New Developments III
Tee, I hope you watched Rachel tonight. The great Ohio senator Sherrod Brown explained that what was so infuriating about the White House Wuss wasn't so much the end resulat but rather that he capitulated too soon. His point was that if the Democrats pushed the issue every day and if Obama had gone into states where a Republican senator is up for re-election in 2012 and kept pounding the unemployment insurance issue, eventually -- fearing the wrath of their constituents --several Repugs would have crossed over for the unemployed. Plus the fact that something like 3/4 of the country wanted the breaks for the top tier to expire.
"Y'know, that's one of the things I like about Mitt Romney. He's been consistent since he changed his mind." -- Christine O'Donnell
The big difference is it does not appear that the economy will head up the way it did after '82 and '94. If the economy does not pick up substantially, and specifically if there is not the creation of a massive number of jobs, I don't think Obama, or any incumbent President, will have a chance to be reelected in 2012.Mister Tee wrote:You might go back and research the periods just after the '82 and '94 midterms; you'll find there were equally gloomy assessments (often by the same pundits) of the road ahead. Yet each of the two presidents involved was re-elected resoundingly two years later.
-
Mister Tee
- Tenured Laureate
- Posts: 8672
- Joined: Wed Jan 01, 2003 2:57 pm
- Location: NYC
- Contact:
I'm not befuddled at all. I've come to see, over the past two years, that many liberals would rather expire on the battlefield than win a negotiated peace on less than perfect terms.taki15 wrote:Ezra Klein might have the answer to Mister Tee's befuddlement on why liberals are furious with Obama.
And I don't know where Ezra was ALL FUCKING SUMMER, when Barack was out making the argument every day that Dems should extend the middle class cuts only. Was that not fighting? Why aren't people blaming the Congressional Dems who were terrified of bringing it to a vote, and laying it all on the guy whose position was clear?
Ezra Klein might have the answer to Mister Tee's befuddlement on why liberals are furious with Obama.
http://voices.washingtonpost.com/ezra-kl....de.html
...
Which brings us to the liberals. My conversations with various progressives over the past 24 hours have convinced me that the problem is less the specifics of the deal -- though liberals legitimately dislike the tax cuts for the rich, and rightly point out that Obama swore to let them expire -- than the way in which it was reached. Put simply, Obama and the Democrats didn't fight for them. There were no veto threats or serious effort to take the case to the public.
Instead, the White House disappeared into a closed room with the Republicans and cut a deal that they'd made no effort to sell to progressives. When the deal was cut, the president took an oblique shot at their preferences, saying "the American people didn’t send us here to wage symbolic battles or win symbolic victories." And this came a mere week or two after the White House announced a federal pay freeze. The pattern, for progressives, seems clear: The White House uses them during elections, but doesn't listen to, or consult them, while governing. In fact, it insults them, and then tells them to quiet down, they got the best bargain possible, even if it wasn't the one they'd asked for, or been promised.
If you're worried about stimulus, joblessness and the working poor, this is probably a better deal than you thought you were going to get. "It’s a bigger deal than anyone expected," says Bob Greenstein, president of the Center on Budget and Policy Priorities. "Both sides gave more expected and both sides got more than expected." The White House walked out of the negotiations with more stimulus than anyone had seen coming. But they did it in a way that made their staunchest allies feel left behind, and in many cases, utterly betrayed.
That the Obama administration has turned out to be fairly good at the inside Washington game of negotiations and legislative compromise and quite bad at communicating to the public and keeping their base excited is not what most would have predicted during the 2008 campaign. But it's true.
I guess Obama's rant today against "progressive purists" that reject the deal isn't going to make him more popular among his base.
http://voices.washingtonpost.com/ezra-kl....de.html
...
Which brings us to the liberals. My conversations with various progressives over the past 24 hours have convinced me that the problem is less the specifics of the deal -- though liberals legitimately dislike the tax cuts for the rich, and rightly point out that Obama swore to let them expire -- than the way in which it was reached. Put simply, Obama and the Democrats didn't fight for them. There were no veto threats or serious effort to take the case to the public.
Instead, the White House disappeared into a closed room with the Republicans and cut a deal that they'd made no effort to sell to progressives. When the deal was cut, the president took an oblique shot at their preferences, saying "the American people didn’t send us here to wage symbolic battles or win symbolic victories." And this came a mere week or two after the White House announced a federal pay freeze. The pattern, for progressives, seems clear: The White House uses them during elections, but doesn't listen to, or consult them, while governing. In fact, it insults them, and then tells them to quiet down, they got the best bargain possible, even if it wasn't the one they'd asked for, or been promised.
If you're worried about stimulus, joblessness and the working poor, this is probably a better deal than you thought you were going to get. "It’s a bigger deal than anyone expected," says Bob Greenstein, president of the Center on Budget and Policy Priorities. "Both sides gave more expected and both sides got more than expected." The White House walked out of the negotiations with more stimulus than anyone had seen coming. But they did it in a way that made their staunchest allies feel left behind, and in many cases, utterly betrayed.
That the Obama administration has turned out to be fairly good at the inside Washington game of negotiations and legislative compromise and quite bad at communicating to the public and keeping their base excited is not what most would have predicted during the 2008 campaign. But it's true.
I guess Obama's rant today against "progressive purists" that reject the deal isn't going to make him more popular among his base.
