporters are morphing into Repubs.  It's uncomfortable to watch.

    Parent
    What is our recourse, how do (5.00 / 3) (#41)
    by KeysDan on Mon Jul 18, 2011 at 04:20:14 PM EST
    we change Obama?  These are questions that liberals/progressives all seem to be wrestling with, but, in large measure, the wrestling match seems to be with each other. I do believe with the statement that "the president does not like that progressives disagree with his policy and political approaches on the economy."---or, for that matter, any policy.  After all, politicians do not enter the field so as to be disliked, they love the adulation.  An effective caucus of liberals, rather than disparate voices of fundamental concern, is needed.

    Obama as a Rochard Test of individual perception, or Obama as master of eleventh dimensional chess are inoperable. And, dutiful apologists, paid or unpaid, are not doing the country, Democrats or, even, Obama any favors.  They are enablers.

    When Obama ridicules progressives or targets them with a brand of humor so cruel that it makes Daniel Tosh's comedy appear kind, all Democrats should show their disapproval, not laugh and applaud his cleverness.  It would be hard to envision Boehner doing something  similar to a segment of Republicans at a Republican meeting or fund raiser.--and being let get away with it.  

    The other guys are even worse is the Democratic party's life saver, but some may not vote or stay at home, even if they may, in fact, sink by so doing.  But, then again maybe not. However,  in a purple state, that strategy has the effect of casting with the other guys.  A dilemma for sure, but it seems to me to commit in advance to a vote for Obama no matter what and in the face of  holding policy and political differences of substance leaves little room for criticizing Obama's negotiating skills for ineptness.  Democrats who are disappointed in Obama should keep their cards closer to their vests and exert concerted pressures for Democratic values.

    Parent

    Stoller's sure changed his tune on Obama (5.00 / 2) (#85)
    by kempis on Tue Jul 19, 2011 at 01:51:03 PM EST
    He's like a sportswriter: when the team is doing well, they're all magnificent talents. When they lose, they're bums.

    BTW, I think he's right in his criticism of Obama's lousy leadership. I think he was wrong about Obama's brilliance in 2008.

    Parent

    When you are an addled psyche... (5.00 / 3) (#7)
    by Dadler on Mon Jul 18, 2011 at 12:26:37 PM EST
    ...acting in a de-facto sociopathic manner (as many in Congress do, as well) then you know what, Mr. President?  Irrational truths become possible.  And it seems you are not all things to all people, but nothing to no one except your most deluded sheep, er, followers.

    Serial killers seem normal to their neighbors most of the time, that's how they get away with it.

    "I can't be both."  Of course, you can't, Sybil, you're fifty people in there, and not a one of them is a decent American politician doing good work for good people.

    IOW, when you're a charlatan... (5.00 / 2) (#13)
    by Dadler on Mon Jul 18, 2011 at 12:56:42 PM EST
    ...all this are possible, simultaneously and independently.  Ten different things can be true... because NOTHING is.

    exactly (5.00 / 4) (#37)
    by dandelion on Mon Jul 18, 2011 at 04:11:57 PM EST
    What we have with Obama is the complete elevation of form over content.  We have the form of a great progressive victory without the content.  We have the form of a great post-racial moment without the content.  We have the form of movement politics without the content.

    The complete aestheticization of politics -- we vote for what things look like and how they feel -- but policy?  What policy?  

    Obama's shape-shifting is a real triumph of postmodernism, but his aestheticization gives him one point on the political scientists' checklist of fascism.  (Not going Godwin here -- it was Mussolini who invented corporatism.)

    Parent

    form over content+susceptible fools+weakness=Dems (5.00 / 1) (#52)
    by klassicheart on Mon Jul 18, 2011 at 05:29:56 PM EST
     a very smart response dandelion.  But I believe that many in power knew what they were getting...the Manchurian candidate.  It's the Dems, progressives, African Americans, liberals, intellectuals and elites who were fooled....the working person got it right.  Common sense matters..Read Fridays DailyHowler.com   on Paul Krugman failing to name names but telling the real story on the debt crisis.  The elites who control the media...and the big so called "liberals" and pundits in newspapers and blogs...have been selling progressives and liberals down the river for a long time....We are fed useless propaganda all the time and yet no complaints from activists.  Why not?  Why are these celebrity punidits and bloggers never held accountable?  Because progressives are wimps and are better at whining than doing.  However flawed the tea party types and true believers are, at they fight for what they believe. Progressives and liberals don't fight at all...they lie....do some kabuki theater and trust that their base will go along like zombies...and that's what progressives have become...just as women's rights have been sacrificed by Democrats....Wimpy whiners who are great at attacking the stupid right wingers...but accomplish very little themselves.  And most importantly, have not changed the narrative of the right...but rather reinforced it.  These people should never be re elected.  They have caused more damage to the Democratic brand in the long run.

    Parent
    It is surreal (5.00 / 2) (#15)
    by lilburro on Mon Jul 18, 2011 at 01:03:47 PM EST
    to watch Obama use the bully pulpit as he has over the past few weeks for the Grand Bargain.  After all the fighting over whether or not that was a legitimate strategy during the health care debate, he finally uses it - for this.  


    Obama actively pursues the agendas (5.00 / 6) (#17)
    by MO Blue on Mon Jul 18, 2011 at 01:37:05 PM EST
    he wants. Sometimes aggressively like using the bully pulpit to get his Grand Bargain or going into his "I'm helpless" routine to provide cover for implementing corporate centric policies instead of  implementing programs that would help the American people.

    Parent
    True, that pulpit (5.00 / 2) (#29)
    by KeysDan on Mon Jul 18, 2011 at 03:18:18 PM EST
    was on fire so as to get the New Start Treaty---a position for which he personally put himself on the line, signing an agreement with Dimitri Medvedev on April 8, 2010 that required two-thirds of the senate to ratify. He visited and made phone calls to wavering senators securing 71 votes and leaving Jon Kyl and friends in the pulpit's ashes.  

