Political Animal
Blog
The New York Times’ Nicholas Kristof argues today that President Obama “has done better than many critics on the left or the right give him credit for.”
He took office in the worst recession in more than half a century, amid fears of a complete economic implosion…. The administration helped tug us back from the brink of economic ruin. Obama oversaw an economic stimulus that, while too small, was far larger than the one House Democrats had proposed. He rescued the auto industry and achieved health care reform that presidents have been seeking since the time of Theodore Roosevelt.
Despite virulent opposition that has paralyzed the government, Obama bolstered regulation of the tobacco industry, signed a fair pay act and tightened control of the credit card industry. He has been superb on education, weaning the Democratic Party from blind support for teachers’ unions while still trying to strengthen public schools.
In foreign policy, Obama has taken a couple of huge risks. He approved the assault on Osama bin Laden’s compound in Pakistan, and despite much criticism he led the international effort to overthrow Muammar el-Qaddafi. So far, both bets are paying off.
That’s a reasonably good summary of the last three years. I’d include some additional accomplishments to the president’s list — Wall Street reform, DADT repeal, ending the war in Iraq, the woefully under-appreciated student loan reform, New START, etc. — but the column’s summary includes several highlights.
Kristof’s larger point, though, was to offer a suggestion to voters.
[T]hink back to 2000. Many Democrats and journalists alike, feeling grouchy, were dismissive of Al Gore and magnified his shortcomings. We forgot the context, prided ourselves on our disdainful superiority — and won eight years of George W. Bush.
This time, let’s do a better job of retaining perspective. If we turn Obama out of office a year from now, let’s make sure it is because the Republican nominee is preferable, not just out of grumpiness toward the incumbent during a difficult time.
That sounds about right.
Facebook
Twitter
c u n d gulag on November 27, 2011 9:53 AM:
"...and won eight years of George W. Bush."
No, Mr. Kristoff, "won" means a good thing.
A thing you get a prize for.
Even '...and lost and got eight years of George W. Bush' is insufficient.
How about 'and got shat upon by 8 years of Little Boots.'
Yes, I think THAT works!
kevo on November 27, 2011 9:58 AM:
I'm voting to re-elect President Obama because the crazy must be washed and rinsed one more time if we wish to have a chance of a sane future!
American voters may not be savvy enough to actually vote for their interests, and Kristof's articulate argument may have fallen on deaf ears, but sentient humans know the Republicans are unhealthy for children and other living things! -Kevo
Danp on November 27, 2011 9:58 AM:
I think we're past the point where any reasonable person will argue that there is no difference between Republicans and Democrats. A vote against Obama or even a non-vote is a vote for third-world nation status. As Obama said, "we can't afford to make perfect the enemy of the absolutely necessary."
SteveT on November 27, 2011 10:21 AM:
I applaud President Obama's accomplishments. But many of his accomplishments, though significant, are peripheral to the existential problems facing the United States.
Yes, Obama prevented the economy from sinking into another depression. But his adopting the Republicans' idiotic idea that deficits are the nation's most pressing economic concern has condemned the country to wallow in economic stagnation for the next decade. And Obama's refusal to substantially reform Wall Street and refusal to break up the too-big-to-fail financial corporations has doomed us to another boom-bust-and-bailout economic crash down the road.
Obama campaigned on the theme "Change you can believe in" and the White House likes to tout it's slogan of "building new foundations". But to build a "new foundation", you first have to tear down the crumbling, obsolete structure that is sitting on it. And in every single case, instead of "change", President Obama has deliberately chosen to try to shore up the existing structures, adding a little temporary bracing and giving them new coats of paint, rather than tear them down -- or even to try to make the case for tearing them down.
Wall Street is the same as it was before it nearly destroyed the world's economy. The Democrats' health care reform has locked the country into the for-profit health care system that will eventually bankrupt us. And, Solyndra notwithstanding, the administration has offered little but lip service to the idea of moving the country toward a sustainable, carbon-free energy structure.
I'm not arguing that Obama should have accomplished all these things. Each will take decades of commitment. But we can't even get started on these absolutely necessary "foundational" changes until someone starts making the case for them.