-
Mister Tee
- Tenured Laureate
- Posts: 8672
- Joined: Wed Jan 01, 2003 2:57 pm
- Location: NYC
- Contact:
I cautioned everyone to avoid reading political analysis for a while, but it seems as if you've all decided to wallow in it instead. You might go back and research the periods just after the '82 and '94 midterms; you'll find there were equally gloomy assessments (often by the same pundits) of the road ahead. Yet each of the two presidents involved was re-elected resoundingly two years later. Which suggests the stuff you're reading now is of minimal predictive value.
This "primary challenge" idea is perennially popular with pundits, so no surprise it's now a blogger favorite. I wish few would point out how, over the last century, it's been a 100% counter-productive tactic. 1912, '52, '68, '76, '80 -- all featured primary challenges to incumbents, and all resulted in the party losing the White House. Democrats might particularly want to look at the results their party has achieved: Kefauver challenged Truman in '52, leading to the first GOP president in 20 years -- though at least it was Eisenhower, who'd qualify as left-of-center Democrat today. '68's outcome was less fortuitous, as the McCarthy challenge led to the odious Nixon. Even Nixon, of course, leaned left compared to Reagan, whose election followed the 1980 Kennedy challenge. And, of course, the last time the left decided the Democratic candidate was insufficiently liberal, they threw votes to Ralph Nader, helping enable the worst/furthest-right president of my lifetime. But, you know, I'm sure if there's just ONE MORE intra-party challenge, this one'll actually move the country in a more liberal direction.
Anyway, I think it's all wishful thinking on the part of a loud but statistically small segment of the party (given that polling still shows Barack with near 80% support from liberals). For starters, who's out there who's going to take the fateful step of declaring a candidacy? And is he/she prepared for eternal scorn from not only the party establishment, but, I'd presume, upwards of 85% of African-American voters (without whom no Democrat can win)?
For the record: if anyone wants to bet against Obama's re-election, I'll take the wager today.
As to the specific circumstance that's brought about this latest round of moaning: Of course none of us is happy to see tax cuts for the rich extended. But putting the blame for that all on the president is, to me, being blind to reality. Blame the Congressional Democrats -- the White House pushed them to vote on it prior to the election, when their hand was stronger, and they balked. Blame the voters, who rewarded the GOP for two years of unconscionable behavior by giving them control of the House -- meaning whatever could be worked out now would be the best outcome available. And blame the Republicans, whose willing-to-burn-the-country-to-the-ground nihilism gives them an upper hand in any negotiation (I've heard them compared to a spouse in an ugly divorce, who's willing to lose everything as long as he/she is certain the partner will also be miserable). And throw in the press, for failing to adequately explain/report on any of this for the past two years.
A big blog complaint today is that Obama is going back on a campaign promise by letting these tax cuts continue. This is true. But he'd also be going back on a promise if he left the middle-class cuts expire. And, the situation being what it is -- with the GOP united in intransigence -- there exists no way to separate the two. The position of a great many of the outraged seems to be, if Obama had just been willing to let them all expire, the Republicans would have backed down. I see no evidence for this beyond wishfulness. I think Republicans would have been thrilled to let them all go, spend two years denouncing Obama as The Great Tax Raiser, and then, upon regaining the White House in '12, re-instating the upper income cuts.
Obama had a weak hand here because, as Nate Silver has pointed out, while keeping the middle class cuts and letting the upper bracket cuts go was the most popular position, letting all the cuts expire was in fact the LEAST popular. Besides, doing that was massively anti-stimulative, at a time when the economy is still clearly wobbly. Taking money out of middle-class pockets in such a period is almost certain to hurt overall growth. Nonetheless, much of the same crowd that was all for killing the health care bill (because they had perfectly good health care) wanted Barack to mount a goal-line stand for the sheer optics of fighting.
Obama, we know by now, doesn't believe in that. He thinks achieving something is preferable to symbolic defeat. We'll have to wait for history to render a judgment on his approach. For now, I'd argue that, if you presume there was no alternative to having some negotiation, he got more out of this than I'd expected -- particularly regarding the extension of unemployment benefits and the payroll tax holidays. These are not just important developments for millions of Americans...they're also economically stimulative policies liberals have long advocated, and could be key for the near-term future. The GOP is certain to block any other attempts to boost the economy over the next two years, hoping against hope for a recession that swings the election. The best hope for Democrats, from Obama on down, is for the economy to revive enough that Obama is re-elected and brings in down-ballot Democrats with him. A world with a re-elected Obama, a Democratic Congress and a non-rickety economy is a place where tax cuts on the rich can be eliminated with substantially less difficulty. So, the things decided in the last 24 hours, while they no doubt feel like a setback, may have set the stage for a more progressive future.
There's also the question of whether other desired goals -- the START treaty, the DREAM act, the defense bill authorization including repeal of Don't Ask Don't Tell -- can now be dealt with prior to the Christmas adjournment. It's possible none will. Phony centrists like Susan Collins seem prepared to try parliamentary tricks to push consideration past deadline. But Reid and the gang appear to be trying to push ahead anyway -- something at which they'd have been utterly stymied had the GOP maintained its "Nothing else till tax cuts.are renewed" posture. If even one of these item passes, the Democrats and administration are further ahead of the game.