    Parent
    Obama's (5.00 / 1) (#16)
    by Ga6thDem on Mon Jul 18, 2011 at 01:32:07 PM EST
    statement is perfect example of how bankrupt he is. He has no political compass and is just a thin skinned politician who revels in thinking as long as he's making the left and the right mad he's doing a great job. Results certainly do matter to him. He's going to be in for a rude awakening in November of '12.

    The way the DNC has been furiously calling me I imagine the money this quarter hasn't been so great either.

    I hate to say I told you so (5.00 / 1) (#86)
    by Trickster on Tue Jul 19, 2011 at 07:19:59 PM EST
    But in the campaign Obama was very wishy-washy about big issues outside of his carefully calibrated campaign book positions.

    Some of his strongest language was praise for Ronald Reagan, which we heard over and over, all the while kicking Bill Clinton at every opportunity.

    It should be no surprise that he is selling out Democrats' longest-held and most strongly-believed positions for basically nothing that he couldn't have gotten anyway.  All he ever had to give Republicans on this issue was some kind of fig leaf, because taking the country hostage over the debt ceiling was a political non-starter from the get-go.  Sure, it played well in the polls initially, but that's only because the masses had no clue about this issue.  They were bound to come around with a little education.

    Instead he has given away the whole story, apparently because he thinks it will help him get re-elected.  But to what?

    Another sour note: this tactic has been legitimatized now, so there is going to be another donnybrook the next time the debt ceiling comes around.  And Obama has done nothing whatsoever with his bully pulpit to resist the idea that the deficit is all about run-away spending and has nothing to do with how low our tax rate is compared to other developed countries--and nothing to do with military spending.

    Well, he got this right (4.64 / 11) (#5)
    by ruffian on Mon Jul 18, 2011 at 12:22:57 PM EST
    "I think the College Republicans here would say I'm a pretty liberal President but if you read the Huffington Post you think I was some right wing tool of Wall Street. Both things can't be true.

    OK, you are a right wing tool of Wall Street. Anything else I can help you sort out?

    Bingo!... (5.00 / 4) (#12)
    by kdog on Mon Jul 18, 2011 at 12:56:17 PM EST
    Today's Republican would have Goldwater, Nixon, sh*t even Reagan investigated by the House Unamerican Activities Committee for being pinko commies.

    Parent
    Hell dog (5.00 / 1) (#21)
    by cal1942 on Mon Jul 18, 2011 at 01:52:11 PM EST
    they'd lynch Eisenhower.

    Parent
    I vote for "tool," too. (none / 0) (#8)
    by rhbrandon on Mon Jul 18, 2011 at 12:43:52 PM EST
    Unfortunately, it looks I'll have to vote for the tool again next year...

    Parent
    Obama is "choosing" (5.00 / 1) (#19)
    by MO Blue on Mon Jul 18, 2011 at 01:46:48 PM EST
    to pursue a Grand Bargain that includes cuts to the safety net programs. You are choosing to vote for him next year. Both actions are a matter of choice with no "have to" involved.  

    Parent
    I did not say I wouldn't vote for him (none / 0) (#23)
    by ruffian on Mon Jul 18, 2011 at 02:46:14 PM EST
    I just do it with my eyes open, believing the alternative will be a tool of both Wall St and people that are even worse.

    Parent
    I don't understand how this strategy (5.00 / 6) (#30)
    by Anne on Mon Jul 18, 2011 at 03:20:29 PM EST
    improves the chances that we will ever have better representation, even if your eyes are wide open.  I'm completely serious - it just seems to me that every time we vote for someone only because his or her opponent is even worse, the standards for what is acceptable get lowered.  Is there ever a point at which being marginally better isn't enough, and what's on the other side isn't really that scary anymore?

    It just kills me, really, to read all these comments about how bad and corrupt and spineless and conservative, and wishy-washy, and cruel, and whatever Obama is, and then read..."but I'm going to vote for him anyway."

    Is this just part of the Obama mantra that we're never going to get what we want, so we might as well settle for whatever lesser offering is out there?  You know, never set the bar higher in case we are disappointed?  Am I the only one who doesn't want that kind of philosophy being what drives policy?  I know that as a woman, I have benefited greatly from others not being willing to settle or back off because they might lose, or it might make someone angry.  It makes me wonder where we'd be today - on a lot of issues - if people had been as afraid to fail as Obama sometimes seems to be.  

    I don't mean to be dumping on you, ruffian - I've said a million times that we all have to do what we think is best, the thing that we can live with, and I stand by that.  And maybe I don't have to know why people do what they do, maybe it's none of my business, but I guess I just want to understand it; I know I reached my breaking point, and often wonder if those who say they are going to vote (D) no matter what have a breaking point or a benchmark that would be enough to change that position.

    I honestly don't see anything getting better for the majority of us until we can say "no more" and mean it, and defy them to meet our goals, instead of being used as little more than the path to a power that never seems to accrue to our benefit, and the detriment that results just seems to keep getting more severe.

    Maybe this is too much for a Monday.

    Parent

    Vastleft (5.00 / 1) (#34)
    by Warren Terrer on Mon Jul 18, 2011 at 03:41:51 PM EST
    calls them shallow-enders. It's rather amusing.

    Parent
    We have spent a lot of band width discussing (5.00 / 0) (#38)
    by MO Blue on Mon Jul 18, 2011 at 04:17:17 PM EST
    how bad the Democrats negotiating skills are. I can only think that as bad as they might be,* our so called activists are so much worse. Talk about being a complete waste of time and money to take action that is counterproductive.

