This is from the Chait piece John linked yesterday:
This last summer, President Obama had an epiphany: Republicans are not going to negotiate with him. One might say that this realization came a little late.
It doesn’t take a blind Obotic follower to point out that the White House probably had some inkling that the Tea Party caucus was not going to compromise after the 2010 election. If you’re faced with an opponent like that, and a media environment where pretty much any crazy utterance from that opponent is taken as an expression of gravitas, one strategy is to simply go through the motions of seeking compromise. Obama could have spent the first part of 2011 escalating the anti-Tea Party rhetoric, or he could have done what he did, which was to try to seek compromise at every turn. By doing the latter, he appeared to be the reasonable person in the room, and now he has the benefit that his new, harder-edged rhetoric is placed in the context of his earlier, softer approach.
So, it’s hard for his opponents to credibly claim that Obama is being his usual uncompromising self. I’m sure the 27 percenters will buy that, but they’ll buy anything. The question is what the soft Republicans and independents will buy, since they’re the ones he’s trying to convince.
This approach does have some pitfalls (for example, you look weak doing it). But I don’t think that it came entirely out of naivete, which appears to be the conventional wisdom. Obama has a history of reacting too slowly for his allies’ taste, and maybe that will be judged as a weakness in hindsight, but I think he’s pursuing a strategy, not being a bumpkin.
gene108
I don’t get why people bash Obama about trying to find common ground and / or compromise with Republicans.
Our government is supposed to work via compromise. There’s a saying that a good piece of legislation is one that neither side feels 100% good about, because they had to compromise away some of their positions, to get it passed.
We can’t function, if Washington gets to the point, where you either get 100% of what you want passed or nothing at all gets passed.
The problem isn’t Obama.
The problem is the Congressional Republicans, for taking an obstructionist stand, not seen since the Secessionists of the 1850’s.
Why the media treats these jokers as serious people interested in governing is the real mystery.
danimal
Wait, you mean the man who ran Harvard Law Review, wrote two best-selling books and got elected POTUS isn’t a stupid, naive fool who desperately needs the political advice of a bunch of blog commenters?
Obot.
Steve in Iowa
The didn’t compromise BEFORE the 2010 election either, let alone after.
Walker
@gene108:
That is not what he is bashed for. He is bashed for going into negotiations having already made concessions, rather than working towards concessions.
cleek
plus, again, the teabaggers took office eight months ago. the first real showdown started five months ago, and lasted four months. during those four months it became more and more obvious that the teabaggers were not going to budge, were willing to sink the US, and that Boenher wasn’t in charge of them. it was not obvious in January, or April, or May, that they would act that way. it wasn’t until August, when they took the country right to the brink, that their full mendacity showed itself.
so, the country, Obama included, has known just how terrible the teabaggers are for barely two months now. before then, they had yet to demonstrate it. they might have talked big before then, but nobody had seen anything to back it up, until then.
cat48
Maddow said last nite that Nebraska is changing how their Electoral Votes are awarded so Obama can’t win one of them again like he did last time. Guess the GOP respects his ability to win Electoral votes, if nothing else. PA is still talking about changing their votes.
cleek
@Walker:
which is a truly idiotic thing to presume.
not only do you have to claim to know about all conversations, calculations and considerations that may have occurred before things started being made public, but, most importantly, you have to assume the teabaggers would have reacted differently if Obama would have demanded the maximally-liberal position. there’s no evidence that’s the case.
Woodrow L. Goode, IV
One of the reasons I like politics– in addition to chess, mathematics and pro football/baseball– is that there are objective realities in all of them. Unlike cooking or literature, there is a way to determine whether my campaign strategy succeeded or failed.
The real test comes in 13 months, but we can ask questions such as “Have Obama’s poll ratings improved?” and “Are his supporters succeeding in their campaigns?” and “Are his legislative objectives being achieved?”
You can claim that all the caving was a strategy to brand Obama as the only reasonable person in the room. You don’t have any proof that he felt it wouldn’t work, but felt it was necessary to make the attempt, before he pivoted to a more confrontational approach. Nut let’s pretend you do.
