there is nothing, nothing at all, that Obama could offer -- other than switching parties -- that would get him any GOP cooperation

Unfortunately, as we have seen, that underestimates the depth of GOP obstructionism. At this point, if Obama proposed cutting taxes on all capital gains and dividend income to 0%, eliminating the estate tax, and all corporate taxes, without asking any concessions in return, the GOP would find some reason to object. It isn't what is being proposed (many of Obama's proposals were embraced by GOP leaders just a short year ago), it is who is making the proposal. The truest words in Krugman's column today were, "...there isn’t any plan, except to regain power."

Has it really taken Steve all this time to notice that the economist's US coverage is routinely, ridiculously bad?

The Economist editors swill the same evil Kool-aid as the WSJ psychopaths.

Steve Benen wrote: "As for the notion that the White House should have made concessions on nuclear power, Obama did that, too."

Steve, I think you need to re-read the Economist article more carefully.

It says, "by giving ground on nuclear power, he may now stand a chance of getting a climate bill."

The Economist article doesn't present the "notion" that Obama "should have" made concessions on nuclear power. Rather, it acknowledges that Obama "did that" and claims that by doing so he now "stands a chance" of getting a climate bill. It is suggesting that Obama's "concessions" on nuclear power are an example of the sort of "concessions" he should make to get a health care bill.

Of course, the substance of the Economist article is dishonest rubbish.

The Economist is basically arguing that if Obama wants to pass any legislation that addresses the best interests of the American people, all he needs to do is to gut the legislation of any provisions that actually are in the public interest (e.g. public option, cap-and-trade) and replace them with provisions that are in the corporate interest (e.g. individual mandate, nuclear subsidies).

Which is, of course, pretty much the plan that the corporate stooges in the Senate, both Republicans and Democrats, have been following all down the line.

So, how could The Economist manage to mangle reality so badly?

The choices seem to be, again, that they're stupid or they're evil. That's the eternal question when dealing with the non-reality-based.

Also, it should be pointed out that Obama didn't hand healthcare over to his party's left wing. He handed it over to Max Baucus and Kent Conrad, and we've all seen how that worked out.

Reaching out: Once defined as "meeting someone half-way on an issue," it now means "unconditional surrender to the uber-terrorist Republican America-haters."

Thanks, Librul Meedeeduh.

"The truth, which is obvious from every day's news, is that there is nothing, nothing at all, that Obama could offer -- other than switching parties -- that would get him any GOP cooperation."

This is completely incorrect! To start with, switching parties will be unacceptable to our base. Even if he was to become a republican, he is still a n*gger and we ain't gonna put up with someone who is not a real American being the president. To get GOP cooperation, he should tender the resignations of himself and Biden. Furthermore, he should follow the lead of our corporate media's Sunday talking head shows and acknowledge that President McCain really won the last presidential election.

The truth, which is obvious from every day's news, is that there is nothing, nothing at all, that Obama could offer -- other than switching parties and being reborn as a white man -- that would get him any GOP cooperation.

Fixed that for you.

So, how could The Economist manage to mangle reality so badly?

They're not trying to get it right, they're trying to advance a narrative.

"...there is nothing, nothing at all, that Obama could offer -- other than switching parties -- that would get him any GOP cooperation."

Actually, they already have Michael Steele. The point of a token is that you need only one.

The truth, which is obvious from every day's news, is that there is nothing, nothing at all, that Obama could offer -- other than switching parties -- that would get him any GOP cooperation. I don't even think this is controversial. Indeed, Republican leaders would likely agree that this is exactly right.

I doubt it. They need the smokescreen that if only Obama reached out to Republicans, they would stop trying to obstruct everything he does. To them, Obama represents a political philosophy that embraces promoting the general welfare as an equally legitimate use of federal tax dollars as providing for the common defense. They see this divergence of worldviews as irreconcilable, and therefore their only goal is damaging Obama politically in order to get back in power.

The Economist sucks. I canceled my subscription years ago. They sold my address to the Cato Institute.

I must have missed something along the way - were Grassley & Olympia Snowe involved in the health care process or not, I seem to remember them holding dems hostage till they got their way over some aspects of this.(of course we all know that Grassley told his town hall meetings that he was going to slow the process and then kill it to save grandma.}

It was some time during the 80's or 90's--about the time that bundles of pound notes were being used as ship's ballast--that James Fallows noted the deep irony of the respect paid to a British journal called "The Economist."

But now that Gordon Brown is close to starting a B&B in Buck House, maybe they can focus their powers of analysis on their own problems.

By their standards for their leaders, this was fairly foolish. Maybe they think the Democrats should become Republicans the way that Labour became Conservatives.

Aw Shucks,
They made so many concessions, the HCR bill swelled to ~2000 pages.
Take out the Noster's crappy concessions & HCR would likely weigh in at around 50 pages.

If they were doing serious analysis, they'd be asking why Republicans aren't using their position to actually advance conservative policies. If you have leverage (as the GOP unfortunately does) you get what you want by negotiating for your votes. Instead, Republicans are squandering that in a high-stakes bet that they can get back into total power by demanding that Democrats by not even pretending to negotiate, and then counting on our braindead media to believe their lies about it. I understand that modern Republicans are incapable of thinking about anything beyond the next election, but if they do succeed in retaking a house of Congress in the fall, do they really think they can continue to avoid being seen as part of the problem?

The truth, which is obvious from every day's news, is that there is nothing, nothing at all, that Obama could offer -- other than switching parties -- that would get him any GOP cooperation.