    "It's not a question of who they're going to support for president, they're going to vote for Barack Obama. It's a question of where their time and money is going to go," spokesman T. Neil Sroka said.
    ...
    The head of a large progressive group approached President Obama about an important issue on which his policy was wrongheaded and cruel. Obama wouldn't budge. The activist said: "I don't agree with you, I want you to do it, now I won't make you do it."

    *I'm of the opinion that the "bad negotiations excuse" on the part of the Congresscritters is just smoke and mirrors.

    Parent

    Right. Think about how "effective" (none / 0) (#32)
    by observed on Mon Jul 18, 2011 at 03:31:30 PM EST
    so-called Progressives like Grijalva are.
    No matter what Obama does, he endorses it, in the end. Voters who can't say no have no power.

    On the other hand, the elevation of Bush to President happened because a lot of people said "no" to Al Gore and "yes" to Nader, based on similar reasoning.
    I think a Presidential candidate needs to be spectactularly bad to merit withholding a vote.


    Parent

    I was with you until your second (5.00 / 4) (#36)
    by Anne on Mon Jul 18, 2011 at 04:03:20 PM EST
    paragraph...it wasn't the Nader voters' "fault" that Bush was declared the winner, it was Al Gore's bad campaign, his refusal to ride Clinton's coattails and...Joe Lieberman - really?  That's where the fault lies, not with people who took an affirmative step to vote for someone they felt was offering something better - even if that person didn't have a snowball's chance in hell of prevailing.

    It's like blaming the QB who throws the interception in the last seconds of the game for the loss - even though, in the 59 minutes and 45 seconds that preceded that mistake, the team failed to capitalize on its advantages or hold the other team from scoring.  

    Blaming the third party candidate for splitting or diluting the vote is just weak - be a better candidate, if you're an incumbent try policies people will want to thank you for, but don't blame the third-party voter for the loss.  

    For what it's worth, I don't know what "spectacular" means for others, but if that's the bar, you've got a higher tolerance for crap than I do.


    Parent

    Of course there's plenty (5.00 / 2) (#39)
    by brodie on Mon Jul 18, 2011 at 04:19:03 PM EST
    of room to blame Nader -- he'd promised initially not to campaign in close states, then went out and did just that, forcing Gore's campaign to squander precious time and resources defending in states he should have been able to bypass in order to concentrate only on the really tough ones.

    Yes, Gore too was at fault, no question, for not running a more robust, tougher campaign that squarely rested on core Dem values, preferably w/o Holy Joe on the ticket.  Plenty of blame to go around in that campaign, but let's not excuse the deceptive troublemaker Nader, a non-Dem something or other whose stubborn purist stance (views he may or may not have sincerely held) and unwillingness to work with liberal Dems in power had frustrated other Dems before Gore.

    Parent

    brodie, thanks for reminding me about (5.00 / 2) (#53)
    by Anne on Mon Jul 18, 2011 at 05:31:18 PM EST
    Nader's "pledge" that he clearly broke - evidence, I think, of an essential narcissism that did not bode well for actually holding the office he was seeking.  I didn't vote for him - I was still in holding-my-nose-and-voting-(D) mindset, in spite of the Lieberman pick, in spite of Gore pretending he didn't know who Bill Clinton was, etc.

    I sometimes shudder to think of the possibilities of a President Lieberman.  Ugh.

    Unless and until we have serious and significant campaign finance reform, I think the only way the change we need comes is via a third party - whether that is in the form of a truly viable candidate, or by forcing the Democratic candidate to adopt a more left-leaning approach to policy.  Of course, we could have a more radical right third party candidate, too, which wouldn't be much help in moving things back to the left.

    I know one thing: if Obama continues to govern as if the only thing that matters is process, not content, we will sink deeper into this stinking pile of mediocrity.


    Parent

    The Masters of the Universe have (none / 0) (#57)
    by MO Blue on Mon Jul 18, 2011 at 05:51:44 PM EST
    the 3rd Party thing covered. If enough people reject the standard two parties, they will create a party similar to the "No label party" that was previously being discussed. It should be comforting to everyone that Lieberman would be included as one of the foundling members of that party.

    Bottom line, left to the powers that be, the 3rd Party will just be another corporate owned entity.

    If people want an alternative they will have to come up with something on their own.  

    Parent

    I'd accept what you say about Nader IFF... (5.00 / 3) (#65)
    by lambert on Mon Jul 18, 2011 at 09:06:43 PM EST
    ... "Naderite" wasn't consistently used as a club against those who see the moral and intellectually bankruptcy of the Ds and want a better alternative.

    I'm sure the Whigs had a similar term of abuse, and they, too, died as a party when they were unable to address the great issues of their day. And their death didn't take long, either, a couple of election cycles, after the rot set in. So I'm very hopeful for 2016.

    Parent

    Yeah he should work with them (none / 0) (#88)
    by jondee on Wed Jul 20, 2011 at 03:26:30 PM EST
    the way the Dems work with (ie bend over for) Goldman Sachs and the WTO..

    You can't have it both weays: bitch about Obama not making a principaled progressive stand and then castigating Nader for doing it too much..

    Parent

    if he doesn't sincerly hold them (none / 0) (#90)
    by jondee on Wed Jul 20, 2011 at 04:06:49 PM EST
    he's beeb insincerly holding them for a hell of long time..

    He was holding them back even before Gore was championing NAFTA as a boon for the American working class and lobbing marshmallows at Bush during the debates.