President Obama has both the misfortune and the opportunity to be president at a turning point in history. For better or worse, his can't be a caretaker administration. We need Obama to be the transitional leader that we thought we were electing. If he doesn't, then history will point to his administration as a wasted last chance to preserve America's position of global primacy and the beginning of the domination of another nation.
BrklynLibrul on November 27, 2011 10:24 AM:
Make no mistake: I'll vote for Obama again. And I'm sympathetic to the notion that he doest get enough credit for his accomplishments. Butthe idea that his critics on the left are simpering, self-indulgent children pisses me off no end.
I'm the parent of a severely disabled toddler, one who relies on a Medicaid voucher program -- the brain child of that flaming liberal, Ronald Reagan, by the way -- for his profound medical needs. (My private insurer has virtually cut him off from coverage, as his care is so expensive.) I still can't quite believe that Obama and the Dems have again and again tried to strike a Grand Bargain with the GOP, one that calls for deep cuts to the social safety net and literally puts my son's life at risk. Vile. Obots like Benen and Kristof don't have any skin in the game, so that can't begin to fathom how offensive the austerity/Grand Bargain rhetoric is to those of us who understand too well the importance of strong, vital government.
I can only hope and pray that something really, really, really horrible happens to someone Steve Benen loves. Maybe then he'll see the president's words and deeds in a new light.
c4Logic on November 27, 2011 10:34 AM:
I strongly encourage two thought experiments:
Extrapolate the actions and future consequences of a 2nd Obama term.
Extrapolate the actions and future consequences of any of the current crop of sociopathic Republican candidates.
Either of these two outcomes is going to be the only choice we have. None of the rest of it matters. You don't vote for a candidate to send a message or express frustration, you vote for a possible outcome. Any serious minded individual should be capable of seeing the wide gap between these two possible futures. Everybody needs to get smart. More light, less heat.
Bernard HP Gilroy on November 27, 2011 10:44 AM:
BrklynLibrul on November 27, 2011 10:24 AM:
>> I can only hope and pray that something really, really, really horrible happens to someone Steve Benen loves. Maybe then he'll see the president's words and deeds in a new light.
Really? You pray for something awful to happen to someone else, just so that they can see politics through the same lens you do? I don't often say this but that is sick. It's also why politics in this country have become so toxic and why forward progress is impossible. I would associate that kind of mental myopia more with the other side, and it terrifies me that it's creeping into the left as well.
BrklynLibrul on November 27, 2011 10:57 AM:
My child's life hangs in the balance. It's incredibly important for cheerleaders like Benen to understand why I have a huge problem with Obama's Grand Bargain and why I resent being told to clap louder.
Mikekinseattle on November 27, 2011 11:04 AM:
What SteveT said.
SteveT on November 27, 2011 11:04 AM:
Bernard HP Gilroy said:
It's also why politics in this country have become so toxic and why forward progress is impossible. I would associate that kind of mental myopia more with the other side, and it terrifies me that it's creeping into the left as well.
It is the voice of desperation -- a voice that is becoming more common as the effects of the past 30 years of Republican policies are being felt by almost everyone.
Desperate people don't have the luxury of being able to think rationally about things. They react -- sometimes in ways that are counterproductive.
And that's why the Obama campaign focusing on how things are getting better is dangerous. It just makes Obama seem out of touch to millions of Americans whose lives aren't getting better.
There is an old saying, "Desperate times call for desperate measures." Millions of Americans are experiencing desperate times. Their frustration with Obama is that they don't see the slightest indication that Obama is willing to take desperate measures on their behalf. So many of them are going to lash out and vote to "throw the bums out" like they did in 2010. They are reacting -- figuring that since they're already close to losing their homes and their retirement, that things can't get any worse.
The voters in the Weimar Republic probably felt the same way.
SteveT on November 27, 2011 11:10 AM:
BrklynLibrul:
Re-reading what I just wrote, if it sounds at all like I was being condescending to your plight and how you are reacting to it, I didn't mean it that way.
Barbara O'Brien on November 27, 2011 11:24 AM:
"My child's life hangs in the balance. It's incredibly important for cheerleaders like Benen to understand why I have a huge problem with Obama's Grand Bargain and why I resent being told to clap louder."