This is not to try and argue the country's in great position. Republicans are still ruthless and about to get 50% control of Congress; Democrats are still candy-asses averse to even hugely popular stances if they fear they bear the taint of "liberalism". Everyone would rather be moving forward at a faster clip, feeling like the wind was at our backs rather than in our faces. And the media environment remains a nightmare. But this is where we are, and we have to come to grips with that. Whatever disappointments the last two years have brought -- and they're many -- I have reason to regret my presidential vote of '08. In fact, I'd love to hear someone explain specifically how someone else would have done a better job leading the country than Obama has.
This "primary challenge" idea is perennially popular with pundits, so no surprise it's now a blogger favorite. I wish few would point out how, over the last century, it's been a 100% counter-productive tactic. 1912, '52, '68, '76, '80 -- all featured primary challenges to incumbents, and all resulted in the party losing the White House. Democrats might particularly want to look at the results their party has achieved: Kefauver challenged Truman in '52, leading to the first GOP president in 20 years -- though at least it was Eisenhower, who'd qualify as left-of-center Democrat today. '68's outcome was less fortuitous, as the McCarthy challenge led to the odious Nixon. Even Nixon, of course, leaned left compared to Reagan, whose election followed the 1980 Kennedy challenge. And, of course, the last time the left decided the Democratic candidate was insufficiently liberal, they threw votes to Ralph Nader, helping enable the worst/furthest-right president of my lifetime. But, you know, I'm sure if there's just ONE MORE intra-party challenge, this one'll actually move the country in a more liberal direction.
Anyway, I think it's all wishful thinking on the part of a loud but statistically small segment of the party (given that polling still shows Barack with near 80% support from liberals). For starters, who's out there who's going to take the fateful step of declaring a candidacy? And is he/she prepared for eternal scorn from not only the party establishment, but, I'd presume, upwards of 85% of African-American voters (without whom no Democrat can win)?
For the record: if anyone wants to bet against Obama's re-election, I'll take the wager today.
As to the specific circumstance that's brought about this latest round of moaning: Of course none of us is happy to see tax cuts for the rich extended. But putting the blame for that all on the president is, to me, being blind to reality. Blame the Congressional Democrats -- the White House pushed them to vote on it prior to the election, when their hand was stronger, and they balked. Blame the voters, who rewarded the GOP for two years of unconscionable behavior by giving them control of the House -- meaning whatever could be worked out now would be the best outcome available. And blame the Republicans, whose willing-to-burn-the-country-to-the-ground nihilism gives them an upper hand in any negotiation (I've heard them compared to a spouse in an ugly divorce, who's willing to lose everything as long as he/she is certain the partner will also be miserable). And throw in the press, for failing to adequately explain/report on any of this for the past two years.
A big blog complaint today is that Obama is going back on a campaign promise by letting these tax cuts continue. This is true. But he'd also be going back on a promise if he left the middle-class cuts expire. And, the situation being what it is -- with the GOP united in intransigence -- there exists no way to separate the two. The position of a great many of the outraged seems to be, if Obama had just been willing to let them all expire, the Republicans would have backed down. I see no evidence for this beyond wishfulness. I think Republicans would have been thrilled to let them all go, spend two years denouncing Obama as The Great Tax Raiser, and then, upon regaining the White House in '12, re-instating the upper income cuts.
Obama had a weak hand here because, as Nate Silver has pointed out, while keeping the middle class cuts and letting the upper bracket cuts go was the most popular position, letting all the cuts expire was in fact the LEAST popular. Besides, doing that was massively anti-stimulative, at a time when the economy is still clearly wobbly. Taking money out of middle-class pockets in such a period is almost certain to hurt overall growth. Nonetheless, much of the same crowd that was all for killing the health care bill (because they had perfectly good health care) wanted Barack to mount a goal-line stand for the sheer optics of fighting.
Obama, we know by now, doesn't believe in that. He thinks achieving something is preferable to symbolic defeat. We'll have to wait for history to render a judgment on his approach. For now, I'd argue that, if you presume there was no alternative to having some negotiation, he got more out of this than I'd expected -- particularly regarding the extension of unemployment benefits and the payroll tax holidays. These are not just important developments for millions of Americans...they're also economically stimulative policies liberals have long advocated, and could be key for the near-term future. The GOP is certain to block any other attempts to boost the economy over the next two years, hoping against hope for a recession that swings the election. The best hope for Democrats, from Obama on down, is for the economy to revive enough that Obama is re-elected and brings in down-ballot Democrats with him. A world with a re-elected Obama, a Democratic Congress and a non-rickety economy is a place where tax cuts on the rich can be eliminated with substantially less difficulty. So, the things decided in the last 24 hours, while they no doubt feel like a setback, may have set the stage for a more progressive future.
There's also the question of whether other desired goals -- the START treaty, the DREAM act, the defense bill authorization including repeal of Don't Ask Don't Tell -- can now be dealt with prior to the Christmas adjournment. It's possible none will. Phony centrists like Susan Collins seem prepared to try parliamentary tricks to push consideration past deadline. But Reid and the gang appear to be trying to push ahead anyway -- something at which they'd have been utterly stymied had the GOP maintained its "Nothing else till tax cuts.are renewed" posture. If even one of these item passes, the Democrats and administration are further ahead of the game.
This is not to try and argue the country's in great position. Republicans are still ruthless and about to get 50% control of Congress; Democrats are still candy-asses averse to even hugely popular stances if they fear they bear the taint of "liberalism". Everyone would rather be moving forward at a faster clip, feeling like the wind was at our backs rather than in our faces. And the media environment remains a nightmare. But this is where we are, and we have to come to grips with that. Whatever disappointments the last two years have brought -- and they're many -- I have reason to regret my presidential vote of '08. In fact, I'd love to hear someone explain specifically how someone else would have done a better job leading the country than Obama has.
