home

How's That "Pragmatism" Working Out Politically?

John Cole endorses Jon Chait's critique of fantasy (Jon Chait's fantasy) liberal critiques of President Obama. Here's my question - how is President Obama's "pragmatism" working out politically? Is being a one term President part of the "pragmatism?"

How's Obama's Theory of Change working out?

Obama's "theory of change" was aimed at offering the political opposition a choice between cooperation on progressive policy initiatives or self-isolation through obstruction and extremism. In other words, in a country unhappy with partisan gridlock, Republicans would either go along with key elements of a progressive agenda, or shrink themselves into an ever-more-extreme ideological rump that was irrelevant to the direction of the country.

(Emphasis supplied.) One GOP landslide in 2010 and an Obama approval rating of 40 later, it seems difficult to argue that the Theory of Change has worked politically. Will Obama stick to it through the 2012 election and will it be advisable for him to do so? I argue, and I think "liberals" argue, that no, that would be a political mistake. Jon Chait and John Cole seem to be arguing that Obama needs to "stay the course." More . . .

I suppose that Chait and Cole are stuck in "looking back" mode as opposed to looking forward, but their words belie this. Chait writes:

Liberal critics of Obama, just like conservative critics of Republican presidents, generally want both maximal partisan conflict and maximal legislative achievement. In the real world, those two things are often at odds. Hence the allure of magical thinking.

It seems to me that Chait is arguing for avoiding "maximal partisan conflict" even now. That means continuing the post partisan unity shtick through the 2012 election.

This strikes me as terrible political advice . Come Thursday night, when the President, in essence, kicks off his 2012 reelection campaign, we'll have an idea if the President is going to believe in the Chaitesque political "magical thinking" that the Post Partisan Unity Schtick will lead to reelection.

I certainly hope not.

< AP Report: 35,000 Terror Convictions World Wide Since 9/11 | "Breaking Bad": Gus Shines in Flashback Episode >
  • The Online Magazine with Liberal coverage of crime-related political and injustice news

  • Contribute To TalkLeft


  • Display: Sort:
    Key questions (5.00 / 10) (#1)
    by MO Blue on Mon Sep 05, 2011 at 09:19:32 AM EST
    How is this ever-more-extreme ideological rump irrelevant to the direction of the country when all of the legislation is crafted to get their approval?

    How are the extremists made irrelevant when the president himself validates them through his rhetoric and by seeking their approval?

    Well (5.00 / 1) (#2)
    by Ga6thDem on Mon Sep 05, 2011 at 09:22:00 AM EST
    considering Obama's continuing slide it's amazing that he hasn't changed course. I'm betting on PPUS continuing and a lot of yammering about "bipartisan solutions".

    I guess neither Chait or Cole ascribe to the theory that you have to break some eggs to make an omelet.

    Me too (5.00 / 2) (#3)
    by Yman on Mon Sep 05, 2011 at 09:40:29 AM EST
    I think he'll occasionally throw out some red meat to try to fire up the base once the campaign's in full swing, but even if he wanted to drop the PPUS (and I don't think he does), it's really too late to look like anything other than desperation.

    Plus, at this point, who would believe it?

    Parent

    Morning Thought (5.00 / 3) (#55)
    by MO Blue on Mon Sep 05, 2011 at 02:41:39 PM EST
    by Avedon at Eschaton.

    If Obama wins the election, he has to spend four more years pretending to lead the country.

    But if Obama loses, he gets to make speeches to rich people for a pile of money and maybe join the Carlyle Group or one of those other things that you get as a reward for making sure that no one saves your national economy.

    So, if you're Obama, do you really want to win the next election?

    If the answer is "No," his policies make a lot more sense. link



    Parent
    But in his second term, he won't be (none / 0) (#5)
    by observed on Mon Sep 05, 2011 at 09:42:00 AM EST
    beholden to special interests. He can act according to his true beliefs, then.


    Parent
    Heh (5.00 / 2) (#49)
    by Yman on Mon Sep 05, 2011 at 01:34:20 PM EST
    That's the sales pitch.

    Parent
    That's what scares me (5.00 / 1) (#81)
    by sj on Mon Sep 05, 2011 at 10:47:48 PM EST
    Obama's politically savvy, but he's (5.00 / 1) (#4)
    by observed on Mon Sep 05, 2011 at 09:41:05 AM EST
    too risk-averse to change course.
    In  a perverse way, the worse he performs, the better his chances may be in 2012.
    It seems to me that the worse the state of the country, the more likely the GOP is to nominate an unelectable crazy.