My question is very simple: How’s that hopey-changey stuff working out for ya? If there are a group of people who are now solidly opposed to Wingnut doctrine and ready to vote to help promote Obama’s agenda, then it succeeded.
If not, it’s a failure, and all the appeals to authority and Panglossian claims (Barack Obama’s strategy is always “the best of all possible worlds”) won’t change that fact.
HRA
You put this exactly as I have been thinking of what Obama’s strategy was in dealing with the idiots, mistermix.
What Cleek said at #5 as well.
schrodinger's cat
These suggestions that Punditubbies have for winning elections are always stupid and presumptuous at the same time. When is the last time anyone of them won any election.
Punditubbies, gibberish without the cute.
BTW Bobo has another vile column in NYT this morning.
cleek
@Woodrow L. Goode, IV:
just fine, thanks.
rikryah
I think the WH knew how batshyt crazy the GOP is…he just needed for them to reveal themselves to the rest of America that doesn’t follow politics.
eHombre
Also, too:
After the 2010 election, the crazies were holding a lit fuse to, in order, (1) unemployment benefits, (2) government shutdown, and (3) the collapse of U.S. govt credit and renewed worldwide economic calamity. You know, like it was no biggie. You compromise in that situation because you are not insane.
What are the teabag nihilists holding hostage now? Pres. Obama doesn’t give two sh*ts about the trigger, whose cuts won’t even take place till after 2012 (clever one, that chap). His leverage is distinctly superior to before and it looks like he intends to use it. Chess vs. checkers and all that.
**grumble, grumble, errrr, job creators . . . class warfare . . . moochers/collectivists, blarrrgh**
Fucen Pneumatic Fuck Wrench Tarmal
obama has to win in 2012, but for things to change, he has to win on the economy.
this means the center, and the center right, that has been left behind by the teabag rapture, has to be convinced in large enough numbers that the mix of tax cuts and austerity cure-alls, is no longer considered serious.
that is where the mandate comes from that can actually change the game.
AxelFoley
Obama tends to give his foes enough rope to hang themselves with and then kicks the chair from underneath them at just the right time.
Slowbama
Breaking OT: Clemency denied for Troy Davis, execution set for tomorrow.
AxelFoley
@Woodrow L. Goode, IV:
As I live and breathe, we have a real-life Palinista here, folks.
Also, too.
Linda Featheringill
@Slowbama:
I’m sorry to hear about Troy Davis.
AxelFoley
@rikryah:
Bingo. If we knew it beforehand, what makes people think the President and his people didn’t know how crazy these fucks are?
General Stuck
Good post. I would only add, that I think a lot of the meta approaches Obama has taken for presidential politicking are based on well worn paths from presidents facing this or that configuration in congress, at given points in time, and other standard modes, like the beginning of campaign season.
I do think there is something else that has motivated him, and his team to go for compromise some more than what would be considered possible with today’s current intransigent ideological republican party.
And that is the worrisome, and seemingly religious like fervor of the GOP scorched earth mindset of not raising taxes no matter what. And I think that Obama and team have gone farther than they would otherwise, trying to work with, and offer compromise to break this dangerous for the country, fanatical loyalty to the Norquist pledge. As a country that refuses to pay for what it spends, is, and will be skating on thin economic ice, now and going forward.
schrodinger's cat
@AxelFoley: It is just more stupid commentary from our Punditubbies.
Remember when they were wondering whether Obama was black enough? Also when Hillary and Giuliani were going to be the nominees?
soonergrunt
@Woodrow L. Goode, IV: Lots of words. Many non sequiturs and giberish, followed by a stupid tag-line.
Sarah, is that you? And can you really see Russia from your house?
Dave
He is also picking this fight at a strategic time: once the Republican debates have begun. They will be asked about his plan and they’ll say stupid shit that can be used against them. And with just over a year to the election, more people are paying attention now than they were in February or March.
Guster
It’s not just the 27%. We know he’s been compromising. The general public? Has no clue.