    Parent

    Gore won (5.00 / 2) (#43)
    by The Addams Family on Mon Jul 18, 2011 at 04:22:39 PM EST
    it was the Supreme Court's fault that Bush was declared the winner

    i withheld my vote from Nader for one reason: he would have been an absolutely terrible president

    Parent

    I'll just say I would have (5.00 / 1) (#45)
    by brodie on Mon Jul 18, 2011 at 04:36:21 PM EST
    suspected Nader to have governed much more conservatively than his liberal supporters would have imagined (sort of in the way Gene McCarthy, apart from the war, would have done had he been elected in '68, only probably more so).

    Even before he went out and broke his prior campaign pledge about running only in safe states, I wondered about who this guy really was, what he really stood for privately, whether he was entirely his own person, whether he really had liberals' interests at heart.  And I mean more than just his rather suspiciously callous view about Roe and abortion rights.

    Parent

    if you give Obama the benefit of the doubt (5.00 / 2) (#47)
    by The Addams Family on Mon Jul 18, 2011 at 04:43:09 PM EST
    the best thing you can say about him is that he is a cr@p negotiator & has spent 2+ years demonstrating the dangers of stupid & excessive compromising

    Nader by contrast is a black & white moralist absolutist incapable of making the kind of intelligent compromise that citizens need their president to make

    Nader: good as a consumer activist; as a president, not so much

    Parent

    It's an important point. (none / 0) (#42)
    by observed on Mon Jul 18, 2011 at 04:21:04 PM EST
    Nader voters WERE responsible, on the margin. In fact, Nader campaigned in such a way as to hurt Gore the most.
    It seems to be that the Nader voters represent the political value you espouse---one which I don't reject out of hand.


    Parent
    Well, "on the margin" in that (none / 0) (#44)
    by brodie on Mon Jul 18, 2011 at 04:27:57 PM EST
    campaign year meant being at the heart of deciding who would win the election, especially in places like FL, where Ralph campaigned despite his prior pledge (though, iirc, he made some bogus excuse about why he really wasn't "campaigning" in that state ...).  

    Parent
    the real, deeper problem is still (none / 0) (#89)
    by jondee on Wed Jul 20, 2011 at 03:32:36 PM EST
    that we have 50 mil + yahoos in this country who saw GWB as viable Presidential material.

    All the "spoilers", "narcissists" etc in the world can't change that disconcerting reality.

    Parent

    You know, (5.00 / 1) (#46)
    by Zorba on Mon Jul 18, 2011 at 04:36:25 PM EST
    and I've said this before, if Gore had won his own @#!!&&**## state, he would have won in 2000.  If he had run a better campaign and chosen a different running mate, he would have won in 2000.  Gore had more popular votes than Bush.  Blame the frigging Supreme Court, which wound up gifting Bush the presidency because of suspicious machinations in Florida, blame the bad campaign by Gore, blame the Electoral College.  But stop blaming Nader.  The vote for Nader made a difference in one corrupt state, because of a conservative Supreme Court.  Even Pat Buchanan, of all people, questioned the number of votes he supposedly received in Palm Beach County, Florida.

    Parent
    Enough blame to go around, (5.00 / 1) (#48)
    by brodie on Mon Jul 18, 2011 at 04:46:33 PM EST
    so long as we always include Nader.

    And Gore winning TN in 2000?  It had become a much more conservative state since he'd last run there as senator, and the local media was rather fiercely anti-Gore/pro-Bush in 2000.  In order for him to win even his home state therefore, would have required probably enormous expenditures of time and money -- which, as I discussed, was out of the question anyway because of Nader in the general.

    I think, post-election, Gore said that in hindsight he could have done a better job of trying to repair and improve his political position in TN prior to 2000, which is probably true, but still it would have been a huge undertaking and probably would have fallen short.  Then too he had Bill Bradley suddenly to deal with by late 1999 as a viable primary opponent.  

    Nader easily deserves the contempt with which most Dems hold him today.  

    Parent

    And the Ds easily earn the contempt... (5.00 / 2) (#68)
    by lambert on Mon Jul 18, 2011 at 09:09:49 PM EST
    ... that those who pay attention hold them in today.

    Seriously, absolving Gore for running a lousy campaign, and then letting it be stolen from him... Doesn't that ever get old? A party that can't engage in any form of self-criticism deserves to die, as the Ds are indeed dying.

    Parent

    I disagree (none / 0) (#49)
    by Zorba on Mon Jul 18, 2011 at 05:07:15 PM EST
    And I still cannot get past Gore choosing Lieberman as his running mate.  Plus the corruption in Florida.

    Parent
    Actually I'm with (5.00 / 1) (#51)
    by brodie on Mon Jul 18, 2011 at 05:28:28 PM EST
    Bob Somerby on the revisionism re the Lieberman pick.  At the time, while it was surprising in some liberal qtrs and he definitely wouldn't have been their 1st/2d/3d or even 4th choice, it soon was accepted by and large by the rank and file.  Certainly no great dissent or unusual controversy at the convention that I can recall.

    The anti-Joe revision came later, post-election and during the Iraq war resolution, as the Holy One increasingly was seen wrapping himself around Junior's knees and becoming an outspoken neocon.

    As for the pick of Joe in 2000, it was a matter of a very short list of potential short-listers and a barely distinguished one at that -- including (gulp) one John Edwards, and John Kerry and (iirc) Dick Gephardt -- and Gore was determined that year to go "out of the box" for his VP pick (so, out went all the usual White Male Protestant suspects).  And Tipper apparently was fully behind him on that one.

    As for VP, I still kinda like Bill Clinton's (probably unsolicited) recommendation of Sen Barbara Mikulski -- tough, no-nonsense broad who would have taken off the gloves with Cheney in their debate and probably drawn blood.  But that was too "outside the box" a pick for Gore, I suspect ...

    Parent

    Mostly, but... (5.00 / 1) (#62)
    by sj on Mon Jul 18, 2011 at 07:26:14 PM EST
    The anti-Joe revision came later, post-election and during the Iraq war resolution, as the Holy One increasingly was seen wrapping himself around Junior's knees and becoming an outspoken neocon.

