Perhaps the president "skates" on these issues -- all of which the right finds outrageous -- because it's what voters hired him to do.

That pretty much explains it--both why his approval is still high and why the wingnuts are flipping out. The right has nothing but the same arguments from 10, 20, 30 years ago and they're not working anymore. The country has moved on.

even plays host to the Grateful Dead in the Oval Office.

I heard about Kool and the Gang, but not the Dead. Did they let Rahm play Jerry Garcia's guitar? Something about that missing middle finger makes you direct your anger in interesting directions.

I think it's because the previous president raised the bar so high. The last guy in office took us to war on false pretenses, inappropriately fondled a foreign female head of state, and generally acted like a complete buffoon.

The american people are looking at what Obama's doing and realizing that his gaffes are insignificant compared to the stooge that used to hold the job.

Halperin was hysterical. I read his piece and wondered if he realizes that 1993 was over 15 years ago.

Republican outrage is no longer an effective political ploy. It's run its course in contemporary America and people, dulled by its constant invocation over the last 20 years or so, just aren't buying into it anymore. They just see it as hysteria and exaggeration, and maybe the insincerity and hypocrisy of it. And as long as the Republicans insist on, say, calling Obama a Muslim/socialist/fascist/whatever (yawn), I think Americans just won't listen. If Republicans began devgeloping some serious policies and promoted them soberly and seriously, pople migh begin to listen to them again. But right now Limbaugh or Beck are the face of the GOP and Republicans may need to lose one or probably two more elections before anything changes.

The country is turning a corner. The morally bankrupt people who've been holding us back have yet to recognize that they're finally going down (and not in the good way.)

Shorter Martin--why are the republicans attacks not working? Why why why? I want them to work! I am working hard here to make them work.

Ditto Remus. He said what I came to say, only better. Everyone (with the exception of the fringe right) is so glad Bush is gone that Obama would have to strangle a kitten to get a bad review.

the answer is much, much simpler. The current crop of GOPers look and sound like dicks. There is not one person with obvious gravitas. That was the allure of Cheney to Villagers back in the day, and the original allure of McCain as well.

There is not one GOP spokesperson that makes you go "damn, that person's good."

It is that simple. it is not the message, it is the messenger. Yet, the more inane the message, the more assinine the messengers become. it is a negative feedback loop.

eric

Steve Benen wrote: "He wants to raise taxes on the wealthy while cutting them for the middle class?"

Actually, it's Bush and the Congressional Republicans who wanted to "raise taxes on the wealthy" and mandated that this be done when they enacted the huge Bush tax cuts for the rich in 2001, by writing into law that those tax cuts would expire in 2010.

Obama is merely letting the Bush tax cuts expire according to the schedule put in place by Bush and the Republicans.

consider...

through g. w. bush, republicans lowered the bar for competency...

so they have no one to blame but themselves..

again..

Or it could be that Cuba, medical marijuana, teleprompters, chuckling, et al just aren't relevant to the vast majority of Americans. The right wing noise machine really has become a liability to them. If you spend all your time in the loony bubble, you lose sight of the fact that the things the get worked up about just plain old don't matter to anyone else.

Now if we could only get the president to pay attention to criticisms of Geithner and Summers (but even Benen barely wants to do that), and to take on the blue-dog and red state Dems who oppose Obama's proposals re charity donations by the rich and estate taxes for the ultra-rich.

I think it is also important to note Obama's reaction to these things: instead of becoming defensive and trying to apologize or placate the right, he does what he says he is going to do, and sticks to it. How many dems in the past tried to back off of what they said or did when RW's got upset? Perhaps not backing down to inane "controversy" prevents Obama from looking weak? maybe more dems should try this?

Dear Righties: When everything is especially important, NOTHING is especially important. You need to stop scream about Obama's every action or you'll make yourselves more irrelevant even faster.

this is what happens when your "base" shrinks to the size and approximation of a local klan rally.

Crying Wolf....I think that's the simplist, most accurate problem the Republicans have. Because they are fighting him at EVERY turn, none of their concerns seem legitimate, and reveal themselves for what they are, namely, obstructionist party politics.

Couple that to a party with zero new ideas, and no wonder the Republicans are a disaster.

Oh my, so many perfectly good Steve Benen brain cells sacrificed trying to make sense of something puked onto the computer screen by that braying ass Jonathan Martin. Please, he's not remotely worth it.