I voted for Ted Kennedy in the 1980 primary and am more than willing to vote for someone on the left against the weak sister currently occupying the White House.Greg wrote:Dan Rather: Obama Could Get a Serious Primary Challenge in 2012
http://www.politicsdaily.com/2010....pponent
"Y'know, that's one of the things I like about Mitt Romney. He's been consistent since he changed his mind." -- Christine O'Donnell
-
Sonic Youth
- Tenured Laureate
- Posts: 8007
- Joined: Wed Jan 01, 2003 8:35 pm
- Location: USA
For once, I've got to defend the Democrats on this. I said months ago that unless by some miracle the Republicans lost their power to filibuster, they were going to hold the middle-class tax cuts hostage no matter what. It was inevitable. Last I heard, the Dems were working on a deal to keep the Bush tax cuts in exchange for extending unemployment benefits. Looks to me like they're doing a good job taking advantage of a piss-poor situation.
Edited By Sonic Youth on 1291677133
Edited By Sonic Youth on 1291677133
"What the hell?"
Win Butler
Win Butler
Dan Rather: Obama Could Get a Serious Primary Challenge in 2012
http://www.politicsdaily.com/2010....pponent
http://www.politicsdaily.com/2010....pponent
I read somewhere that Krugman's piece that I posted the other day and Rich's column of yesterday, might be a turning point of Obama's presidency. When it comes to liberal's frustration and anger the cat is out of the bag now and it's pretty obvious that unless something changes dramatically Obama will have to wage a two-front war during the next months.Damien wrote:In today's NY Times, Frank Rich wrote a devastating and sadly spot-on column about Obama's pathological obsession with bipartisanship and conciliation.
http://www.nytimes.com/2010....emc=rss
Add to that Tom Harkin's statement that "If Obama Caves On Taxes, He Better Pray For Palin In 2012" and the buzz about drafting Russ Feingold to mount a primary challenge against him and it's pretty obvious that the odds of even a mediocre Republican candidate stumbling into the White House increase every day.
-
Big Magilla
- Site Admin
- Posts: 19371
- Joined: Wed Jan 01, 2003 3:22 pm
- Location: Jersey Shore
Yes, we know, Taki quoted it in its entirety a few posts down.Damien wrote:In today's NY Times, Frank Rich wrote a devastating and sadly spot-on column about Obama's pathological obsession with bipartisanship and conciliation.
http://www.nytimes.com/2010....emc=rss
In today's NY Times, Frank Rich wrote a devastating and sadly spot-on column about Obama's pathological obsession with bipartisanship and conciliation.
http://www.nytimes.com/2010....emc=rss
http://www.nytimes.com/2010....emc=rss
"Y'know, that's one of the things I like about Mitt Romney. He's been consistent since he changed his mind." -- Christine O'Donnell
Sarah Palin, Mitt Romney, Bobby Jindal, Newt Gingrich, Tim Pawlenty, Mike Huckabee, Jeb Bush, Lindsey Graham, Hayley Barbour, Jim Demint, Scott Brown, Rick Perry?
I do not see Obama being beaten by any of them, despite Obama's best efforts to empower the GOP at the expense of the Democratic base. But the GOP has given every indication that they think it is a smart political strategy to demonize Obama and create gridlock over the next two years. Be patient, McConnell and Boehner will tell us. Once we get that evil commie Muslim out of the White House we can return to the quality of government we had during the GWB years. Sounds like a winning strategy?
One of the things that I find so amusing about the GOP's message is that its main point is: pay no attention to the way we governed four years ago when we had both houses of Congress and the White House. Put us in power and we will show you we have changed. This time, we will reduce the size of government, lower taxes for everyone, build up our national defense and intelligence community, improve our crumbling infrastructure, etc.
Well, I have seen the GOP leaders on the talking head shows for several weeks now and their explanations of how this will be accomplished boils down to "getting the federal government out of our lives" so that "the power and magic of the American people can be unleashed." Independents will see through that BS. And the GOP spends a lot of time and money demonizing the Democratic base to galvinize their own. The Latinos are in OUR country to deal drugs, live off welfare and behead law abiding productive American taxpayers. The only reason blacks are lagging behind other groups in the US is because they are just not as smart or hard working as white Americans. Claims of racism are typical whining.
Also, one way to improve the US economy is to put an end to the excessive salaries and benefits blue collar union workers are making. They blackmailed US industries to agree to these terrible contracts and it is time to break them. Conversly any attempt to reduce the salaries and benefits of corporate CEOs is interference of their contracts with the board of directors. And these CEOs are the geniuses and entrepeneurs who will lead us back to prosperity. It is far more important to take care of them than it is to improve the lives of ordinary Americans. I have even heard the term "trickle down" on recent talk shows.
There is little reason for progressives to be pleased with Obama. But I see even less reason for Independents to flock to the GOP or for progressives to sit out 2012.
Edited By kaytodd on 1291610210
I do not see Obama being beaten by any of them, despite Obama's best efforts to empower the GOP at the expense of the Democratic base. But the GOP has given every indication that they think it is a smart political strategy to demonize Obama and create gridlock over the next two years. Be patient, McConnell and Boehner will tell us. Once we get that evil commie Muslim out of the White House we can return to the quality of government we had during the GWB years. Sounds like a winning strategy?