    Hadn't thought of it that way (none / 0) (#8)
    by Militarytracy on Mon Sep 05, 2011 at 10:26:18 AM EST
    That would be really freaky

    Parent
    How is that "pragmatism" working? (5.00 / 5) (#6)
    by MO Blue on Mon Sep 05, 2011 at 09:57:02 AM EST
    From 2008 to 2010, according to Gallup, the fastest growing demographic party label was former Democrat. Obama took over the party in 2008 with 36 percent of Americans considering themselves Democrats. Within just two years, that number had dropped to 31 percent, which tied a 22-year low. link

    (h/t to Ga6thDem)

    We can have all the partisan conflict (5.00 / 6) (#9)
    by Anne on Mon Sep 05, 2011 at 10:30:41 AM EST
    we want, but if there is no one at the helm who is willing to choose one ideological side over the other, who is willing to define that vision and take whatever political risks are required to lead people to the attainment of the goals that accompany that vision, there is just no hope of our ever getting the kinds of policies and legislation this country needs to get on the right track.

    The clear-eyed and sharp vision we had for liberal - or "progressive" - policy during the Bush years began to go out of focus when the Democratic-majority Congress simply failed to exert itself after the 2006 election - due in some part by that majority being attained by electing Democrats from red states who, by most measures, were more closely aligned with Republicans.

    And then came Obama, who, by the policies he has continued and expanded, the ones he has pushed, by his clear alignment with Wall Street and the banks and corporations, has pretty much eliminated the ideological tension that was our only hope.  Whatever "partisan conflict" that exists is really about the other side not being satisfied with how much of their agenda Obama has attained for them - they want it all, and I don't see Obama being all that opposed to eventually giving it to them.

    I am more concerned - alarmed, even - with the avoidance of ideological tension than I am with avoidance of partisan conflict; it's tempting to think they are the same, but they're not.

    We have banker vs. oil billionaire (5.00 / 2) (#10)
    by observed on Mon Sep 05, 2011 at 10:36:00 AM EST
    conflict.


    Parent
    Need More Popcorn (none / 0) (#11)
    by Militarytracy on Mon Sep 05, 2011 at 10:37:54 AM EST
    There's no conflict... (none / 0) (#25)
    by Rojas on Mon Sep 05, 2011 at 11:16:38 AM EST
    What do they have to complain about?

    Parent
    That's a good question,but (none / 0) (#26)
    by observed on Mon Sep 05, 2011 at 11:19:57 AM EST
    isn't it clear that Obama's backing is more from bankers, and the Republicans' more from oil?


    Parent
    I think Chuck Shumer and John Cornyn (5.00 / 2) (#33)
    by Rojas on Mon Sep 05, 2011 at 11:47:46 AM EST
    are on the same payroll and everything else is just window dressing.

    Parent
    Exactly (5.00 / 5) (#39)
    by gyrfalcon on Mon Sep 05, 2011 at 12:19:07 PM EST
    "I am more concerned - alarmed, even - with the avoidance of ideological tension than I am with avoidance of partisan conflict"

    Parent
    My take is that Jonathan Chait and John Cole (5.00 / 2) (#13)
    by KeysDan on Mon Sep 05, 2011 at 10:42:59 AM EST
    are not, themselves, arguing that Obama needs to stay the course as much as they are providing a stenographic filing to that effect from their White House friends.  Indeed, if the official word was otherwise, their writings would be supporting the timely change and applauding the patience and extra-miles taken as well as the frustration in the cause of bipartisanship.

    The course will continue because President Obama does not truly sense electoral danger despite circumstances. Polls and problems can be overcome, I think he analyzes,  by his  supreme confidence in his persuasive abilities as the campaign heightens,with his call to endure hardships rather than solve them,  his assumption that his base will, in the end, come through for him (e.g, the cavalier stick in the eye on Ozone regulations made worse with justification by Republican rhetoric ), his $ 1 billion campaign chest, and continued reliance on cheerleaders and rationalizers like Chait to help carry his water.  And, the best of all is his expectancy that scary Perry will be the Republican nominee.  

    If or when President Obama senses the personal stakes and is convinced that his re-election is in jeopardy,  his industrial-strength competitive juices will take hold and we may then see a change in course.  Otherwise, expect the same with some "reasonable" and "affordable" job and infrastructure programs, along with prodding to Cat Food II for bigger and better budget cuts.

    No, we won't (5.00 / 2) (#41)
    by gyrfalcon on Mon Sep 05, 2011 at 12:20:28 PM EST
    We'll see a change in campaign rhetoric.  Full stop.

    Parent
    It's pretty easy to read (5.00 / 1) (#46)
    by observed on Mon Sep 05, 2011 at 01:07:59 PM EST
    how Obama will campaign.
    1. He's done so much---he's passed more major legislation than FDR or LBJ, for god's sake!
    2. In his second term, he won't have to worry about re-election, so he can finally let his true liberal side show.. wink.