    I knew very little about him in 2000, and so I had no preconceptions at all.  I was fine with him initially, if that's who Gore wanted. Until the VP debate.  That was horrifying.

    BTW.  For me, Gore wasn't a "hold-your-nose" vote.  His campaign was truly horrible.  But I actively supported his candidacy.

    Parent

    I never liked (none / 0) (#55)
    by Zorba on Mon Jul 18, 2011 at 05:37:30 PM EST
    Lieberman.  But then, I've never been much of a "rank and file" Democrat- I'm much too far to the left for most.  However, I would have been very happy with Barb- she's my senator, and although I haven't always agreed with her votes, I'm pretty happy with her.

    Parent
    I totally agree with brodie (none / 0) (#56)
    by klassicheart on Mon Jul 18, 2011 at 05:39:57 PM EST
    Nader's Mistake (5.00 / 1) (#60)
    by dandelion on Mon Jul 18, 2011 at 06:27:58 PM EST
    I don't think Nader was necessarily wrong to run for Pres on the Green Party ticket -- it brought the fact of the Green Party to people's attention.

    I may be wrong, but my understanding is that once a party receives 5% of the popular vote, they've crossed the threshold that will allow them to participate in national televised debates.

    Whether or not the Green Party can ever truly win the WH, I think it's important that they strive to reach that threshold, so that the voters actually hear arguments from the left.

    But you can't build a party or a movement from the top down.  This is why it's such a joke when people say Obama built a movement.  

    Movements are built from the bottom up.  The Green Party, or any other third party, has to start at the local level:  city councils, school boards, state representatives, and build from there.  It's exactly how the Green Party did it in Germany.  So in a sense Nader did the Green Party wrong, by sucking up so much of its energy and assets into his doomed run, by trying to shortcut the process on the basis of his name and fame.

    Parent

    It's a dilemma (none / 0) (#63)
    by sj on Mon Jul 18, 2011 at 07:31:40 PM EST
    At this point, here in the USA, the Green Party doesn't really have a defining platform or POV.  It has more visibility so they (whoever "they" are) are courted by assorted independent candidates.  

    I guess I feel if the dissatisfied have to coalesce around something, there are worse things than the Green Party.  And it would be nice to break the D and R stranglehold.

    Parent

    It's "the best he could get" (none / 0) (#2)
    by NYShooter on Mon Jul 18, 2011 at 12:12:26 PM EST
    what's your problem?

    And even if the Republicans say (5.00 / 2) (#25)
    by MO Blue on Mon Jul 18, 2011 at 02:51:20 PM EST
    he doesn't have to give them that much (if anything), he is bound and determined to keep pushing until he gives them cuts to the entitlement programs and much, much more.  

    Parent
    But... (5.00 / 2) (#66)
    by TeresaInSnow2 on Mon Jul 18, 2011 at 09:07:28 PM EST
    but somehow it would be horrible if Obama lost in 2012....sigh.

    Parent
    Query: BTD, as a "tepid" supporter of (none / 0) (#10)
    by oculus on Mon Jul 18, 2011 at 12:52:35 PM EST
    candidate Obama and an admirer of his political skills, did you anticipate, prior to the 2008 election, Mr. Obama, as President, would be politically savvy enough to see PPUS and was not a winning strategy for the country?  

    I'm not even sure who (none / 0) (#20)
    by masslib on Mon Jul 18, 2011 at 01:50:17 PM EST
    is considered wealthy in the current debate, but I know when they talk about wealthy retirees, it's often in another ballpark completely than what we typically consider wealthy.  I think you and Obama are fundamentally wrong, and FDR had the politics right.  Further, ain't if it broke don't fix it.  If anything needs tweaking it's on the payroll tax side, particularly the employer's side, that needs adjusting, not the benefit side.  I mean, hell, why would we expect Medicare not to have some long term funding issues when we only pay 1.4% in Medicare tax.  When anybody says they want to strengthen entitlements I grab my wallet.  

    People making $200,000 to (5.00 / 1) (#27)
    by MO Blue on Mon Jul 18, 2011 at 03:06:34 PM EST
    several billion are too poor to pay a penny more in taxes. Seniors are wealthy when the average monthly benefit is $1,177. The average Social Security benefit for a woman is somewhat lower at just $12,000 a year.

    Some info on what might be the basis for means testing in the future provided by Keys Dan in Thu. Open Thread:

    Biggs illustrates the pitfalls with the Lieberman/Coburn (a particularly dangerous idea in that these senators are among Obama's favorites}: premiums for Part B are $140/month for single with incomes of up to $85,000, and over $150,000, are $400/month, which Biggs calculates as as 23% implicit tax on incomes up to $107,000 and 8% on incomes above that.  Moreover, the Lieberman/Coburn out of pockets caps are on a sliding scale, ranging from $7,500/yr per single retiree ($85,000) on the one end, and $22,500/yr above $160,000.  

    A more classical Republican idea is that of the Heritage Foundation which would reduce benefits to ss and mc with non-ss income exceeding $55,000 and eliminate benefits for retirees with incomes over $110,000. Biggs does not agree with this approach either, pointing out ways of keeping incomes below that threshold as well as the unfairness.

    In all these means tested programs there is the idea that in terms of reduction of benefits, one is rich at about $l00,000 -$160,000, but when consideration is given to Bush tax cut expiration, one is poor, and exempt from increase, at $200,000 (single). And, of course, they all bust open the door of the social safety net for future unpopularity, more political chicanery and decimation by the time younger members of the work force (for whom retirement safety nets will become increasingly critical) reach retirement age or can no longer work.