One of the things that I find so amusing about the GOP's message is that its main point is: pay no attention to the way we governed four years ago when we had both houses of Congress and the White House. Put us in power and we will show you we have changed. This time, we will reduce the size of government, lower taxes for everyone, build up our national defense and intelligence community, improve our crumbling infrastructure, etc.
Well, I have seen the GOP leaders on the talking head shows for several weeks now and their explanations of how this will be accomplished boils down to "getting the federal government out of our lives" so that "the power and magic of the American people can be unleashed." Independents will see through that BS. And the GOP spends a lot of time and money demonizing the Democratic base to galvinize their own. The Latinos are in OUR country to deal drugs, live off welfare and behead law abiding productive American taxpayers. The only reason blacks are lagging behind other groups in the US is because they are just not as smart or hard working as white Americans. Claims of racism are typical whining.
Also, one way to improve the US economy is to put an end to the excessive salaries and benefits blue collar union workers are making. They blackmailed US industries to agree to these terrible contracts and it is time to break them. Conversly any attempt to reduce the salaries and benefits of corporate CEOs is interference of their contracts with the board of directors. And these CEOs are the geniuses and entrepeneurs who will lead us back to prosperity. It is far more important to take care of them than it is to improve the lives of ordinary Americans. I have even heard the term "trickle down" on recent talk shows.
There is little reason for progressives to be pleased with Obama. But I see even less reason for Independents to flock to the GOP or for progressives to sit out 2012.
Edited By kaytodd on 1291610210
The great thing in the world is not so much where we stand, as in what direction we are moving. It's faith in something and enthusiasm for something that makes a life worth living. Oliver Wendell Holmes
Big Magilla wrote:At this point I still think it likely that Obama will win re-election
That's a big assumption. The unemployment rate just went up to 9.8% and will not likely go down dramatically over the next year.
Aside from that he has a major problem in terms of keeping the coalition that brought him to office in the first place. He will have a tough time keeping Ohio in his column, along with other states that he won narrowly in 2008. He won't be able to rally independents to his side in the numbers they did in that year, nor will the former Bush voters who switched parties out of frustration with the Republican leadership. The freshness of Obama's candidacy is no longer something he can draw on, and neither are his once-exciting event appearances.
At this point, blocking his agenda (especially on several spending areas) will be viewed as a positive for Republicans in 2012. All of these things will be hard for President Obama to overcome. While an opponent like Sarah Palin might serve as a rallying call for Democrats, I'm not so sure that all independents would swing back to Obama. In any case, Palin is not guaranteed a spot on the next ticket and would rally Republicans even if she was. In 2012, that may not be such a bad thing for the GOP. The president now has a record and people are not currently very happy with his brand of governing. So yes, he CAN win re-election if he can somehow carve out narrow victories in some of those swing states that have been turning against him recently, but it will be much, much more difficult than it was in 2008 regardless of who runs against (short of a truly lousy campaigner like a Howard Dean or Fred Thompson).
____
Did a little research:
Ohio was won by Obama by 4.58%
Florida by 2.82%
Indiana by 1.04%
North Carolina by .32%
Ohio carried 20 electoral votes in 2008 (may be changed by the 2010 census).
Florida had 27, Indiana 11 and North Carolina 15.
By themselves, this group of states added up to 73 electoral votes.
Let's see. Obama's 365 minus 73 is 292, and McCain's 173 plus 73 is 246. That would make a narrow re-election for Obama, if no other states changed. However a number of states were won by Obama with less than 10% that could also switch, plus states like NY are expected to lose electoral votes while Texas is expected to gain from the census. So that could also hurt Obama's ability to capture enough electoral votes to win again. This is particularly true if unemployment remains at 8% or higher by the end of 2011.
Edited By criddic3 on 1291584608
"Because here’s the thing about life: There’s no accounting for what fate will deal you. Some days when you need a hand. There are other days when we’re called to lend a hand." -- President Joe Biden, 01/20/2021
-
Big Magilla
- Site Admin
- Posts: 19371
- Joined: Wed Jan 01, 2003 3:22 pm
- Location: Jersey Shore
The problem with Obama is he doesn't know how to negotiate. He gives things away in order to avoid confrontation instead of waiting for the showdown to make deals. The federal pay freeze is just the latest example. Instead of using it as an olive branch to the Republicans, he should have held it back as a bargaining tool in exchange for some sort of compromise on the Bush tax cut extensions instead of the total cave-in it is going to be.
In all likelihood the tax cuts will be extended another two years and serve as the battleground for the 2012 election. Depending on the outcome, they will either be made permanent or abolished. Republicans are banking on the former, Democrats are hoping common sense will return to the electorate and they will have sufficient power to end them once and for all.
I think the only legislation the Republicans will allow the Democrats to get through now will be extending unemployment benefits, perhaps as part of the Dems' deal to go along with the temporary extension of the tax cuts, though it may not get the 11 month extension the Dems are pushing for.
They will rally behind bigot-in-charge John McCain in preventing the repeal of Don't Ask, Don't Tell. They will rally behind obstructionist John Kyl in delaying the signing of the START treaty. They will continue to delay and obstruct everything else on the Dems' agenda.
At this point I still think it likely that Obama will win re-election, but unless the Dems win big all around in 2012 and pass legislation they believe in without his interfering cave-ins, the next six years will be as bad as the last two.