First, while I don't always agree with the President, I do see that the single biggest reason he's had to compromise on most issues is that there have not been enough progressive votes in Congress to pass the legislation he proposes. This was true even before the midterm loss, since a big contingent of Blue Dogs voted with Republicans more than not. Presidents really cannot wave magic wands and make things happen if Congress doesn't vote for it.
Second, you don't say specifically how it is that the President's policies have put your child at risk. Frankly, it makes no sense to me that you think this way. Unless you can provide a specific reason, I assume you are just lashing out at the biggest target, whether he's really to blame or not.
You don't have to clap at all if you don't want to. But as someone said upthread -- if you think you're bad off now, just help put some right-wing sociopath in office and see how that works for you.
Barbara O'Brien on November 27, 2011 11:29 AM:
"Millions of Americans are experiencing desperate times. Their frustration with Obama is that they don't see the slightest indication that Obama is willing to take desperate measures on their behalf. So many of them are going to lash out and vote to "throw the bums out" like they did in 2010. They are reacting -- figuring that since they're already close to losing their homes and their retirement, that things can't get any worse.
"The voters in the Weimar Republic probably felt the same way."
Well, as your last sentence implies, things CAN get worse. There is no bottom to "worse," actually.
But if your argument is that we can't point out what the President has gotten right because that will hurt his re-election chances, I think the argument needs some work.
TommybonesT on November 27, 2011 11:29 AM:
I'm tired of these pro-Obama pieces, which praise the trees even as the forest burns to the ground. Are we better off, more progressive now, then we were after three years of Bush? No. So the overall, big-picture trend is still on a downward, rightward trajectory. We can applaud Obama's accomplishments all we want, but it amounts to celebrating a few battles won, even as we are ultimately losing the war, and losing it badly.
Wake up.
Swift Loris on November 27, 2011 11:38 AM:
What Steve T said.
Yup. And another existential problem is the continuing erosion of the Constitution, in terms of civil liberties and the extension of executive power that began under Bush-Cheney, both of which Obama had promised to reverse during his presidential campaign but has only exacerbated in office.
Tommybones on November 27, 2011 11:49 AM:
Ditto Steve t.
BrklynLibrul on November 27, 2011 11:52 AM:
Again, just to be clear, I worked my butt off for the President in '08 and will vote for him again next November. And I sincerely believe he doesn't get enough base-love for his accomplishments.
That said, he's put the social safety net in jeopardy, something I never thought I'd ever hear from a Democratic president. I'm not exactly sure why. I've watched and listened to him for three years, and I can only reach one conclusion: he doesn't really care too much about government programs that support the poor, the elderly and the disabled. More importantly, he believes mainstream voters, too, could care less about the poor, the elderly and the disabled. In this regard the president is no different from the vast majority of Washington Democrats.
And therein lies the genius of today's GOP -- they've recognized that the Democratic establishment has disavowed its own base, at least in terms of fiscal policy, and have successfully driven a wedge between elected Democrats and their own voters. And they know that Very Serious Center-Left Pundits will tell their readers, over and over, to clap louder. So I view columns from Obots like Kristof and Benen as disingenuous. Their fatuous praise of the administration is designed to enhance access and thus to advance their own careers, which is all they care about -- they could care less than a rat's hiney about the welfare of medically fragile children like mine.
Wake up, neolibs -- lives are at stake here.
SteveT on November 27, 2011 12:02 PM:
Barbara O'Brien said:
Well, as your last sentence implies, things CAN get worse. There is no bottom to "worse," actually.
But if your argument is that we can't point out what the President has gotten right because that will hurt his re-election chances, I think the argument needs some work.
I was talking about how desperate people can behave irrationally and counterproductively, lashing out in order to do something.
And I'm not saying that Obama can't point out his accomplishments. But the first words out of his mouth for the next year have to be, "Things really, really suck right now for way too many Americans."
Then, in the same breath he needs to continue with, "But if you think that voting for Republicans is going to help, then you have completely forgotten how bad things were in 2008 when you elected me."
Then, after he tells us what else he plans to do to makes things better, Obama can list his accomplishments.