    Parent
    Josh Marshall on means testing (5.00 / 1) (#28)
    by MO Blue on Mon Jul 18, 2011 at 03:14:13 PM EST
    Because cutting back on subsidies for the ultra-rich or even the super-rich doesn't really save you any money. Remember, higher taxes on the ultra-rich can get you a lot of new money. But cutting their Medicare benefits doesn't because medical care doesn't cost more for them than for the average Joe -- at least what Medicare covers.

    To really move the needle you need to cut benefits way way down the economic scale -- maybe not for seniors who are barely scraping by. But certainly for what we might call the comfortable elderly. People who are living benefit check to benefit check but with some savings to enjoy some of the comforts of life in retirement. That's what means-testing really means. Making those folks pay a much bigger slice of their health care costs.

    Historically, progressives have opposed this not only because it cuts back benefits for people who need them but because over time it makes Medicare into something more like poor relief -- or like Medicaid, which operates on principle something like a means-tested program. That, the argument goes, weakens political support for the program over time and makes the quality of the program itself deteriorate because it's not something the broad mass of the public is invested in.  link



    Parent
    Josh Marshall is a propagandist to be shunned (5.00 / 1) (#54)
    by klassicheart on Mon Jul 18, 2011 at 05:35:21 PM EST
    Marshall is a propagandist.  He never offers real analysis.  He should be avoided and shunned.  He is a shill for Obama...a paid tool.  I never go to this site.  And this guy has never been held accountable by progressives.

    Parent
    During the Bush attempt to privatize SS, (5.00 / 1) (#59)
    by MO Blue on Mon Jul 18, 2011 at 06:03:11 PM EST
    he did some great work on why SS was not in crisis and why Bush's proposal was the wrong thing to do. Every once in a while Marshall prints something on Medicare or Social Security where that old Josh Marshall shines through.

    While Marshall has often earned the nickname WKJM (who kidnapped Josh Marshall), Marshall is not IMO shilling for Obama in that post or he would be supporting means testing rather than opposing it.

    Parent

    Wasn't JM one of the original (5.00 / 3) (#74)
    by shoephone on Mon Jul 18, 2011 at 09:43:01 PM EST
    Lieberman supporters?

    The best reporting work he did on his site was the stuff on the U.S. attorneys scandal (and it was very good). But then he lost all credibility during the 2008 campaign. "Shill" doesn't begin to cover it.

    Parent

    Marshall (none / 0) (#70)
    by AngryBlackGuy on Mon Jul 18, 2011 at 09:14:28 PM EST
    Is a paid tool.  That is new.  Given how much he is on Obama about things, Obama isn't getting his money's worth.

    Parent
    Speaking of FDR, Obama (none / 0) (#22)
    by brodie on Mon Jul 18, 2011 at 01:54:32 PM EST
    is doing a fairly good job of emulating Roosevelt.

    The 1937-early '38 version, of course.  The one who was befuddled and confused about the economic downturn, the one who had decided to go orthodox and overly cautious with his deficit-balanced budget obsession as suggested by a key advisor, his Treasury Sec'y Morgenthau.

    But then Harry Hopkins came out of his sickbed after months on the sidelines and helped wake up and rescue FDR.

    Unfortunately, I don't think Obama has a trusted, liberal-minded Hopkins to come to his rescue, to speak respectfully yet directly and bluntly to him in a way that would produce the desired result.  Certainly no one inside the current admin.  And increasingly it looks like Obama doesn't have quite the same fairly deep personal capacity to listen and shift gears boldly to go in a radically different direction as the more pragmatic and flexible Roosevelt had.

    FDR inherited a deep recession and turned it into (none / 0) (#24)
    by beefeater on Mon Jul 18, 2011 at 02:47:05 PM EST
    The Great Depression. Obama inherited a recession and is working on turning it into the Great Depression ver2.0

    Let's also not forget that Ronald Reagan inherited a worse economy than Bush left from the Peanut Farmer, with higher unemployment(10.5%), higher inflation(11.3%) and draconian interest rates(21% mortgage rates).

    How did that work out for us? Even with a stock market crash in '87 and the collapse of commercial real estate and the closing of 4000 S&L's, policies he implemented brought about 95 continuous months of economic growth.

    You didn't finish your last sentence (5.00 / 1) (#31)
    by NYShooter on Mon Jul 18, 2011 at 03:23:04 PM EST
    Let me help you out:

    "....policies he implemented brought about 95 continuous months of economic growth,".......

    but because his policies were built on "voo-doo" economics, namely spending money we didn`t have, and leading to the phony "wealth effect" the public seized upon to bury themselves in debt, that we have the inevitable current financial crisis.


    Parent

    How about this (1.00 / 0) (#33)
    by beefeater on Mon Jul 18, 2011 at 03:34:40 PM EST
    You make up your own history, I'll stick to the facts, which you didn't "refudiate".

    Parent
    No Problem (none / 0) (#58)
    by NYShooter on Mon Jul 18, 2011 at 05:54:30 PM EST
    But, the ground rules:

    Do we deal in reality, or your Gipper Groupie wonderland?

    Parent

    What Facts? (none / 0) (#91)
    by john horse on Wed Jul 20, 2011 at 04:44:43 PM EST
    What I see is an assertion being made without any facts backing it up.  As the person making the assertion it is your responsibility to back it up.  

    Speaking of facts, sometimes a picture says a thousand words.  


    Parent

    Some other things that are true (none / 0) (#35)
    by Farmboy on Mon Jul 18, 2011 at 03:51:02 PM EST
    1. The GOP wouldn't have proposed, passed, or attempted to pass, any sort of stimulus, of any size.