In all likelihood the tax cuts will be extended another two years and serve as the battleground for the 2012 election. Depending on the outcome, they will either be made permanent or abolished. Republicans are banking on the former, Democrats are hoping common sense will return to the electorate and they will have sufficient power to end them once and for all.
I think the only legislation the Republicans will allow the Democrats to get through now will be extending unemployment benefits, perhaps as part of the Dems' deal to go along with the temporary extension of the tax cuts, though it may not get the 11 month extension the Dems are pushing for.
They will rally behind bigot-in-charge John McCain in preventing the repeal of Don't Ask, Don't Tell. They will rally behind obstructionist John Kyl in delaying the signing of the START treaty. They will continue to delay and obstruct everything else on the Dems' agenda.
At this point I still think it likely that Obama will win re-election, but unless the Dems win big all around in 2012 and pass legislation they believe in without his interfering cave-ins, the next six years will be as bad as the last two.
All the President’s Captors
By FRANK RICH
THOSE desperate to decipher the baffling Obama presidency could do worse than consult an article titled “Understanding Stockholm Syndrome” in the online archive of The F.B.I. Law Enforcement Bulletin. It explains that hostage takers are most successful at winning a victim’s loyalty if they temper their brutality with a bogus show of kindness. Soon enough, the hostage will start concentrating on his captors’ “good side” and develop psychological characteristics to please them — “dependency; lack of initiative; and an inability to act, decide or think.”
This dynamic was acted out — yet again — in President Obama’s latest and perhaps most humiliating attempt to placate his Republican captors in Washington. No sooner did he invite the G.O.P.’s Congressional leaders to a post-election White House summit meeting than they countered his hospitality with a slap — postponing the date for two weeks because of “scheduling conflicts.” But they were kind enough to reschedule, and that was enough to get Obama to concentrate once more on his captors’ “good side.”
And so, as the big bipartisan event finally arrived last week, he handed them an unexpected gift, a freeze on federal salaries. Then he made a hostage video hailing the White House meeting as “a sincere effort on the part of everybody involved to actually commit to work together.” Hardly had this staged effusion of happy talk been disseminated than we learned of Mitch McConnell’s letter vowing to hold not just the president but the entire government hostage by blocking all legislation until the Bush-era tax cuts were extended for the top 2 percent of American households.
The captors will win this battle, if they haven’t already by the time you read this, because Obama has seemingly surrendered his once-considerable abilities to act, decide or think. That pay freeze made as little sense intellectually as it did politically. It will save the government a scant $5 billion over two years and will actually cost the recovery at least as much, since much of that $5 billion would have been spent on goods and services by federal workers with an average yearly income of $75,000. By contrast, the extension of the Bush tax cuts to the $250,000-plus income bracket will add $80 billion to the deficit in two years, much of which will just be banked by the wealthier beneficiaries.
Obama didn’t even point out this discrepancy — as he might have, had he chosen to make a stirring call for shared sacrifice rather than just hand the Republicans a fiscal olive branch that they could then use as a stick to beat him. He was too busy tending to his other announcement of the week: dispatching Timothy Geithner to lead “negotiations” with the Republicans on the tax cuts. This presidency has been one long blur of such “negotiations” — starting with the not-on-C-Span horse-trading that allowed corporate players to blunt health care and financial regulatory reform. Next up is a “negotiation” with the United States Chamber of Commerce, which has spent well over $100 million trying to shoot down Obama’s policies over the last two years. It’s enough to arouse nostalgia for the “beer summit” with Henry Louis Gates Jr. and the Cambridge cop, which at least was transparent and did no damage to the public interest.
The cliché criticisms of Obama are (from the left) that he is a naïve centrist, not the audacious liberal that Democrats thought they were getting, and (from the right) that he is a socialist out to impose government on every corner of American life. But the real problem is that he’s so indistinct no one across the entire political spectrum knows who he is. A chief executive who repeatedly presents himself as a conciliator, forever searching for the “good side” of all adversaries and convening summits, in the end comes across as weightless, if not AWOL. A Rorschach test may make for a fine presidential candidate — when everyone projects their hopes on the guy. But it doesn’t work in the Oval Office: These days everyone is projecting their fears on Obama instead.
I don’t agree with almost anything Chris Christie, the new Republican governor of New Jersey, has to say. But the popularity of his leadership right now is instructive. New Jersey has voted Democratic in every presidential election since 1992, with Obama carrying the state by a landslide margin of almost 15 percentage points. Yet Christie now has a higher approval number (51 percent) in the latest Quinnipiac state poll than either Obama or New Jersey’s two senators, both Democrats.
Christie’s popularity among national right-wing activists and bloggers has been stoked by a viral YouTube video where he dresses down a constituent in a manner that recalls Ralph Kramden sending Alice “to the moon.” But the core of Christie’s appeal at home is that he explains passionately held views in concrete, plain-spoken detail. Voters know what he stands for and sometimes respect him for his forthrightness even when they reject the stands themselves. This extends to his signature issue — his fiscal and rhetorical blows against public education. He’s New Jersey’s most popular statewide politician despite the fact that a 59 percent majority in the state thinks public schools deserve more taxpayer money, not less.
G.O.P. propagandists notwithstanding, Christie’s appeal does not prove that New Jersey (and therefore the country) has “turned to the right.” It does prove that people want a leader with a strong voice, even if only to argue with it.