TCinLA on November 27, 2011 12:50 PM:
Just about every one of the things Kristof praises Obama for, Obama did under the pressure of his base, pushing him to go further than he wanted to, even if the result was a tenth of a loaf, not even half. Given that Obama is really a moderate Republican if we were to go back to some sane rational time like maybe 30 years ago or so to look at what the lines were then, there is only one way we are going to get anything progressive out of this guy, and that is to make clear to him that if he wants to be a two-term President, he'd best start acting like our President instead of the President of the one percent. And guess what? When I was fund-raising for him earlier this year, he wasn't doing that well over the summer while he was being reported as willing to sell the family jewels. But when he got the message and started campaigning as he has been since Labor Day, he did a whole lot better in fund-raising among the base donors (i.e., not the fat cats).
Yes, we can celebrate what has been achieved, but if we don't keep him under our pressure, there's going to be little past that that will be achieved. Everyone expected him to approve the Keystone XL since it seemed like the kind of thing he would do, it was pressure from the base that changed that. That's a good example of what has to continue. And once he is re-elected, he needs to be constantly reminded that if he wants to see his legacy protected by a Democratic victory in 2016, that he has to keep working.
BrklynLibrul - you need to get your message to the White House directly. We all do.
Barbara O'Brien on November 27, 2011 12:59 PM:
"That said, he's put the social safety net in jeopardy, something I never thought I'd ever hear from a Democratic president."
OBAMA didn't put the social safety net in jeopardy. The social safety net has been systematically shredded over the past 30 years, and the Clinton Administration contributed to the shredding even more than Obama has, I'd say. Welfare reform, anyone? And Clinton cheerfully signed the repeal of Glass–Steagall, which made the financial crisis possible. Where is your outrage about that?
And now the situation is that there are armies of moneyed interests entrenched in Washington protecting the interests of the rich, and presidents have to negotiate with that, like it or not. He might not have to negotiate if he had the same majority of like-minded Democrats in Congress that FDR enjoyed, but the fact is that between the Republicans and the Blue Dogs, genuinely progressive Dems were a voting minority, especially in the Senate, even from 2008 to 2010, never mind now.
And as long as that's the case, you could reconstitute FDR himself and put him in the White House, and little would change.
Obama has to function within that political reality, because it's bigger than he is. That's the truth of it that you fail to see. And that's why the foaming at the mouth outrage directed at Obama alone is misplaced. Yeah, he's done some things that I thought were mistakes, too. And you could argue he could have been more skillful or more assertive sometimes. But to incessantly single Obama out for all the blame for the state of affairs we're in is illogical and unhelpful.
zandru on November 27, 2011 1:08 PM:
TCinLA has it exactly right. If we want President Obama to "listen to his base", we need to be constantly telling him what that base wants. Otherwise, all he hears is the DC echo chamber, a reactionary, near-royalist cadre of the overly privileged talking heads, lobbyists, and incumbents.
The problem of "the unheard base" which many are expressing so eloquently here is a really big deal. You're disappointed now, so why continue to support this guy? Taking the longer view seems impossible.
Consider doing what the wingnutters do - yell your demands PRIVATELY to your elected officials, while PUBLICALLY giving them your full support. That makes the lazy news media believe so & so is beloved by his base - and that increases the number of people stepping up to support him.
Remember, unless you want, REALLY WANT, President Gingrich or Perry or Cain or Bachmann or Romney and a matching Republican majority in both Houses of Congress - you just need to hold your nose and pass along your demands on the QT. I'm sorry if this kind of "dishonesty" is upsetting. To me, it's no worse than telling a small child that her drawing is beautiful or failing to confirm that the little woman looks fat in that dress.
Barbara O'Brien on November 27, 2011 1:11 PM:
"Given that Obama is really a moderate Republican if we were to go back to some sane rational time like maybe 30 years ago or so to look at what the lines were then,"
There have always been wingnuts in the GOP, but if you go back 40 and 50 years you might have an argument. But you could say exactly the same thing about Bill Clinton and Jimmy Carter. They both represented a big turn to the Right from where the Dems were during the days of the New Deal coalition. The coalition died in the 1970s after LBJ (not entirely his fault), and ever since then no "liberal" Dem has come anywhere close to being elected to the White House. The more liberal Dem nominees lost by landslides, in fact.
And all of a sudden, you're just now noticing that the President isn't as liberal as FDR and Truman and Kennedy? Please. The Dems were pulled Right when the New Deal coalition imploded way back when, and nothing new came along to take its place.