They think he’s weak, maybe, but he’s an ideologue. He’s hard left. And anyway, if he’d been compromising this whole time, how come things aren’t getting done, huh? The Republicans say they want to compromise, so if he really wanted to, bing! PLenty of compromisy action.
Nobody now thinks he’s the Reasonable Person in the Room who didn’t already think that a year ago. Nobody.
Joey Maloney
@gene108:
That presumes, however, that all parties are working in good faith and, pardon the expression, part of the reality-based community. What we have now is the situation where, as some asshole blogger or other once put it, a couple is negotiating about where to go eat dinner, one party suggests Italian and the other suggests tire rims and anthrax.
The last time the fundamental goals and worldviews of the major parties were so disjunct, it took a national crisis to resolve. Second Civil War, here we come.
schrodinger's cat
@Guster: How did you figure this out? I am just curious.
Woodrow L. Goode, IV
@cleek: You clearly don’t understand the point.
The issue isn’t whether the wingnuts would have reacted differently to a different approach. In fact, that’s the core of the hippie argument: Anything Obama proposes will be viewed as Kenyan Muslim Socialism and an assault on the ‘murrican way of life. John Boehner will cry no matter how hard Obama channels Ayn Rand.
The issue is how the interest groups who elected Obama would have reacted– whether they would be saying:
1. “Here’s a guy who has fought as hard as he could, done everything we asked and needs as much halp as we can give, so he can keep fighting, or “, as opposed to
2. “He told us what we wanted to hear, didn’t keep his promises and often didn’t seem to be trying to keep them.”
The obstacle Obama is facing is that almost every group that he won big in 2008 is now feeling that they didn’t get the quality and quantity of effort they were promised and isn’t eager to provide the same amount of help.
dms
@gene108: And your last two sentences totally invalidate your previous argument.
soonergrunt
@Joey Maloney:You beat me to the ‘tire rims and anthrax” reference.
HERE.
soonergrunt
This is one of two very good reasons to never, ever buy anything from Amazon:
From their warehouse in Pennsylvania, where they only employ temp workers without benefits:
Edit: The other reason is that Jeff Bezos and the company itself donates a lot of money to Republicans and the Republican party.
Marc
@Woodrow L. Goode, IV:
Is there some positive purpose in repeating the sneering Sarah Palin take on Obama (the hopey-changey crap you just used)?
Sorry, when I see a rhetorical tool like that I just can’t listen to the rest.
Admiral_Komack
@eHombre:
@rikryah:
@AxelFoley:
All this, also,too.
Raven (formerly stuckinred)
@soonergrunt: you might enjoy this guy
http://www.johntreed.com/selfless.html
Guster
@schrodinger’s cat: Which part? Obviously I’m using a communications strategy known as hyperbole to make a point.
But you’re asking why I think ‘we’ know he’s been compromising? You’re going to say that ‘we’ don’t, because some of us think he’s been a rigid ideologue all along?
Or why I think the general public has no clue? Because the general public can’t name the Vice President on the first two tries. But of course _some_ people can, so I guess I’m wrong again.
I’m talking about the political conversation in this country, and the way I figure anything out, I listen. And in my experience, people who aren’t on political blogs think of Obama as being pretty far to the left, and pretty strident about it.
Is that not your experience? Do you know any non-political-junkies who think Obama is a compromising moderate? I don’t know one.
Same with ‘Reasonable Person in the Room.’ I know some Democrats who think that, but they thought it all along. I haven’t met a single person who had a ‘wait, he’s actually quite reasonable!’ epiphany in the past year. Have you?
tim O
Mistermix,
I agree completely and it’s been driving my wife absolutely insane for the better part of the last year. I don’t agree with how he compromised with his opening offers on debt ceiling, etc. but I get that you have to deal with the TP and the childish media who saw them as an exciting shiny new exciting toy. (A cheap ass toy made in China which broke after a short amount of play time leaving sharp edges that caused severe injury)
schrodinger's cat
@Guster:
Actually I have, most people I have met, including working class people think that Obama has been extremely reasonable and GOP intransigent. I must add that I live in a blue state on the East Coast.
boss bitch
Yeah, Obama is not an idiot. Its beyond arrogant to suggest that I can see what he can’t when all I do is read blogs.