No one expects Obama to imitate Christie’s in-your-face, bull-in-the-china-shop shtick. But they have waited in vain for him to stand firm on what matters to him and to the country rather than forever attempting to turn non-argumentative reasonableness into its own virtuous reward. It’s clear now the shellacking was not the hoped-for wake-up call. For starters, Obama might have robustly challenged the election story line pushed by the G.O.P. both before and after Nov. 2 — that deficit eradication and tax cuts for all are voters’ No. 1 priority. Repeating it constantly — as McConnell and John Boehner do, brilliantly — does not make it true. But the myth becomes reality if there’s no leader to trumpet the counternarrative.
In the summer before the election, the NBC News/Wall Street Journal poll (of June 21) found that only 15 percent of respondents thought the deficit should be the government’s top priority (behind jobs and economic growth, at 33 percent); the Washington Post/ABC News survey just a week before Election Day found that only 7 percent chose the deficit as the most important issue influencing their vote (again well behind the economy, at 37 percent). After constant G.O.P. fear-mongering about the budget — some of it echoed, rather than countered, by Obama — deficit reduction did jump to first place in Nov. 2 exit polls as voters’ highest priority for the next Congress. The disciplined Republican message had turned the deficit into a catchall synonym for America’s entire economic health. But at 40 percent, deficit reduction still was neck and neck with “spending to create jobs” (37 percent). Cutting taxes was chosen by only 18 percent.
We’re now at the brink of a new economic disaster that will eventually yank a chicken out of every pot. The Center on Budget and Policy Priorities calculates that the extended Bush-era tax cuts will contribute by far the largest share to the next decade’s deficits — ahead of the recession’s drain on tax revenues, Iraq and Afghanistan war spending, TARP and Obama’s stimulus. The new Congress’s plan to block any governmental intervention on behalf of 15 million-plus jobless Americans guarantees that the unemployment rate, back up to 9.8 percent as of Friday, will remain intractable too.
Obama should have pounded home the case against profligate tax cuts for the wealthiest before the Democrats lost the Senate. Even now Warren Buffett — not a socialist, by the way — is making the case with a Christie-esque directness that usually eludes the president. “The rich are always going to say that, you know, just give us more money and we’ll all go out and spend more, and then it will trickle down to the rest of you,” he told Christiane Amanpour on “This Week” last Sunday. “But that has not worked the last 10 years, and I hope the American public is catching on.”
Everyone will have caught on by 2012, but that will be too late for many jobless Americans, let alone for Obama. As the economics commentator Jeff Madrick wrote in The Huffington Post, the unemployment rate has been above 7 percent only four times in a presidential election year since World War II — and in three of the four the incumbent lost (Ford, Carter, the first Bush). Reagan did win in 1984 with an unemployment rate of 7.2 percent, but the rate was falling rapidly (from a high of 10.8 two years earlier), and Reagan was as clear-cut in his leadership as Christie (only nicer).
But as Madrick adds, there has never been a sitting president over that period who has had to run with an unemployment rate as high as 8 percent — which is precisely where the Fed’s most recent forecasts predict the rate could be mired when Obama faces the voters again in 2012. You’d think he’d be one Stockholm Syndrome victim with every incentive to break out.
By FRANK RICH
THOSE desperate to decipher the baffling Obama presidency could do worse than consult an article titled “Understanding Stockholm Syndrome” in the online archive of The F.B.I. Law Enforcement Bulletin. It explains that hostage takers are most successful at winning a victim’s loyalty if they temper their brutality with a bogus show of kindness. Soon enough, the hostage will start concentrating on his captors’ “good side” and develop psychological characteristics to please them — “dependency; lack of initiative; and an inability to act, decide or think.”
This dynamic was acted out — yet again — in President Obama’s latest and perhaps most humiliating attempt to placate his Republican captors in Washington. No sooner did he invite the G.O.P.’s Congressional leaders to a post-election White House summit meeting than they countered his hospitality with a slap — postponing the date for two weeks because of “scheduling conflicts.” But they were kind enough to reschedule, and that was enough to get Obama to concentrate once more on his captors’ “good side.”
And so, as the big bipartisan event finally arrived last week, he handed them an unexpected gift, a freeze on federal salaries. Then he made a hostage video hailing the White House meeting as “a sincere effort on the part of everybody involved to actually commit to work together.” Hardly had this staged effusion of happy talk been disseminated than we learned of Mitch McConnell’s letter vowing to hold not just the president but the entire government hostage by blocking all legislation until the Bush-era tax cuts were extended for the top 2 percent of American households.
The captors will win this battle, if they haven’t already by the time you read this, because Obama has seemingly surrendered his once-considerable abilities to act, decide or think. That pay freeze made as little sense intellectually as it did politically. It will save the government a scant $5 billion over two years and will actually cost the recovery at least as much, since much of that $5 billion would have been spent on goods and services by federal workers with an average yearly income of $75,000. By contrast, the extension of the Bush tax cuts to the $250,000-plus income bracket will add $80 billion to the deficit in two years, much of which will just be banked by the wealthier beneficiaries.