    2. The GOP wouldn't have proposed, passed, or attempted to pass, any variation on HAMP.

    3. The GOP would like to cut off all revenue to the government.

    4. I'll wait and see. My crystal ball says not raising the ceiling would be worse than a bad deal.

    5. The GOP establishment rode the Tea Party into control of the House, then lost control of their caucus - to the Tea Party. This doesn't bode well for their chances to hold the House in 2012.

    6. I'll wait and see. My crystal ball started laughing uncontrollably at the thought of a Romney/Bachman ticket.


    re #6 (none / 0) (#40)
    by The Addams Family on Mon Jul 18, 2011 at 04:19:05 PM EST
    my prediction: Bachman will not be on the ticket

    the GOP is many (bad) things but the GOP is also pragmatic

    if the GOP has to ram its 2012 "moderate" presidential candidate through the primary process, the GOP will do that, maybe by taking a leaf from the DNC's 2008 playbook

    Parent

    When I look at the polls (none / 0) (#50)
    by Farmboy on Mon Jul 18, 2011 at 05:17:36 PM EST
    I'm reasonably sure the '12 ticket will be some combination of the names we're hearing now.

    It's all a matter of what ratio of crazy and hate the GOP voters are comfortable with. We've got: Bachman's wild-eyed anti-gay derp, Romney's triple axel, Paul's gold standard panacea, Pawlenty's platform of "I failed before, and I can fail again!", Cain's anti-Muslim bigotry, Santorum's anti-gay bigotry, Gingrich's sleaze, or Huntsman's status as "that other Mormon, what's his name."

    And there's no way Perry will come riding in to save the day. Folks recoil at the very thought of yet another Texas play-cowboy governor running for president.

    Parent

    Well (none / 0) (#61)
    by Ga6thDem on Mon Jul 18, 2011 at 06:37:00 PM EST
    the polls right now don't mean much.

    First of all, Cain's and Gingrich's campaigns have imploded so they aren't even worth mentioning. Paul is going nowhere and neither is Pawlenty.

    Yes, we are constantly being reminded of how bad the GOP is and we are quite aware of that. However, give me a reason to vote FOR Obama other than the supreme court. I've heard them all the reasons for voting against the GOP time and again.

    Parent

    Be careful about Perry (none / 0) (#92)
    by NYShooter on Thu Jul 21, 2011 at 03:31:10 AM EST
    stranger things have happened

    Who does this LINK remind you of?

    Parent

    Please, NYShooter, (none / 0) (#93)
    by Zorba on Thu Jul 21, 2011 at 04:41:55 PM EST
    I'll be having nightmares now.  (Is that hair of his real, BTW?)

    Parent
    Aw, my sweet Ms Zorba, (none / 0) (#94)
    by NYShooter on Thu Jul 21, 2011 at 10:18:11 PM EST
    It's just "shooter" to you, but as to his hair....

    I have very large hands, and can "palm" a basketball; sure would like to grab a fistfull and see if its "real," or if its memorex.

    lol

    Parent

    Re HAMP (none / 0) (#69)
    by lambert on Mon Jul 18, 2011 at 09:12:30 PM EST
    Since HAMP was arguably worse than doing nothing (Atrios has made this point) it would be a good thing that the Rs didn't do it.

    Parent
    Good thing that the Rs didn't do it? (none / 0) (#79)
    by Farmboy on Tue Jul 19, 2011 at 09:31:37 AM EST
    Who do you think wants to curb stomp any program intended to help folks?

    Yeah, HAMP's a failure, no argument there. But don't hold your breath waiting for the GOP to attempt anything related to improving the economy or helping anyone besides themselves. That's a perfect example of an activity arguably worse than doing nothing.

    Parent

    Think bigger (none / 0) (#67)
    by AngryBlackGuy on Mon Jul 18, 2011 at 09:09:37 PM EST
    The main point I take from D's critique is his quote that Obama's tactics don't work today.

    But that's what change was about right.  If Obama's biggest picture plan is to change the fundamental dynamics of our system, and that is really our biggest obstacle to success, then his tactics make complete sense on every level.  In other words, if there are goals more important for the country long term than tax rates until 2012 or a one year change in retirement age or what have you, then it starts with one president (and it would have to be a potus) saying that he will sacrifice his reelection to make the change and hoping like he'll that people follow him or her.

    We have someone doing that and the question is whether it will work, not whether he should change his goals because the GOP is nuts.

    I think the problem is that many people didn't understand that he was serious when he talked about REAL change because REAL change is likely to piss almost everyone off.

    Putting my liberal hat on, his tactics are frustrating, but I think get it.

    "Change" is, of course, not described (5.00 / 5) (#71)
    by lambert on Mon Jul 18, 2011 at 09:15:03 PM EST
    And it's not necessarily good in itself. 10% nominal (20% real) DISemployment is change for the worse. Claiming the right to kill US citizens without due process is change for the worse. Any cuts at all to Social Security or Medicare would be change for the worse.

    I don't know what you've "got," but I'm glad I never got it.

    Parent

    I don't want any of your (1.00 / 1) (#81)
    by AngryBlackGuy on Tue Jul 19, 2011 at 12:04:50 PM EST
    pie in the sky, unrealistic liberalism either.  You keep your pie and i will happily enjoy mine.

    And I'll be happier than you at the end because you will always be disappointed and frustrated.

    I win.

    Parent

    Oh...so we have "realistic" liberalism, (5.00 / 2) (#84)
    by Anne on Tue Jul 19, 2011 at 01:38:40 PM EST
    and "unrealistic" liberlism.  Yours - and Obama's - is the first kind, the one where you will take the liberal position only up to the point where you think you can't get whatever it is, and then you will settle for something less - but you still reserve the right to call it "liberal."