He didn’t have an epiphany, he just got some breathing room and can do all the rhetoric stuff w/o a looming deadline to worry about. Congress doesn’t have to pass his deficit reduction plan and the American Jobs Act can linger for some time while he campaigns for it. Obama is still Obama though and he will still make deals and compromise if he needs to get shit done.
gene108
@dms:
I think what @Joey Maloney: says about both parties working in good faith was supposed to be presumed.
I don’t think you can have a functional government, when each side decides the other side is illegitimate and cannot be compromised with.
As much as Republicans are acting in bad faith, I don’t see the problem in treating them like responsible adults. Other than voting them out of office, there’s not any other way to give them a time out.
@Walker:
Fair enough.
I don’t think what was conceded during negotiations in the end is never as bad as the news reports leading to the final resolution make it out to be, which tends to get overlooked, when everything is said and done.
Keith G
@cleek:
Great. At it again.
boss bitch
I’m guess there will be a David Brooks post today?
RP
You’re missing the point of the post. Mistermix isn’t arguing that this is the best of all possible strategies and that no one should ever criticize Obama, just that it is a strategy, not naivete. Complain all you want about the effectiveness of the strategy, but it’s a little silly to argue that Obama had no understanding of his opponents.
cleek
@Woodrow L. Goode, IV:
well then i hope the precious interest groups enjoy President Perry. i hope he brings them 10000% of all the things they hope and desire and shows them just the right amount of effort and attention that they need in order to keep their delicate feefees in balance.
that’ll happen, right?
Guster
@schrodinger’s cat: I’m in Maine, so a blueish state–though one of my bigger data points is a 50-member Irish Catholic family in MA. But damn, that’s good to hear. Do they plan on voting for him?
boss bitch
@danimal:
Exactly, but we have our own anti-intellectuals on the left.
Woodrow L. Goode, IV
@AxelFoley: No, I just find it amusing to say that to Obots. I’m actually a professional operative with very strong hippie views.
The startling thing about Obots is how blinkered and pig-ignorant they were about the strategy their man used. What’s going on now is the downside of running campaigns using words like “hope” and saying nothing is impossible.
If you swing people to vote for you with that pitch– if you tell them that their pre-election doubts about what can realistically be accomplished are the reasons nothing ever gets done— then you need to deliver the impossible if you want them to vote for you a second time.
I didn’t tell your guy to promise labor that he’d raise the minimum wage every year and push the EFCA through. I thought it was lunacy to promise legislation on climate change, but that’s what he told envronmentalists. He said he’d get the DREAM act through on the naive belief that John McCain and Orrin Hatch would try to help him.
Now you’re learning some very basic lessons in practical politics: Don’t make promises you can’t keep. If you do, you’d better make sure it sounded like you tried to keep them.
Obots really would benefit if they would read some books on the 1948, 1980 and 1992 campaigns, because there isn’t anything going on right now that didn’t happen then. The difference is that:
1. Barack Obama didn’t propose the policies that Harry Truman did
2, He doesn’t sound like Truman now (even though he’s trying) and
3. He backed so far away from his 2008 rhetoric that voters are likely to conclude that it’s more hot air.
The problem, to quote a noted constituional scholar, is that
Obots
“think that, if we were just smart enough, we’d be able to understand their policies. And I so want to tell ’em, and I do tell ’em, Oh, we’re plenty smart, oh yeah – we know what’s goin’ on. And we don’t like what’s goin’ on. And we’re not gonna let them tell us to sit down and shut up.”
Trurl
Yes! Driving his approval ratings into the low-40s was all part of his MASTER PLAN!
Rope-a-dope, bitchez! 11-dimensional chess! War Is Peace!
cleek
@Keith G:
if you have a point, feel free to make it.