It's like everybody's been sleeping for 40 years and just woke up and blame Obama for everything that's happened since the Fall of Saigon.
BrklynLibrul on November 27, 2011 1:19 PM:
At the time Clinton pushed welfare reform, I was indeed outraged, and hold him and his fellow Corporate-o-crats responsible for their contributions to our current fiscal mess. And I certainly don't blame Obama alone. But he is the titular head of the Democratic party, and he can use his bully pulpit to say "Not a penny of cuts until taxes on the super-affluent have been raised to Clinton-era levels -- 39% of income. Not a penny on cuts to Medicare or Medicaid until we've raised taxes on the rich, maybe even to 45% of income, half of what they were during the Eisenhower years. And if the GOP refuses, I'll kick their butts on behalf of the American people. Again, cuts to the safety net over my dead body."
Maybe his public veto threat over the trigger repeal will achieve a comparable goal of communicating to middle- and working-class Americans that he's fighting for them, but somehow I suspect he and the rest of the Dems will cave on defense cuts. We've all seen this movie dozens of times. Leon Panetta is already leading the charge.
Words matter. All too often the President has chosen to cast his lot with the 1%. The same goes for the majority of national Dems. (I'm looking at you, Chuck Schumer and Andrew Cuomo.) Whatever, we can have those debates at the ballot box. But the thing that pisses me off most of all is when Beltway sycophants like Benen lecture me about my discontent, which is rooted in a very real life-or-death struggle.
LJL on November 27, 2011 1:24 PM:
I doubt both the intellect and sincerity of those "libruls" who continually snipe at Obama. They are intellectually impaired because somehow they have convinced themselves that America is a progressive social democracy. America isn't. If it were the country would have eagerly gotten universal health care a century ago, instead the majority of Americans have fought against it (Truman who tried in mid-Century was kicked out, and Johnson who got Medicare for the elderly was kicked out too) but Obama got the ACA passed. Their sincerity is called into question because they unwaveringly call for withholding votes from Obama (on the dubious grounds that maybe somehow the electorate would immediately vote for Social Democracy) so a Republican can win in 2012. I happen to believe you have to judge people on what they do and not on what they say. And what too many of these "libruls" are trying to do is get people not to vote for Obama. If it weren't for their loud insistence that they are staunch "libruls" you would really think they were all a bunch of T-publicans.
Golden CIty on November 27, 2011 1:57 PM:
LJL, this is the nut of the argument that I always come back to with the 3rd partiers/Naderites/etc. If US citizens wanted a social democracy, they would vote for one, but they don't. The argument that they would vote for a social democracy if they actually knew what it was seems a bit out of touch with the reality of our media and the facts on the ground of the New Guilded Age. The most liberal offerings for president by the Democratic party in the last 40 years have gone down in flames, but it seems like the far left and progressives would rather have a purity contest that guarantees the Republicans take the presidency, the House, and the Senate. It's hard to see how anything progressive comes out of that equation. It is easy to see how things get a lot, lot worse.
I am reminded of an anarchist friend's comment. He prefers voting to make the social and political situation as bad as it can possibly be in order to "highlight the contradictions"; last summer he was giddy at the thought that he could be voting for a President Palin. This "contradictions" idea is a nice way of saying making life so bad for everyone that those intellectually lazy idiots known as The Public will finally see that he and his buddies are right. Not only do I find that to be a punitive approach, the level of required suffering by the masses in order to attone for their prior lack of revolutionary fervor seems a bit Killing Fields-ish. I'm sure the majority will happily vote for that (yeah, right).
An anarchic political structure is working at OWS encampments because the groups are small and generally of a like mind; the idea that this can be scaled up to the size of the entire US flies in the face of every prior utopian movements' lack of success.
Barbara O'Brien on November 27, 2011 2:20 PM:
"But he is the titular head of the Democratic party, and he can use his bully pulpit to say 'Not a penny of cuts until taxes on the super-affluent have been raised to Clinton-era levels -- 39% of income. Not a penny on cuts to Medicare or Medicaid until we've raised taxes on the rich, maybe even to 45% of income, half of what they were during the Eisenhower years. And if the GOP refuses, I'll kick their butts on behalf of the American people. Again, cuts to the safety net over my dead body.'"