    Parent
    Yes, (none / 0) (#44)
    by KeysDan on Mon Sep 05, 2011 at 12:53:58 PM EST
    that would be the change.

    Parent
    Obama's "pragmatism" (5.00 / 4) (#14)
    by Edger on Mon Sep 05, 2011 at 10:43:47 AM EST
    seems to me to be intended to implicitly give power to republicans the past two and a half years, and to explicitly return power to republicans in 2011.

    I leave speculation on why to others....

    Great rebuttal to Chait's apologia (5.00 / 9) (#28)
    by MO Blue on Mon Sep 05, 2011 at 11:37:30 AM EST
    So Firedoglake's Blue Texan correctly quotes various prominent economists who not only understood the nature of the problem but got the follow up policy right in case matters proved even worse than they feared -- which is what happened.  All of these "didn't matter" people who got it right were ignored or worse by the Obama White House.  But Chait seems unaware that the initial size issue was not the most important liberal/left critique of the President's failed economic leadership.
    ...
    The economists the President ignored were saying publicly what, according to Brad DeLong, some on the President's economic team were telling the President privately: you're going to need a bigger boat. ...So you'd best be preparing the public for what might be needed, given the depth of the recession.  Instead, as DeLong notes, we got one "unforced error" after another.

    The President and his incompetent political advisers insisted that all was well and that we just needed patience.  And they continued to say that long after the data showed the Administration had badly underestimated the seriousness of what we now call the "lesser depression." They are still doing that.

    But the story gets worse.  Soon after Congress passed the first stimulus, the President resurrected the notion, partly ignored from his campaign, that what the economy needed was substantial budget reductions, including "reforms" -- benefit cuts -- to make Social Security and Medicare sustainable.  Obama strongly pivoted to budget cutting even though the recovery was not assured and unemployment was persistent, and even though his economic advisers knew, as Krugman et al were saying, that we could face a long and uncertain recovery with lingering and unacceptable levels of unemployment.

    So it wasn't just the not really mindboggling size of the first stimulus that was problematic; it was the deliberate policy of ignoring evidence and credible advice that much more would be needed and for an extended period, probably years.  Even worse was the rhetoric about budget cuts that would undermine any effort to achieve further fiscal stimulus. Again, highly credible voices warned this was a serious problem, but Obama ignored them. link

    Great well documented rebuttal. Take time to read it all.

    Depressing wages (5.00 / 4) (#42)
    by gyrfalcon on Mon Sep 05, 2011 at 12:26:14 PM EST
    I don't think it's possible at this point to come to any other conclusion but that an extended period of high unemployment is actually a feature of Obama's policy, not a bug, in order to reduce the working man/woman's wages and benefits by, oh, 25 or 30 percent so that U.S. business can be "competitive" in the world market.

    When the dust clears, Americans are supposed to become resigned to having a reduced standard of living so that everybody who wants a job at crap wages can have one.


    Parent

    That is the downside risk (none / 0) (#53)
    by MKS on Mon Sep 05, 2011 at 02:17:54 PM EST
    Let wages fall so that labor here is more competitive with China's and India's.

    Conservatives don't really care because the money people don't care and the social conservatives believe that people just need to suck it up and work harder at crapier jobs.

    In some ways, the forces pushing towards an equilibrium in the global wage market arer what we are facing......

    And we may not have that much control over that until the Chineese consumers start to spend and their wages increase......BUT the Germans are doing well without decreasing wages......

    If we were to support the middle class and tehnological advancement and industries......we could avoid the natural flattening/evening out of global wages....

    Parent

    Not a risk (5.00 / 2) (#56)
    by gyrfalcon on Mon Sep 05, 2011 at 03:03:13 PM EST
    My point is that it's not a downside risk, it's a deliberate policy.

    Parent
    In your opinion is there going to have to be (5.00 / 4) (#47)
    by Militarytracy on Mon Sep 05, 2011 at 01:21:26 PM EST
    a grieving process though?  I just watched Obama at the Union Labor Day rally and I could not quit saying in my head words like liar, opportunist, user scummy lying opportunist.  He has given collective bargaining silence and the cold shoulder until today during one of the largest fights in my lifetime?

    How am I ever really going to be able to support this man again?  Will non-political junkie America be more forgiving and have less memory of what Obama's track record really is?  Does he realize he has one of those now?

    His paean to collective bargaining (5.00 / 3) (#58)
    by gyrfalcon on Mon Sep 05, 2011 at 03:07:21 PM EST
    is where I turned the TV off in disgust.