The Republic of Stupidity
I certainly hope you’re right about that… and I’m also hoping big time that he runs like a fullback headed for the endzone on his new “Let’s tax the billionaires” meme… ya know… if nothing else, use it to make Republicans squeal like Ned Beatty in Deliverance…
boss bitch
@Walker:
Concessions before or after he was in fact bashed for making concessions period.
tim O
@RP You’re right, it’s more about dealing with the hand that was dealt. Not to say O and his strategists always made the right choices, but our system is fucked up and surreal at times.
schrodinger's cat
@Guster: Well I sure hope they do. How is your tea-bagger Governor. Haven’t heard much about him in the news lately.
ETA: I love Maine especially the mid-coast region. Will probably visit for Christmas. Was last there for a wedding about a couple of years ago.
soonergrunt
@Raven (formerly stuckinred): I’d agree with just about everything he said, especially about the whole “warrior” bullshit.
The thing about Soldiers calling themselves Soldiers–not so much. People don’t describe themselves as “Lieutenant in a Fire Department,” but as Fireman. They don’t describe themselves as “Assistant Project Manager for System Imaging at Farmer’s Insurance,” but as an IT Tech.
General Stuck
@Woodrow L. Goode, IV:
Our purity trolls are on the good shit this morn. I used to talk like this, stretched out under a Hickory tree admiring the strange creatures populating my navel.
Guster
@schrodinger’s cat: He’s as awful as ever–the only reason he’s not a national disgrace is all the competition. Hard out there for a bagger.
Try Chase’s Daily in Belfast, if you haven’t. The (looong) wait is worth it. And John’s ice cream in Liberty (on Rt 3) is very possibly the best thing anywhere, ever. Probably closed in December, but sometimes you can catch him, if he’s not in FL …
Odie Hugh Manatee
@General Stuck:
Somebody has to get out there and depress the vote on the left. It makes them feel like they are accomplishing something of value.
I think they are looking for a pat on the head and a cookie, preferably a Troll House cookie.
cleek
@Woodrow L. Goode, IV:
Obama’s “hope” was never that he was the savior come to grant us all our wishes. it was that we could make the changes we wanted. that’s what all the “we are the change” stuff was about. that’s why he has always urged supporters to get involved, call their congresspeople, etc..
yes, many people took the lazy ‘savior’ interpretation, but it’s not what Obama himself ran on. he has always made it clear that change has to come from the bottom-up. it’s the whole community organizer thing. he’s not pretending to be a Decider, he’s trying to be a facilitator. and that’s hard to do when his ostensible base just wants to complain.
now maybe that’s a silly and idealistic thing to run on, but it’s what he ran on.
Trakker
I remember the first time I used TurboTax, back in the 90s I believe, and it had this neat feature called What If. What If allowed taxpayers to run different investment strategies to see what affect it would have on their next year’s taxes. I kept thinking, wouldn’t it be great if we had this feature in politics (and life!)? We could plug in different strategies to see which works best.
We don’t, and we never will, so we’re stuck hoping like crazy Obama and his advisers have devised a clever, successful, strategy for defeating the GOP in 2012. I don’t have nearly as much confidence in the strategies he’s employed so far as many (most?) here, but it does little good to argue about it because a) it won’t change anything, and b) we won’t know the correct answer until November 2012.
Woodrow L. Goode, IV
@Marc: Yeah, there are two reasons:
1. I take an enormous amount of abuse for being to the left of this president, even though he would be considered a “liberal republican” if this were the 1970’s or even the 1980’s. In just one column, Jon Chait accused me magical thinking, failure to understand reality, not remembering history properly and not understanding enough about how government works to be able to pass a tenth-grade social studies class.
So I have a quip that expresses my view concisely, in language as inflammatory to you much as some of the stuff that gets tossed at me. Why not use it?
2. The more substantive reason: on the issue of how to achieve change in Washington, Sarah Palin was correct.
She grasped that the way to bend elected officials to your will is to do precisely what the Tea Party did: Stand firm and don’t budge. If someone varies from your orthodoxy, get them out of office. Do not worry about the collateral damage or the lesser of two evils.