Some of these thoughtful "pundits" have been in the trenches of vested interests so long they fail to accurately read the effects of a democratic society. We who voted for President Obama are just fine with his proposals, policy direction and efforts to right a wronged society, and observers everywhere need to remember that we are the majority ever since November 4th, 2008.

What "pundits" haven't caught up with yet is that we aren't necessarily as ill-informed as we may have been in say 2000 C.E.! -Kevo

"I think there's probably more to it. For example, some of the Obama-related 'outrages' aren't exactly outrageous. There's no need to be 'mystified' when the president remains unscathed by silly and inconsequential
'controversies' manufactured by partisan hacks."

Please. ALL the Gore "outrages" were silly, inconsequential, manufactured. This was also true of endless "outrages" concerning both Clintons, and involving Kerry. But the MSM was hunting both Clintons, then Gore; they simply aren't hunting Obama. It's amazing how hard it is to get career liberals to acknowledge the way this has worked.

Why was Karl Rove a "genius" from 1999 on? Because everything he and his agents said, no matter how stupid, was adopted en masse by the mainstream press. The right-wing noise machine had nothing to do with it. It's the mainstream press that tips our politics, and the mainstream press (the press that employs career liberals) was virulently hostile to both Clintons and Gore.

That part of our history ended when Obama got nominated. But you can't make career liberals see this. If they see it, they aren't willing to tell.

"Republicans; The Party that Cried Wolf" It could be the title of a good book about how a party self destructs and takes itself into oblivion for 40 years. At least I hope it is 40 years. That would make it biblical for those self righteous religious ones among them.

When were The Dead at the White House? (In a way, a true symbol of who won the culture wars...)

The Grateful Dead is controversial? Really? In what frickin' universe? Why can't I get a gig like Jonathan Martin?

bob somerby,

As someone said upthread, Obama doesn't cower. Clinton and Gore also had to deal with this kind of phonyoutrage from the MSM, but they were slaves to the MSM. They were cowering all the time. Obama just straight up mocks these people. Obama would never have allowed the MSM to label him a "liar" like they did to Gore. How damn hard was it for him to stand up and say, "I never claimed to invent the internet!".

Everything in Steve's analysis is, of course, spot on. What I would add is that Obama is basically honest and decent. With that quality of body armor not much can penetrate. You see, it's not really very complicated or difficult. What appears to be difficult for some is coming to terms with the possibility that someone of such caliber can occupy the highest office of political power in a land which has all to frequently suffered lesser minded individuals in such elevated status.

As His Holiness the Dalai Lama once said: "Your greatest protection is your good karma". Never seems it truer of a leader than of Obama.

So why isn't all this s**t working now when it has worked so well in the past? Is it Obama's responses? Is it the voters finally wising up? Is it that the Republicans don't have anyone credible to deliver the old message?

I think there's a bunch of reasons that Obama can do what he's doing with little pushback.

First, he's a 52%+ President, unlike Clinton, who got 43% of the vote the first time. His position starts stronger. In 1992-3 the GOP thought they lost due to Perot splitting off their voters. Obama's win is cleaner, and the fact he won states like Indiana and Virginia and NC make him that much stronger. Even though they won't admit it, most of the GOP know that their other candidates would have done even worse than McCain.

Second, his actions closely match what he said he'd do. Clinton ran centrist, tried a few liberal things, and then had to tack right and triangulate.

Third, he has little personal baggage. The things they tried to stick him with are dubious associations, like Rev. Wright and Ayers, or outright BS, like "he's a Muslim" or "he was born in Kenya". He is in a much better position than Clinton was with his infidelity and draft avoidance past. His family status doesn't hurt at all.

His perceived (and actual) honesty is way over Clinton's. On drug use: Clinton -- "I didn't inhale". Obama -- "That was the point". Obama will get some benefit of the doubt that Clinton had a hard time getting because people appreciate honesty, and they perceived that Clinton might be less than honest even if they agreed with most of what he was doing.

Last point: maybe he if the first Democrat in a long while with a little bit of a coat of Teflon. I think the Teflon in part comes from the times -- in dangerous times coming off what is seen as a failed Presidency there is an extra desire on the part of the American people for a successful President. I think that situation helped Reagan (Iran hostage crisis alone made Carter a somewhat failed President in people's eyes), and I think it's helping Obama. My guess is that FDR was the last guy in that situation before Reagan.