That's grand, but the reality is that unless the President has a majority in Congress willing to back him up on that, he'd be pissing in the wind. And the Republicans know that. They'd just say, "dead body? that can be arranged."
Words matter, but words don't mean squat if they can't be backed up, and Obama doesn't have the support in Congress to back up much. That was true in 2008 to 2010, and now it's doubly true since idiot "progressives" sat on their hands in 2010 and let the wingnuts take back the House.
This argument always comes down to progressives angry at Obama because they don't understand the role of presidents vis a vis Congress or how things happen in Washington.
(He'll "kick their butts"? What do you propose he do, sick the White House dog on them?)
zandru on November 27, 2011 2:56 PM:
@BrklynLibrul, you probably don't care to get more advice, but...
It sounds like you have A Situation which could be political gold to Democrats: the President, your Congressman & Senator, etc. Any of them could hold up Your Child as an example of (1) who exactly would suffer from eroding the social safety net, (2) the failure of Private Industry (in whose name we pray).
The big question: is he/she cute? Failing that, could the child be made to appear so?
My unsolicited advice is to start writing the appropriate letters to your elected officials, describing your situation. Enclose photos, if they can be made to look cute enough. (If not, just settle for text.) Seriously - the parties and candidates actually solicit this stuff. Perhaps you can help one another.
HMDK on November 27, 2011 3:30 PM:
Golden CIty said:
"LJL, this is the nut of the argument that I always come back to with the 3rd partiers/Naderites/etc. If US citizens wanted a social democracy, they would vote for one, but they don't."
Assuming they knew the facts, they might.
"The argument that they would vote for a social democracy if they actually knew what it was seems a bit out of touch with the reality of our media and the facts on the ground of the New Guilded Age."
No, actually.
The opposite, you loon.
The american public are being continually tol that they should have sympathy for the rich and powerfull.
"The most liberal offerings for president by the Democratic party in the last 40 years have gone down in flames, but it seems like the far left and progressives would rather have a purity contest that guarantees the Republicans take the presidency, the House, and the Senate. It's hard to see how anything progressive comes out of that equation. It is easy to see how things get a lot, lot worse."
Indeed.
Let the supposed "left" move even further to the right.
Sell out more ideals, because the republicans are always worse. Which is true. But it isn't helping. If you're continually lobbing off pieces of what you claim to stand for, if only to delay a worse fate/party in power, then you're fighting a losing holding action and the opposittion is winning anyway.
"I am reminded of an anarchist friend's comment. He prefers voting to make the social and political situation as bad as it can possibly be in order to "highlight the contradictions"; last summer he was giddy at the thought that he could be voting for a President Palin. This "contradictions" idea is a nice way of saying making life so bad for everyone that those intellectually lazy idiots known as The Public will finally see that he and his buddies are right. Not only do I find that to be a punitive approach, the level of required suffering by the masses in order to attone for their prior lack of revolutionary fervor seems a bit Killing Fields-ish. I'm sure the majority will happily vote for that (yeah, right)."
Yes, anarchists are a huge... huh?
Oh, you're trying to make a childish comparison!
"An anarchic political structure is working at OWS encampments because the groups are small and generally of a like mind; the idea that this can be scaled up to the size of the entire US flies in the face of every prior utopian movements' lack of success."
It's not utopian if it actually exists somewhere else.
Social democracy, for example, isn't utopia.
exlibra on November 27, 2011 6:10 PM:
If US citizens wanted a social democracy, they would vote for one, but they don't."
Assuming they knew the facts, they might. -- HMDK, @3:30PM, in response to Golden City, @1:57PM
You know, HMDK, that (they'd love it, if only they knew how good it was for them) is the very same argument USSR was pushing. For 70 long years. And the damned public just refused to effing learn, no matter how much punishment the teachers meted out to help out with the learning.
What makes you think that American public is that much quicker to learn than Russians (and Poles and Czechs, and the rest of us, poor "Demo-peeps") had been?
Doug on November 27, 2011 7:27 PM:
I'd like to thank Barbara O'Brien for her excellent posts providing factual background for the political occurrences of the past three years; ie, votes, you either have 'em or you don't.