I learned this in the 1980’s when I was fighting (and losing) to the NRA. The reason they won and my side lost was because bucking the gun lobby meant you forfeited their support forever. Elected officials could crap all over the gun control lobby and still get their support– all they had to do was be running against someone whose policies were worse.
I don’t think Palin is that bright– I think she just saw a movement that was willing to put her at its head and went with it. But, for whatever reason, she calculated this equation correctly.
As long as people keep assuming that wingnuts are a group of ignorant rubes and that anything they do is too stupid to even consider– much less emulate– they’ll keep losing elections.
I can put it more palateably, but when I do, I get the rejoinder “You sound like the Tea Party.” What I say cuts to the chase: when it comes to this specific problem, they’re right and we’re wrong.
Carol from CO
@danimal: So you’re saying he only looks like a stupid naive fool.
schrodinger's cat
@Guster: Will do. I am more familiar with the Bangor-Ellsworth area. I guess that’s more Eastern Maine right? My favoritest place in Maine, Acadia National Park.
nancydarling
@boss bitch: Well, Our Miss Brooks is right about one thing—he’s a sap. It’s just not for the reasons he thinks he is.
jimmiraybob
(for example, you look weak doing it)
George Washington in leading the colonial troops during the revolution was called weak and indecisive in not directly engaging the more powerful enemy. He played long-term strategy. He won.
JustMe
I don’t get why people bash Obama about trying to find common ground and / or compromise with Republicans. Our government is supposed to work via compromise.
Fine. But when it doesn’t it helps to become cognizant of that fact and move on, rather than whining about how things are “supposed” to work. I couldn’t care less about someone’s idealized view of government. I care about how to deal with a bunch of destructive sociopaths on the other side of the aisle.
Larime the Gimp
@Woodrow L. Goode, IV:
I have to say, what I hear things like hopey-changey and Obot, I immediately tune out because it tells me that the person is less interested in having a discussion than they are in scoring points and being snide. I am sick and fucking tired of people that are supposedly on the Left using the Right’s slurs and talking points, especially when so many of them complain about Obama framing things with right wing framing.
Fucking irony? How does it work?
All of this along with the accusations of being unqualified, in over his head, it’s utter bullshit.
schrodinger's cat
@nancydarling:
Does SAP mean silly aging pundit?
General Stuck
@Woodrow L. Goode, IV:
So you’re like the political leftist version of Ghosts of Christmas Past. A wraith like blogging spirit representing a collection of idjits and fools. I like it, has a grand gesture feel to it, tinged with the usual butthurt from lack of respect for it’s obvious righteousness and genius. Very cool. Carry on.
Larime the Gimp
@Woodrow L. Goode, IV:
So in other words, your butt hurts. Gotcha.
Ben Cisco
@Marc:
Fix’t.
__
Beginning to smell absolutely Rovian in here…
nancydarling
@schrodinger’s cat: I like “simpering aging pundit” better. He always seems to wear a shit-eating grin.
Villago Delenda Est
@boss bitch:
The vile pustule can’t resist the false equivalency at any time.
There needs to be a blood purge of our media.
Woodrow L. Goode, IV
@cleek: I don’t know if any of the “precious interest groups” (to use your term, rather than “concerned voters”) will enjoy a Perry presidency. Probably they’ll hate it.
However, there is a very good reason that you folks never seem to mention. Re-electing Barack Obama enables him to say “By re-electing me, the voters have given me a mandate to:
1. Cut the cost-of-living adjustment formula for Social Security.
2. Raise the retirement age for Medicare.
3. Keep cutting taxes.
4. Expand the American KGB (known as Homeland Security)
6. Fight undeclared wars.
6. Cut regulations that I feel kill jobs.
7. Whatever other thing bothers you…”
You understand that he absolutely will do that– everyone who gets re-elected does. There’s an enormous amount of benefit to not legitimizing some of the policies Obama wants to push through.