    Hey, thanks for all your help in Wisconsin, Barack!

    Parent

    Yeah (5.00 / 5) (#59)
    by Ga6thDem on Mon Sep 05, 2011 at 03:13:23 PM EST
    I can understand because I couldn't even start to watch. I feel just like MT. He's a snake oil salesman who'll say anything to get what he wants and you know whatever he says, even if you like it, he's not going to back it up with any actions anyway.

    Parent
    So... (5.00 / 6) (#52)
    by ek hornbeck on Mon Sep 05, 2011 at 02:17:21 PM EST
    how is it working out?

    Aravosis-

    I hope the White House has a plan to replace those environmental voters next November (and I'm sure they do, this is all part of the "win the middle" strategy that has so far lost the White House the middle in poll after poll), because enviro votes are clearly not desired by a White House that finds environmentalists "left-wing," "ridiculous," "silly," and not "serious."

    You can keep hoping and praying that the President will take you seriously, or you can get in his face like gay activists did when we found that our groups' strategy of playing nice was getting us nowhere.  This White House does not respect the Democratic base or core Democratic issues.  They only respect people who challenge them -- people who "take hostages," to quote the President.

    Food for thought. Does anyone honestly think the President is going to be more helpful on any of our issues once he has the re-election under his belt and truly doesn't have to worry about how we'll vote ever again?

    More food for thought, for those who might suggest we just let this slide.  If we let the White House keep criticizing Democrats in Congress and Democratic interest groups with impunity, if we let their ongoing criticism depress the Democratic vote and hurt the image of Democrats who are up for re-election (thus hurting their chances for re-election), our silence could ensure that Democrats lose next November.

    It's not disloyal speaking up.  It's disloyal watching an electoral train wreck coming your way, and doing nothing about it.



    Change we wanted, but aren't ready for.. (2.00 / 1) (#7)
    by Light on Mon Sep 05, 2011 at 10:18:05 AM EST
    Barack Obama is the Change we wanted, well sort of.

    We bought it: CHANGE and post-partisanship ..

    Now that we have a taste of what it's like, it's a bitter pill.

    We're balking each time he dosn't act like the other side.

    Intransigent.

    And no one is talking much about THIS. Not the media, not the right pundits, not many Democrats.

    They're mostly into his CAVING mentality...

    while he's actually bucking the TIDE, under the most difficult circumstances, to break free of partisanship.

    It's PROGRESS, baby steps, yet repugnant to his own party, the party that voted him in instead of Hillary (who was not selling post-partisanship) because most thought he would actually be something quite different.

    And now there are some who want a refund/exchange, they would rather have her.

    Who's not holding up their part?

    Progress? (5.00 / 7) (#12)
    by MO Blue on Mon Sep 05, 2011 at 10:40:39 AM EST
    The same trickle down economics. Tax cuts that are more generous to the mega rich than Bush's tax cuts. Back room deals that benefit corporate interests. Reduction of needed domestic programs and an ongoing assault on the safety programs to offset the proposed additional cuts to the tax rates of corporations and the upper brackets. The same or expanded assaults on civil liberties. Never ending wars and expanded "kinetic military" actions.

    Breaking free of partisanship by adopting the other party's agenda is not IMO progress but just merely merging both parties into the same corporate centric entity.

    BTW we are balking because we are getting the same policies as those promoted by the other side.  

    Parent

    You mean (5.00 / 1) (#16)
    by Edger on Mon Sep 05, 2011 at 10:57:50 AM EST
    you don't even incrementally buy the "incrementalism" pitch?

    Parent
    I don't own boots tall (5.00 / 6) (#17)
    by MO Blue on Mon Sep 05, 2011 at 11:01:53 AM EST
    enough or a shovel big enough.

    Parent
    He's only been in office 2 1/2 years. (5.00 / 7) (#19)
    by Edger on Mon Sep 05, 2011 at 11:06:37 AM EST
    Give him more time.

    Soon you won't own any boots.

    Parent

    Bucking free of partisanship is (5.00 / 6) (#22)
    by observed on Mon Sep 05, 2011 at 11:12:03 AM EST
    exactly the same as caving.
    Calling the filling of a shite sandwich pate` doesn't change the taste.

    Parent
    Rim shot (none / 0) (#24)
    by MO Blue on Mon Sep 05, 2011 at 11:13:57 AM EST
    To the right and to the center.. (2.00 / 1) (#15)
    by Light on Mon Sep 05, 2011 at 10:49:49 AM EST

    We've all moved..Republicans to the right, Democrats to the center..while the media is still stuck in partisanship limbo because it's more provocative.

    We have no idea what it's like to function as a post-partisan nation, not to have a CLEAR LINE drawn in the sand.