I'm afraid it's quite obvious that this wouldn't do anything to solve Obama's problem of, as somebody quite correctly called it yesterday or the day before in the comments here, being 'President while being black'.

So, how could The Economist manage to mangle reality so badly?

By tuning to Morning Joe every day and hearing that same nonsense nonstop...

The Economist once employed Megan McArdle. That's setting the expectation bar at ankle height as far as I'm concerned.

http://www.economist.com/blogs/democracyinamerica/2009/08/seven_questions_for_megan_mcar

Krugman may have hit on the most magical of magical thinking - President Obama switches parties, and everyone in the Republican Caucus will also switch parties, In the Senate the count will be Dems 98, Ind. 2, Reps 0. Then the newlyt minted Republican President engages in 'Opposite Day" for his entire Presidency. Everything we want will pass, because it's the opposite thing;

Bonus points for Teabaggers Primarying everybody.

Since the Economist is a British publication, it seems appropriate to quote Shakespeare:

All eyes, and no sight.

As a longtime reader of The Economist, over the years I have often disagreed with conclusion they arrive at, but at least I have felt the newspaper and I shared the same set of facts.

Lexington, the main USA correspondent, is now written by a different person. Ever since the transition several months ago (the old Lexington wrote a best selling book and is now the Schumpeter columnist) Lexington's outlook and conclusions about US politics took a hard turn to the right and I have noticed this in many Lexington columns and in Leaders about the USA.

None of that excuses what was written in this Leader. Comments at The Economist's website show a large percentage of readers are incredulous at the crap that appeared in this Leader. Several commenters claimed they were canceling subscriptions. I have thought of doing this myself, except the rest of the newspaper still feeds a need.

A truly disgraceful piece of journalism. There is absolutely no way it can be defended, even as opinion. Wonder if The Economist will have the integrity to forcefully attack its own piece, its writer and the editor who approved it for publication. Um . . . .

I think the suggestion that Obama should switch his party affiliation to GOP would be an amazing stroke of political genius. He would be a "liberal" republican and wouldn't have to change any of his policies. Then he could reach out to the Democratic majorities and, voila, instant bipartisanship. A GOP president working arm in arm with a Democratic congress. It's brilliance!

Something tells me The Economist is in for a lot of --

Sir:

What the hell is wrong with you?

Sincerely,
Pissed-off Reader

-- letters to the editor.

I understand that modern Republicans are incapable of thinking about anything beyond the next election, but if they do succeed in retaking a house of Congress in the fall, do they really think they can continue to avoid being seen as part of the problem?

As long as they further reduce taxes for the rich, they will have reached their goal. Nothing else matters.

"If, instead of handing over health care to his party's left wing..."

I just threw up in my mouth a little.

So, how could The Economist manage to mangle reality so badly?

Because they're paid to.

(Note: this answer applies to any MSM outlet that denies demonstrable truth; reality if you will.)

Har-D-Har. What makes you think the Economist ever gets anything right?

Bottom line: while Obama mentioned health care reform during the campaign, it was not by any means what motivated the middle 30% of voters, independents and anti-War Republicans, to vote for him. Now Democrats are trying to do this massive tax-and-spend entitlement (however indirect) while they can. Why should Republicans do what 60% of USAers are against, i.e., this particular plan distinct from health care reform abstractly considered? Brown's win in Massachusetts ought to indicate that clearly; and it does; the Democrats realize they can only get this done now before they lose big time in 2010 which looks like the case either way.

Hey, pass this by reconciliation and it will be removed by reconciliation.

TMD

Brown's win in Massachusetts ought to indicate that clearly;

Of course, because there's no better way to judge the US public's opposition to health care reform than to look at an election in the one state that already has universal health care. Plainly it was a nationwide referendum!

Begone, troll.

gop on even days: obama hasn't accomplished anything

gop on odd days: obama is doing too much, too fast

GOP 2010: Bi-Polar For Freedom !

That sort of meme pushed by The Economist is a specific propaganda canard of the Right. It's just crap, a scam meant to distort and misdirect opinion.

"...how could The Economist manage to mangle reality so badly?"

They've had plenty of practice, Steve. Have you ever read them? They are past masters at the art of living in la-la land, almost as bad as their homeboys on the WSJ editorial page.

A long time ago I used to subscribe, but the pontificating about things they obviously knew nothing about got to me. The final straw was when I read that here in the US political contributions were tax deductible. I never renewed and now when I get their offer for four free issues, I get the issues and send back the invoice marked "declined."

It isn't just the Republicans. Obama has to reach out to the people, not just the lobbyists. Especially he has to reach out to the American people, not the illegal aliens. It seems pretty obvious to us canny old folks that the Dems absolute refusal to accept language keeping illegal aliens from benefits means that that racist piece of shit Obama is planning to take $500 billion of poor old white folks Medicare and giving it to illegal aliens to bribe the Hispanic vote. He learned this kind of stuff hanging around with Gov. Blagojevich.

Of course, the first left-wing Senator who comes to mind to hand off the development of health care reform policy to is . . . Montana's Max Baucus???

Crikey, The Economist has joined forces with the Palin-Bachman wing of the GOP. They can write, but can they read? And if they can read can they understand?

One more thought -- for the last year the GOP's Front of Obstruction, Exploitation and Yelling (FOOEY) is itself what gives them the space in their own minds to say Obama has aligned with the left wing of his party. Of course! Republicans are reasonable people -- if no Republicans vote with Obama what else could it mean but Obama is cramming left-wing policy down our throats! Republicans would never stoop to being right-wing demagogues, oh, no . . .