Obama didn’t even point out this discrepancy — as he might have, had he chosen to make a stirring call for shared sacrifice rather than just hand the Republicans a fiscal olive branch that they could then use as a stick to beat him. He was too busy tending to his other announcement of the week: dispatching Timothy Geithner to lead “negotiations” with the Republicans on the tax cuts. This presidency has been one long blur of such “negotiations” — starting with the not-on-C-Span horse-trading that allowed corporate players to blunt health care and financial regulatory reform. Next up is a “negotiation” with the United States Chamber of Commerce, which has spent well over $100 million trying to shoot down Obama’s policies over the last two years. It’s enough to arouse nostalgia for the “beer summit” with Henry Louis Gates Jr. and the Cambridge cop, which at least was transparent and did no damage to the public interest.
The cliché criticisms of Obama are (from the left) that he is a naïve centrist, not the audacious liberal that Democrats thought they were getting, and (from the right) that he is a socialist out to impose government on every corner of American life. But the real problem is that he’s so indistinct no one across the entire political spectrum knows who he is. A chief executive who repeatedly presents himself as a conciliator, forever searching for the “good side” of all adversaries and convening summits, in the end comes across as weightless, if not AWOL. A Rorschach test may make for a fine presidential candidate — when everyone projects their hopes on the guy. But it doesn’t work in the Oval Office: These days everyone is projecting their fears on Obama instead.
I don’t agree with almost anything Chris Christie, the new Republican governor of New Jersey, has to say. But the popularity of his leadership right now is instructive. New Jersey has voted Democratic in every presidential election since 1992, with Obama carrying the state by a landslide margin of almost 15 percentage points. Yet Christie now has a higher approval number (51 percent) in the latest Quinnipiac state poll than either Obama or New Jersey’s two senators, both Democrats.
Christie’s popularity among national right-wing activists and bloggers has been stoked by a viral YouTube video where he dresses down a constituent in a manner that recalls Ralph Kramden sending Alice “to the moon.” But the core of Christie’s appeal at home is that he explains passionately held views in concrete, plain-spoken detail. Voters know what he stands for and sometimes respect him for his forthrightness even when they reject the stands themselves. This extends to his signature issue — his fiscal and rhetorical blows against public education. He’s New Jersey’s most popular statewide politician despite the fact that a 59 percent majority in the state thinks public schools deserve more taxpayer money, not less.
G.O.P. propagandists notwithstanding, Christie’s appeal does not prove that New Jersey (and therefore the country) has “turned to the right.” It does prove that people want a leader with a strong voice, even if only to argue with it.
No one expects Obama to imitate Christie’s in-your-face, bull-in-the-china-shop shtick. But they have waited in vain for him to stand firm on what matters to him and to the country rather than forever attempting to turn non-argumentative reasonableness into its own virtuous reward. It’s clear now the shellacking was not the hoped-for wake-up call. For starters, Obama might have robustly challenged the election story line pushed by the G.O.P. both before and after Nov. 2 — that deficit eradication and tax cuts for all are voters’ No. 1 priority. Repeating it constantly — as McConnell and John Boehner do, brilliantly — does not make it true. But the myth becomes reality if there’s no leader to trumpet the counternarrative.
In the summer before the election, the NBC News/Wall Street Journal poll (of June 21) found that only 15 percent of respondents thought the deficit should be the government’s top priority (behind jobs and economic growth, at 33 percent); the Washington Post/ABC News survey just a week before Election Day found that only 7 percent chose the deficit as the most important issue influencing their vote (again well behind the economy, at 37 percent). After constant G.O.P. fear-mongering about the budget — some of it echoed, rather than countered, by Obama — deficit reduction did jump to first place in Nov. 2 exit polls as voters’ highest priority for the next Congress. The disciplined Republican message had turned the deficit into a catchall synonym for America’s entire economic health. But at 40 percent, deficit reduction still was neck and neck with “spending to create jobs” (37 percent). Cutting taxes was chosen by only 18 percent.
We’re now at the brink of a new economic disaster that will eventually yank a chicken out of every pot. The Center on Budget and Policy Priorities calculates that the extended Bush-era tax cuts will contribute by far the largest share to the next decade’s deficits — ahead of the recession’s drain on tax revenues, Iraq and Afghanistan war spending, TARP and Obama’s stimulus. The new Congress’s plan to block any governmental intervention on behalf of 15 million-plus jobless Americans guarantees that the unemployment rate, back up to 9.8 percent as of Friday, will remain intractable too.
Obama should have pounded home the case against profligate tax cuts for the wealthiest before the Democrats lost the Senate. Even now Warren Buffett — not a socialist, by the way — is making the case with a Christie-esque directness that usually eludes the president. “The rich are always going to say that, you know, just give us more money and we’ll all go out and spend more, and then it will trickle down to the rest of you,” he told Christiane Amanpour on “This Week” last Sunday. “But that has not worked the last 10 years, and I hope the American public is catching on.”
Everyone will have caught on by 2012, but that will be too late for many jobless Americans, let alone for Obama. As the economics commentator Jeff Madrick wrote in The Huffington Post, the unemployment rate has been above 7 percent only four times in a presidential election year since World War II — and in three of the four the incumbent lost (Ford, Carter, the first Bush). Reagan did win in 1984 with an unemployment rate of 7.2 percent, but the rate was falling rapidly (from a high of 10.8 two years earlier), and Reagan was as clear-cut in his leadership as Christie (only nicer).
But as Madrick adds, there has never been a sitting president over that period who has had to run with an unemployment rate as high as 8 percent — which is precisely where the Fed’s most recent forecasts predict the rate could be mired when Obama faces the voters again in 2012. You’d think he’d be one Stockholm Syndrome victim with every incentive to break out.