    "Your either with us or against us..) but you all know that Bushism.

    But the ideological tension STILL EXISTS, i.e, WISCONSIN..

    Please speak for yourself (5.00 / 13) (#21)
    by MO Blue on Mon Sep 05, 2011 at 11:10:37 AM EST
    We have not all moved. It might surprise you to know that there are still people who believe in many of the elements of the Democratic platform that Obama is more than willing to ignore.

    Many of us still believe and support the New Deal policies that Obama is trying to weaken. Actually the vast majorities of Americans support the very programs that Obama is trying to reduce benefits and divert the funds into additional tax breaks for himself and his savvy friends.

       

    Parent

    I'm with you, MO Blue (5.00 / 3) (#29)
    by Zorba on Mon Sep 05, 2011 at 11:37:42 AM EST
    There are still some of us who consider themselves to be in the Democratic wing of the Democratic Party.

    Parent
    Presuming... making assertions (none / 0) (#62)
    by Light on Mon Sep 05, 2011 at 04:20:21 PM EST
     ..that social programs aren't important. They are, but we have to find ways to cut back excess, not derail them, which is what the GOP wants to do. Obama suggested having wealthier Americans pay more, as an example.  

     

    Parent

    Obama is pushing the initiative to derail them? (5.00 / 1) (#67)
    by MO Blue on Mon Sep 05, 2011 at 04:56:44 PM EST
    We've got to educate the American people at the same time we educate the President of the United States. The Republicans, Speaker Boehner or Majority Leader Cantor did not call for Social Security cuts in the budget deal. The President of the United States called for that," Conyers, who has served in the House since 1965, said. "My response to him is to mass thousands of people in front of the White House to protest this," Conyers said strongly. link

    WASHINGTON -- President-elect Barack Obama said Wednesday that overhauling Social Security and Medicare would be "a central part" of his administration's efforts to contain federal spending, signaling for the first time that he would wade into the thorny politics of entitlement programs.

    May 2007, he said that everything was on the table including raising the retirement age.

    STEPHANOPOULOS: You've also said that with Social Security, everything should be on the table.

    OBAMA: Yes.

    STEPHANOPOULOS: Raising the retirement age?

    OBAMA: Everything should be on the table.
    STEPHANOPOULOS: Raising payroll taxes?

    OBAMA: Everything should be on the table. I think we should approach it the same way Tip O'Neill and Ronald Reagan did back in 1983. They came together. I don't want to lay out my preferences
    beforehand, but what I know is that Social Security is solvable. It is not as difficult a problem as we're going to have with Medicaid and
    Medicare. link



    Parent
    How nice (none / 0) (#63)
    by kmblue on Mon Sep 05, 2011 at 04:23:56 PM EST
    that Obama made a suggestion.  I guess it didn't go over, since he is frustrated that the repubs are being so mean to him.
    Lying, spineless wimp.  I'm talking about the Prez, by the way.

    Parent
    READ UP.. (1.50 / 4) (#18)
    by Light on Mon Sep 05, 2011 at 11:04:35 AM EST
    ... some terminally short memories here or a bunch of ReDUDlicans, & insatiable progressives..

    Both.

    Health reform, Wall Street reform, the improvements to the new G.I. Bill, the most expansive food SAFETY BILL SINCE THE 1930s.   Repeal of Don't Ask, Don't Tell, START,signed in 2010 in the Prague..

    ..halfway through his FIRST term in office, Barack Obama will have accomplished 85% of his agenda

    How well (5.00 / 8) (#20)
    by Edger on Mon Sep 05, 2011 at 11:08:35 AM EST
    have childish insults worked for you in the past helping you drum up support for Obama?

    Parent
    Maybe he/she's just doing the warm-up (5.00 / 5) (#32)
    by Anne on Mon Sep 05, 2011 at 11:45:52 AM EST
    for ABG...you know, get us all riled up so ABG can come in and be mature and reasonable - the adult in the room, as it were.

    "Light?"  Yeah, okay - I agree, but my sense of what the screen name "Light" is supposed to signify may not be what the poster intended.


    Parent

    Great minds (5.00 / 4) (#35)
    by MO Blue on Mon Sep 05, 2011 at 11:54:56 AM EST
    and all. OFB are really into this only adult in the room theme.

    OTOH it would take more than "light" to make ABG's comments sound reasonable. I think he needs to get better fiction writers.  

    Parent

    It is rather curious isn't it? (5.00 / 1) (#50)
    by Edger on Mon Sep 05, 2011 at 01:39:17 PM EST
    Almost all blog commenters who "claim" to be Obama supporters seem to try to do everything they can to drive support away from Obama.... including Obama himself.