Barack Obama can, if re-elected, propose policies that would generate a firestorm of opposition. If he decides (say) to have a bipartisan solution to immigration issues by pairing up a vote on the DREAM act with a national identity card that you’re required to carry at all times, it might conceivably pass. If Perry tried that, it would be shouted down
If Cemocratic voters refuse to elect candidates simply because they’re not happy with their policies, politicians who claim to be Democrats might someday become as responsive to their base as Republicans already are to theirs.
General Stuck
Silencing fatuous trolls would top my list, right after getting my million ruble Obot refund.
danimal
@Odie Hugh Manatee: @Ben Cisco: Without naming specific individuals, I’m quite certain that some of our progressive purity trolls are, quite literally, on the right-wing payroll. The RW machine does care about liberal blogs and they do want to shape content.
It would astonish me if they didn’t have a presence in the more active comments sections, and griping about Obama from the left on a liberal blog is probably more effective than spouting RW talking points. Just something to think about as we head into election mode.
cleek
@Woodrow L. Goode, IV:
then they should shove their feefees up their hurt little butts and vote for the guy who won’t actively work to destroy everything they claim to want.
that’s the choice. simple enough.
everything else is jerking off.
you’re gonna have two options next November: Obama or whatever the GOP coughs up. that’s the situation. pick one who gives you 60% of what you want, or pick the one who promises to take away 60% of what you want and add another pile of stuff you didn’t even know you didn’t want.
that’s the choice. simple enough.
General Stuck
@Woodrow L. Goode, IV:
You any kin to Johnny B.?
Tom Hilton
@Walker: Can you actually make a plausible case that the outcome would have been substantively different?
Norwonk
@Woodrow L. Goode, IV: Democrats have always been at war with
Eastasialiberals. Now STFU and clap harder. BJ’ers don’t like it when you interrupt their cheering.soonergrunt
@cleek:
It IS a silly and idealistic thing to run on when one has people like your correspondent who don’t want to actually take part (and responsibility) but to be led like children.
Democracy is the theory that the common people know what they want, and deserve to get it good and hard.–H.L. Mencken
Larime the Gimp
@Woodrow L. Goode, IV:
1. As someone on Social Security, I can tell you that I have no problem with my cost of living INCREASES being something like $3.00 less a month. Oh noes! How will I ever afford those rims for my wheelchair?!
2. Which he’s clearly said he isn’t doing.
3. You mean as opposed to the tax increase he wants to make on millionaires?
4. I have news for you, any president we get is going to continue doing this. It requires the Supreme Court to overturn it, or Congress to repeal it. Since the Supreme Court clearly isn’t going to, that leaves Congress. The idea that the president can waive his magic wand and make the patriot act go away is ridiculous.
6. When he can single-handedly cut regulations without the help of Congress, let me know.
7. I’ll tell you one thing that bothers me. People insisting that he be the same dictatorial president that they hated Bush for being.
B W Smith
@Woodrow L. Goode, IV: Drew Westin, is that you? Wow, to think you’ve been reduced to arguing with a fake name on Balloon Juice.
General Stuck
Why hell yes! What do you think democracy is at the end of the day? It is those with the most cheering winning the chance to do something. The others get to stew in their moral victory juices some more.
gene108
@Woodrow L. Goode, IV:
How much money did the NRA have versus gun control groups?
I’d throw in think-tanks and right-winger papers, as well as Rush Limbaugh, who saw a big spike in his popularity in the 1990’s.
The problem, I’ve seen is liberal groups don’t have the money to compete with right-wing groups. There don’t seem to be any liberal billionaires, with an ideological axe to grind to fund liberal political causes.
If liberal groups, withheld their support from Democrats, could they really mount an effective challenge?
The reason right-wing groups seem to have the pull they do is because they have the deep pockets to mount effective challenges to Republican incumbents.
I’ve not seen liberal groups veering from their mission statement into trying to unseat incumbents. Planned Parenthood, NWO, NAACP, Moveon.org, etc. aren’t throwing up opposition to incumbents.