Note: I am not admiring Reagan or his policies -- I am trying to learn from how he was so effective and able to win reelection with a near-shutout electorally.

I disagree with the quoted article. Obama has not been blithely crossing red lines. On the contrary, he's been very conservative and hesitant; he's changed the tone, certainly, but the concrete actions have been quite limited.

On Cuba, he's restored the state of the sanctions regime to what it was under Clinton. He doesn't propose to end the embargo, he only ended the abuse Bush heaped onto Cuban-American families. It's less hassle for an American who doesn't have Cuban relatives to go to North Korea than to Cuba, still.

He hasn't killed Bush's stupid BMD program, which we are supposed to believe is protecting Eastern Europe from Iranian missile attack, when any Eastern European will tell you that of course the target is Russia.

And he's treated marijuana legalization as a joke.

On all these issues, he's shifted from the far right to the center or maybe even right-of-center, if you consider "center" to be the midpoint of American opinion.

I think it's more simple than that. The GOP -- across the board -- is now seen as a party of sore losers, including quite a few who are seriously disturbed, anti-democracy and even dangerous. And no one likes a sore a loser -- it's unamerican.

The neocon rightwingers started crying wolf before the inauguration. This nonsense may work for a short while, but eventually most everyone sees their faux outrage for what it is really is.

Only the diehard dead enders (and of course the make believe journalists on network news), ever give each day's rightwing nutjob outrage a passing notice.

The Republican screeds have only succeeded in becoming total background noise, and further marginalizing this failure for a philosphy and political party.

Anyone over 25 saw the Republicans trash a moderate, competent, well liked president, then we saw who they replaced him with.

It's a road we've been down, and and we don't like where it goes.

Perhaps the president "skates" on these issues -- all of which the right finds outrageous -- because it's what voters hired him to do.

No, I suspect the main reason is that he doesn't rise to the bait.

Look, Reagan screwed up daily, but always acted like there was not problem, and he was Mr. Teflon. GWB got away with that in the years after 9/11 too.

By contrast, poor Al Gore got gored by the media following the first debate and he was a shell of himself in the second. At one point when Bush questioned a fact Gore cited -- one in which Gore had been correct -- Gore apologetically said "at least, I've been told that is the fact."

Similarly, consider Kerry's weak-kneed response to the swift boaters.

Now consider a typical Obama response to charges that Palin was being treated poorly by the press: "I've been called worse names on the basketball court. I've been getting this treatment for 19 months, she's had only 4 days."

He correctly trivializes the charge. He doesn't give it the respect he would give to a sensible criticism.

And thus, the criticism does not stick.

ALL the Gore "outrages" were silly, inconsequential, manufactured. This was also true of endless "outrages" concerning both Clintons, and involving Kerry. But the MSM was hunting both Clintons, then Gore; they simply aren't hunting Obama.

Well, but you've been crying out against this farce for more than a decade now--maybe your message is getting through to people?

No one has manufactured more "controversies" than that partisan hack Martin.

Part of it also has to be that the "outrage" of the conservative pundit class is for the same things (the budget deficit, sending troops into foreign countries, "circumventing the constitution", etc.) are the very things that Bush was GUILTY of. And, they were there in the front of the crowd, cheerleading him on. It's hard to take their positions seriously when they were 100-percent behind Bush when he did it, but when Obama does pretty much the same things (if for different reasons) it's suddenly anti-American! They just sound like the partisan clowns they are.

This is my country, just as most of us.NAVY.
Life is life, the time spent is but a dust.
This is done, Dirty Lundry. I have to pay tax!
I don't want my 2 cent spent this way.

And what voters hired Mr. Obama to do was manage the national shift from emotionally retarded, unchecked, puerile, narcissistic imperialism to a sustainable, rational, mature member of the world community. He knows this because he's creating this shift as much as accepting the responsibility. No surprise that third grade taunts and spitballs don't faze him. Man's got a job to do.

(Obama inviting gay families to the White House Easter Egg Roll ...

That's an odd turn of phrase: "gay families"

What makes the whole family "gay"?

It'd be okay with me if I never see that particular word combination again. I suspect most of the people referred to as belonging to "gay families" would be among the first to agree.