    Parent
    Yes, our food safety laws are the envy (5.00 / 3) (#23)
    by observed on Mon Sep 05, 2011 at 11:12:55 AM EST
    of countries like Somalia and Malawi.


    Parent
    Are you (5.00 / 5) (#30)
    by Ga6thDem on Mon Sep 05, 2011 at 11:40:08 AM EST
    the latest assignee from OFA? Well, if you are, I'm glad that Talk Left is on their radar.

    Parent
    If so, (5.00 / 7) (#34)
    by MO Blue on Mon Sep 05, 2011 at 11:49:54 AM EST
    the OFA is really hitting the bottom of the barrel with this one.

    The "skills" of the commenter almost make me believe that he/she works for Perry or Bachmann instead and has been given the task of irritating people to death.    

    Parent

    Just the calvary is riding to (5.00 / 1) (#69)
    by KeysDan on Mon Sep 05, 2011 at 05:32:13 PM EST
    the rescue, sort of a Light Brigade with the charge going to the DNC.

    Parent
    We'll call ABG "Weight" and (5.00 / 3) (#36)
    by observed on Mon Sep 05, 2011 at 11:57:08 AM EST
    they'll make a great pair.

    Parent
    Wall Street reform? (5.00 / 3) (#37)
    by observed on Mon Sep 05, 2011 at 11:58:15 AM EST
    That's too silly for a response.
    Food safety reform?
    Please elaborate---and don't say "go to the website".

    Parent
    Michigan's unemployment rate (1.33 / 3) (#60)
    by Politalkix on Mon Sep 05, 2011 at 03:14:21 PM EST
    has dropped from 15.2% in June 2009 to 10.9% in Sept 2011. linkI must have missed all the thanks TLers sent the President!
    Never mind! I totally forgot that TLers are not supposed to say anything good about the President. It may get them tossed from the island.

    look (5.00 / 5) (#64)
    by The Addams Family on Mon Sep 05, 2011 at 04:33:45 PM EST
    Obama's appeasement of the worst reactionary elements in U.S. politics, not to mention his extension & enhancement of the worst policies of Cheney/Bush, have set him against the wishes of most of the voters, Democratic and independent, whose support he will need if he hopes to be reelected

    Obama is now running against himself, & his reelection chances look increasingly dim - if the election were held today, it would be a GOP electoral landslide

    but you blame Obama's political & policy failures, & his betrayals of long-standing Democratic Party principles, on the defenders of those very principles

    you often sound like a Republican, but today you sound like a sore loser

    Parent

    You may have completely lost it (none / 0) (#73)
    by Politalkix on Mon Sep 05, 2011 at 05:44:10 PM EST
    deciding for yourself who sounds like a "Republican", a "sore loser", "policy failure", "betrayals" or "if the election were held today, it would be a GOP electoral landslide" and what not.
    May be it is time for you to raise what you are smoking and take a victory lap...:-)

    Parent
    no victory lap for me (none / 0) (#77)
    by The Addams Family on Mon Sep 05, 2011 at 06:17:36 PM EST
    because Obama's policies & craven appeasals make losers of us all

    but you do sound like a sore loser - sore at liberal Democrats & moderate independents, sore at anyone but your precious love O-bject

    maybe it's time for you & your Fairley Shepard "HOPE" poster to get a room

    Parent

    Wow ... 10.9% (5.00 / 1) (#74)
    by Yman on Mon Sep 05, 2011 at 05:56:46 PM EST
    Congrats.

    No, ...

    ... seriously.

    Parent

    Michigan's Unemployment Rate (none / 0) (#61)
    by cal1942 on Mon Sep 05, 2011 at 03:26:06 PM EST
    dropped lower than 10.9%.

    IIRC it was just above the national rate a few months ago (thanks to improvement of domestic auto industry and some ARRA projects) but in the last couple of months has increased to 10.9%.

    Parent

    I've commented on dkos so I can use proper (none / 0) (#27)
    by seabos84 on Mon Sep 05, 2011 at 11:21:03 AM EST
    english for politic$.

    happy labor day - for what little pittance is left, politically, of labor.

    rmm.

    Earlier, I was listening to (5.00 / 2) (#31)
    by Zorba on Mon Sep 05, 2011 at 11:44:53 AM EST
    Pete Seeger and Arlo Guthrie sing Arlo's father's song "Union Maid."  (Lyrics here.)  I imagine that, if Woody were alive today, he would be appalled at the current, ever-weakening state of labor unions and the labor movement.  I wonder what lyrics he would be writing now?    

    Parent
    The kind of Op-ed that gets published (none / 0) (#38)
    by Politalkix on Mon Sep 05, 2011 at 12:12:24 PM EST
    in Forbes!