    I'm not the kind of person, believe it or not, who wishes unhappiness upon anyone, so all I will say on the subject of who will be happier in the end is that some things are worth being frustrated and disappointed over because it means the fight hasn't ended, and there's still a chance to attain the best result possible.  Your - and Obama's - approach seems to be, why get all worked up and sweaty and agitated over anything when you can just be willing to take whatever the other side is willing to let you have?

    Don't worry - be happy!

    I'm glad that works for you, but I don't completely understand the almost utter lack of passion or belief that allows you to be so blase about it.

    The more you talk about having to put on your liberal "hat," or being a "realistic" liberal, the emptier and more shallow you seem; I don't know, maybe that's what passes for "happy" in your world, but I'm not willing to give up on theh things that matter to me just because it's too haaaaaard.

    I will leave you with these very perceptive comments from two posts by David Dayen.

    Link #1:

    But there's also a difference between the person who views those procedural blockages for what they are, and sees opportunities for pressuring those blockages through the court of public opinion, for making it difficult on those holding up progress to sustain themselves, for using elections as a lever to enable progress, and even for changing the fundamental structures to bring our democracy up to date to meet the challenges of the 21st century, and... Barack Obama. Because here he doesn't just acknowledge the need for compromise. He glories in it. He sees it as "part of the process of growing up." It's juvenile to act on your own beliefs, to draw bright lines that cannot be crossed, to express core convictions. "Don't set up a situation where you're guaranteed to be disappointed," Obama says. That's the worst thing that could ever happen. He makes an enemy out of disappointment, when it can just as easily be a rallying point, an opportunity to show a better path next time.

    Link #2:

    Politics cannot survive on incrementalists alone. It cannot survive with only an inside game, and a political science conception of the art of the possible. Ultimately it needs people on the outside who look at what the incrementalists have produced, and say "No." It doesn't make those people juvenile, it doesn't make them unrealistic. It makes them an integral part of the democratic process.

    Have a happy day!

    Parent

    This claim: (5.00 / 5) (#72)
    by shoephone on Mon Jul 18, 2011 at 09:37:20 PM EST
    "I think the problem is that many people didn't understand that he was serious when he talked about REAL change because REAL change is likely to piss almost everyone off."

    has to be the most succinct example yet of your  hackery on Obama's behalf. Speak for yourself, Mr. Today I'll Pretend to Put a Liberal Hat On.

    Parent

    Meh (none / 0) (#82)
    by AngryBlackGuy on Tue Jul 19, 2011 at 12:05:21 PM EST
    Not even worth responding too. Nothing of substance here.

    Parent
    And yet (5.00 / 1) (#87)
    by sj on Wed Jul 20, 2011 at 12:59:50 PM EST
    you responded.

    Parent
    Oh, no. Not the "change is good" (5.00 / 5) (#75)
    by Towanda on Mon Jul 18, 2011 at 09:50:15 PM EST
    so "any change is good" -- and "more change is gooder" mantra.  I've heard 'way too many vastly overpaid consultants who package and push that cr*p.  They never take the time to do their homework and get into the details, either.

    The details of this REAL change are not good. Not for the people.  Change for the sake of change is just packaging and puffery, but this time with real pillars at the White House instead of styrofoam pillars in the trash tomorrow.  

    And that's what's scary:  Yes, this would be REAL change that would really, really ruin lives -- and the Democratic Party, soon left standing for nothing.

    Parent

    The details of Change (none / 0) (#83)
    by AngryBlackGuy on Tue Jul 19, 2011 at 12:06:22 PM EST
    have gotten through a LOT of positive things.

    But I understand how you don't see them when you are ignoring all of the good stuff and focusing only on what ticks you off.

    If I did that, I'd think all of the change was bad too.

    Parent

    Long term suffering for American people (5.00 / 5) (#76)
    by MO Blue on Mon Jul 18, 2011 at 10:29:07 PM EST
    in exchange for changing the tone in D.C. so that the public only hears right wing talking points is not a good bargain IMO.

    The "real change" Obama purposes are the right wing's wet dreams. The "real change" Obama supports takes away funds or makes cuts to domestic programs that people need to survive so that he can maintain 2 wars and 3 so called kinetic military actions, and tax cuts for him and his savvy friends. Corporate tax cuts are up next so more money must be taken away from the poor and the middle class. This is not real change. This is just a continuation and expansion of the corporate centric policies of the past.

     

    Parent

    what is the change? (none / 0) (#73)
    by dandelion on Mon Jul 18, 2011 at 09:40:27 PM EST
    Just curious -- what is the systemic change you see Obama in the process of making?

    Parent
    He is doing his best (none / 0) (#77)
    by Politalkix on Mon Jul 18, 2011 at 11:17:50 PM EST
    to bring back manufacturing in America and has made the most investments in science and technology compared to any other President that I have seen. These investements are bound to pay dividends in the long run. I also agree with the President that our grade school education system has to be restructured. There is a reason why 60-70% of students in physical sciences and engineering graduate programs in American Universities are foreign born. The status quo that you support is not sustainable.  

    Parent
    And the (none / 0) (#80)
    by lilburro on Tue Jul 19, 2011 at 09:35:25 AM EST
    9% unemployment "you support"?

    Parent
    One party says (none / 0) (#78)
    by lilburro on Mon Jul 18, 2011 at 11:34:08 PM EST
    "I will destroy everything you do."  In response, Obama says "I will try to change the whole system!" as though destruction would still not be the GOP default.  I'm not seeing the sense there.

    His healthcare reform should earn him some major legacy credit, but that is years away.  That was a change, and if it works out well, the GOP is going to try to claim credit, and Dems will have to fight to assert otherwise.  

    IMO, interest groups (esp. post Citizens United) are completely in charge of this country.  If he is going to claim he's changing the system, that's where the change has to happen.  And that is a really, REALLY, big problem where I can agree that it's just not politically possible.

    Parent