BrklynLibrul, I realize the phrase "11 dimensional chess" is now considered a joke, but did it ever cross your mind that the "Grand Bargain" was made by Democrats who knew full well it wasn't acceptable to the Republican House caucus? That ANY deal containing tax increases wouldn't be acceptable to the House Republicans would only require thinking one step ahead of Boehner and Nancy Pelosi is fully capable of THAT! The same applies to the workings of the "Super Committee", Democrats could make proposals affecting SS/Medicare/Medicaid while knowing full well that, as long as they remained united on tax increases, the committee would fail.
Or succeed, depending on your viewpoint...
BrklynLibrul on November 27, 2011 7:51 PM:
Why, yes, Doug, that thought crossed my mind, but given the Dems' performance during the debt ceiling debacle, when they gave John Boehner 98% of what he wanted, I'm none too hopeful that they've gamed this out in the ways you suggest. And fyi, Nancy Pelosi, God love her, has no power in the current Congress.
Judging from Senator Toomey's comments today, and from McCain and Graham's comments earlier this week, the GOP is going full throttle to 1) defuse the defense cuts part of the trigger; and 2) shift the deficit reduction there to (you guessed it!) Medicaid, Medicare, and SS. The President issued a strong veto warning but the Republicans are betting they can force him to cave, once they've peeled away Manchin, McCaskell, Lieberman, Tester, Baucus, Ben Nelson, Mark Pryor and possibly Bill Nelson in the Senate. Once they've accomplished this -- zero additional revenue from tax increases on the wealthy, draconian cuts to the safety net (which remains the greatest Democratic achievement of the 20th century, not that our current Dems give a shit), making the Bush tax cuts permanent -- the Republicans will be all primed for next summer's Supreme Court ruling that will declare healthcare reform unconstitutional.
Again, if the Democratic party stands for anything, it stands for these three pillars: 1) strong commitments to Medicaid, Medicare, and SS, including increased taxes on the affluent to finances these programs; 2) expansion of civil rights to protect minorities; 3) internationalism in foreign affairs. Anything short of this, you might as well form a third party (call it the Friedman-Broder party) or change your voter affiliation.
Doug, your faith in the Democrats may well be misplaced. I hope and pray I'm wrong, but I've seen this movie dozens of times.
jjm on November 28, 2011 10:35 AM:
The chief complaint against Obama was his attempt at the 'grand bargain.'
Most here do not have any sense at all of the politics that it set off.
Obama knew the GOP wouldn't take it -- and he came off as the one seeking compromise, and getting slapped in the face for it.
On the 98% of what Boehner wanted: the result? NOTHING GOOD--lowered credit rating, 0 job growth. People know what that meant. 98% of what the GOP wants stinks for them.
Why didn't they take it? My sense is that the GOP had a huge amount of hubris after the 2010 midterms. They have ASSUMED that Obama is toast, and they needn't lift one little finger to do anything at all to coast to an E-Z win.
So they have truly fiddled while Rome burned.
I cannot see giving them any more power.
SYSPROG on November 28, 2011 10:58 AM:
BrklynLibrul...wow. You actually listen/believe what the GOP says. It just shows the power of the 'message'. They are LIARS. Boner says he got '98%' of what he wanted. What about what WE got? We got plenty. For 'libruls' like you NOTHING is good enough. It's always that the other guys got MORE....as history has showed (even in the last THREE years) Obama has done plenty of good (see Kristof's column) but that will never be GOOD ENOUGH if you listen to the liars. Why don't you try listening to the FACTS.
Mnemosyne on November 28, 2011 4:32 PM:
Why, yes, Doug, that thought crossed my mind, but given the Dems' performance during the debt ceiling debacle, when they gave John Boehner 98% of what he wanted, I'm none too hopeful that they've gamed this out in the ways you suggest.
Except that the "98%" that Boehner wanted was to kick the can down the road to the Supercommittee and not actually have to deal with the debt ceiling problem, and that's all he got. None of Boehner's proposed cuts to entitlement programs like Medicare/Medicaid actually happened. In fact, since really all the Republicans asked for was a dollar amount, the administration squeezed the number out of programs that were already out of the budget like the 2010 Census.
Republicans love to get up in public and brag about how they got everything they wanted, but it's all hot air. You should know that by now. They couldn't admit they got pwned by the Democrats because the freshman Republicans didn't know how to read a budget so they ran around telling the Village that they totally got everything they wanted.