    And these are the people Obama (5.00 / 1) (#40)
    by observed on Mon Sep 05, 2011 at 12:19:57 PM EST
    reaches out to. What does that say to you?


    Parent
    In a few (5.00 / 1) (#43)
    by Ga6thDem on Mon Sep 05, 2011 at 12:44:36 PM EST
    years we'll be laughing at these people and Forbes will have completely discredited itself because this article ignores a lot of facts in it's description. It's just a hysterical screed by an idiot.

    Anyway, if this is what Obama supporters are shopping they are just showing themselves to be nothing but a bunch of knee jerkers just like the GOP.

    Parent

    Talk Left no more? (1.33 / 3) (#65)
    by Light on Mon Sep 05, 2011 at 04:49:22 PM EST
    ..left wing of the party, here? Republican shills? Unblievable non-substanitive trash talk..

    ..someone said Obama didn't get involved in WI debacle. SO WRONG. He accused Scott Walker of unleashing "assault" on unions in order to change collective-bargaining agreements that affect public employees, including teachers.

    The president worked w/ state/ national union officials to get thousands of protesters to in Madison with plan similar demonstrations in other state capitals.

    Obama joins Wisconsin's budget battle, opposing Republican anti-union bill/ WAPO

    Parent

    Funny, I find that the Obama shills often (5.00 / 1) (#75)
    by observed on Mon Sep 05, 2011 at 06:03:21 PM EST
    sound exactly like Reagan Democrats---without the Democrat.

    Parent
    Wrong? (5.00 / 2) (#83)
    by huzzlewhat on Tue Sep 06, 2011 at 03:23:30 PM EST
    ..someone said Obama didn't get involved in WI debacle. SO WRONG.

    No idea where you are located, but here in WI, we were waiting for Obama to show up -- in spirit, if not physically. At one point during the election process, he promised to show up to walk the line in person if anyone threatened union rights. I don't think anyone expected him to actually do that, but we were hoping for some sort of support other than vaguely accusatory-sounding phrases ("It seems like...") floating out of the WH press office. Don't try to tell me he did, and we just missed it.

    Parent

    Frankly (none / 0) (#70)
    by Ga6thDem on Mon Sep 05, 2011 at 05:35:48 PM EST
    considering the fact of how unpopular Obama is, it's a good thing he didn't get involved in WI. Yeah, he said a few words but that's about it.

    Parent
    Talk Right (1.20 / 5) (#66)
    by Light on Mon Sep 05, 2011 at 04:54:54 PM EST
     Unglued, maniacal, irresponsible, dangerous.
    ..they've fallen off a cliff.

    Parent
    You need to step away from the mirror, and (5.00 / 3) (#80)
    by Anne on Mon Sep 05, 2011 at 07:42:17 PM EST
    stop talking about yourself in the third person plural.

    And seriously, given that Obama's support continues to decline in so many demographic categories, if you want to see him re-elected, I'd suggest you find a strategy for winning over voters that doesn't involve insulting and taunting them.  It doesn't work when Obama does it, and it sure doesn't work when you come here and do it.

    Get a f--king clue.

    Parent

    Written by one of the banksters who (5.00 / 1) (#45)
    by MO Blue on Mon Sep 05, 2011 at 01:05:32 PM EST
    Obama made whole and continues to protect. Just one of those savvy businessmen.  

    Parent
    Hey, who knew? (none / 0) (#57)
    by gyrfalcon on Mon Sep 05, 2011 at 03:06:09 PM EST
    Eva Peron is a liberal hero!!!  Nobody told me!  I feel sooo out of touch.

    Parent
    ROTFLMAO (none / 0) (#71)
    by Ga6thDem on Mon Sep 05, 2011 at 05:36:04 PM EST
    Also, I'm always curious about (none / 0) (#48)
    by Militarytracy on Mon Sep 05, 2011 at 01:30:49 PM EST
    my husband's take on some things because he is an Indy.  We read the Matt Stoller article at Salon together this morning and when he got to the part where Stoller said that Obama ruined the Democratic party he snorted and said that was a little over the top and that the Democratic party had ruined the Democratic party.

    Well (5.00 / 4) (#51)
    by Ga6thDem on Mon Sep 05, 2011 at 01:45:06 PM EST
    he's right in the sense that the party elite were the ones that were so hot to have Obama as the nominee and then when Obama continually pushed bad policy after bad policy they just went along with it.

    Parent
    He said we are spineless (none / 0) (#68)
    by Militarytracy on Mon Sep 05, 2011 at 05:12:16 PM EST
    and it goes all the way back to the Bush administration and the Republicans threatening the Democrats that if they filibustered they would destroy the filibuster but now the Republicans threaten filibuster all the time and get what they want.

    He said that Pelosi let everyone down and the rich got to keep their tax breaks too.  He's really really super pissed about that.

    He said that Obama isn't anything different though, he is only a Presidential embodiment of the status quo that was going on even before he came along.  He also says that when Boehner can get up there and say that he got 98% of what he wanted and almost everything he wanted was bad for the little people, the Democrats are so pathetic they border on on being a plague on the political landscape.

    Parent

    I agree (5.00 / 1) (#72)
    by Ga6thDem on Mon Sep 05, 2011 at 05:40:31 PM EST
    with your husband pretty much 100%. They did not stand up to Bush at all and that's why I laugh when conservatives try to blame the economic downturn on the 2006 election. I say so when did congress not ever give Bush what he wanted? The only insurrection I ever saw was the GOP when it came to immigration reform. Obviously Obama is a symptom of the problems that plague the party. They don't even want a presidential candidate who might upset the DC cocktail crowd. In some ways, it might be a blessing to lose in '12 so the house can be cleaned. Pelosi needs to retire. The majority of these people in DC need to be replaced. Many of them have simply been there too long.

    Parent
    Well, (none / 0) (#54)
    by bocajeff on Mon Sep 05, 2011 at 02:19:36 PM EST
    The amazing thing is that I would imagine that a large portion of the country could care less about external policies and care more about things that effect them directly such as, you know, the economy.  When roughly 1 in 5 are either out of work or underemployed then any conversation that doesn't address that particular issue is external noise. That's how Reagan got elected, how Clinton got elected and how Obama got elected. It's almost always about bread and butter.

    What do you guys think? (none / 0) (#76)
    by NYShooter on Mon Sep 05, 2011 at 06:15:00 PM EST
    Scenario #1.....Obama wins, and we have an accelerated degradation of New Deal, and basic Democratic, ideals & policies. That would be followed by a landslide Republican victory in `16, probably including both Houses of Congress.
    Or
    Scenario #2.....Perry wins, probably with a new Republican Senate, and we enter the darkest days of our country, probably since the darkest days of the early 40's.

    My question is, which outcome, in the long run, would be better for our children/grandchildren?

    Personally, I think it would be #2. The reason? The current Democratic Party is so totally corrupted by the Corporate forces at work here that hoping for incremental improvement in our condition is death by a thousand cuts. The masses only react to catastrophes, and after a few years of Government by the crazed, ideological Right, they may be ready to swing, and swing hard, towards the Progressive Left. (Having tossed out the current Crop of so-called democrats)

    I guess I'm thinking about the final scene in the Godfather, when Michael Corleone has all his rivals killed as he's observing his God son's baptism. "All family business was settled today."


    Obama has political skills of a sort, but (5.00 / 1) (#79)
    by observed on Mon Sep 05, 2011 at 07:24:02 PM EST
    even if you think he is clever in getting what he wants by indirection, he is clearly a very weak leader, with no ability to confront opponents head on.
    I don't think it's at all clear that a McCain presidency would have been any worse on the domestic policy front. Democrats had a majority in Congress,and would have wielded their power, instead of yielding their authority to the Republicans at Obama's behest.


    Parent
    Well (none / 0) (#78)
    by Ga6thDem on Mon Sep 05, 2011 at 06:31:19 PM EST
    I've come to the conclusion that Obama is going to usher in radical fundamentalism to the country. It's just a matter of whether it happens in '12 or '16. Everybody be prepared for what all that entails. Very dark and very scary for most people.

    Parent
    Maybe John Cole (none / 0) (#82)
    by lilburro on Tue Sep 06, 2011 at 01:15:25 AM EST
    will be the guy that writes the book twenty years from now about how Obama could not do anything because it was politically impossible.  He might sell a copy, even!

    Huh??? Is there still any doubt? (none / 0) (#84)
    by pluege2 on Wed Sep 07, 2011 at 04:12:10 AM EST
    Come Thursday night,... we'll have an idea if the President is going to believe in the Chaitesque political "magical thinking" that the Post Partisan Unity Schtick will lead to reelection.

    this is ridiculous. there is NO question. obama will be where he has been for 2.5 years: completely lost and deluded by his fantasy of republican reasonableness.

    So of course his "jobs" program will be something republicans should love (more tax cuts) but republicans will reject because making obama look bad is their only goal. And so there will be NO effective jobs program and obama will be faced with trying to get reelected as an abject failure where it counts most to Americans.

    John Cole has demonstrated himself... (none / 0) (#85)
    by pluege2 on Wed Sep 07, 2011 at 04:13:30 AM EST
    to be a complete fool. No point in reading him at all