Why?
Part of it is probably money and the other is these groups have a broader mission than single issue politics, unlike the NRA and Club for Growth.
It makes it harder to single out someone for one vote you don’t agree with, whereas they cast 5 you did agree with.
Also, too the Professional Left, if it really wanted to take a page from right-wingers, would be to never criticize your team and continuously bash the other team. If the criticism leveled at Obama had been spent continuously attacking Republican obstructionism, you may be able to make a dent in the mainstream media.
That’s how the right-wing media started influencing the MSM narrative, in the 1980’s and 1990’s. They flooded the MSM with a steady drumbeat of “news” that praised Republicans and tore down Democrats.
I see as much or more Democrat bashing from the Left, as I do Republican bashing.
Tom Hilton
@Woodrow L. Goode, IV: The point you’re actually making (as opposed to the point you think you’re making) is that “the interest groups who elected Obama” (a claim that may be demonstrably untrue, depending on how broadly you’re talking about “interest groups”) have no fucking clue what is actually in their interest as far as 2012 is concerned.
Maybe that’s true and maybe it isn’t, but if that’s what you believe about them, then why the fuck aren’t you spending your time slamming them instead of the President?
nancydarling
@gene108: This!
Tom Hilton
@Woodrow L. Goode, IV:
Right…because after they did that to Gore, 8 years of Bush moved America way to the left.
By the way? You are not the Democratic base. You and people like you are completely marginal. Grow the fuck up and get over your pathetic delusions of adequacy and relevance.
Also, stop lying about the President’s record.
Dustin
@ #30
Dammit, I was really hoping that assinine whining about Amazon’s warehouse “abuses” wouldn’t make it to this site because I didn’t want to be the guy pissing in someone’s cheereos. The simple fact of the matter is the people complaining about inhumane work conditions in that warehouse are a bunch of panzies that have no idea what warehouse work is like, full stop.
I’ve worked in a large warehouse for nearly a decade. Rough calculation tells me it’s right around 100 MILLION cubic feet of air, and that to air condition that space to standard office temperatures would cost somewhere in the ballpark of 601 million BTU per hour. And that’s completely ignoring the fact that a large proportion of the air volume gets circulated by moving equipment and constantly opened dock doors. You want to only support companies that refuse to live with that reality? Fine, get used to making your own stuff because it’s never going to change, and Amazon’s warehouse isn’t in any way out of the norm.
As for the productivity requirements: what the hell do you expect warehouse work to be about? It’s nothing but a numbers game, and as efficiency and equipment improve so does our mandatory piece per hour rate. If you can’t hack it you get the boot, and in this economy there are plenty of warm bodies to fill the spots of those who can’t. Do I like it? Hell no, I work my ass off every day moving over 40 TONS of product by hand. But I do it, and I get paid for my efforts. Am I looking for other work? You bet, and I’ve got a side-job as an assistant brewer that eats up about 30 hours a week simply because I enjoy the work and plan on quitting the warehouse as soon as possible.
Just do all of us who work in warehouses a favor and drop this silly fucking rant. Nobody who’s getting indignant at our “abuses” has any idea of the logistics, or plain physics, involved. It shows. We do our job, get paid well for it, and know what it entails. Save your pity for a group that actually needs it, like fieldhands.
Jewish Steel
@Woodrow L. Goode, IV:
Snort. And clearly in high demand as you dither on a blog on a Tuesday morning.
danimal
@Woodrow L. Goode, IV: There are a number of things that I disagree about with the president. But this list is absurd. After winning election, it is much more likely that Obama will claim a mandate for:
1) ending the Bush tax rates for the wealthy
2) continuing to reform the health care sector
3) restricting CO2 emissions
4) continue withdrawing from Afghanistan in a measured manner
5) make adjustments to stabilize funding and costs for Medicare and Medicaid (ATTN all liberals: This is a real problem)
6) tweak SS tax rates, caps and possibly retirement ages so that SS is stable beyond 20 years
7) reform the immigration system that provides a path to citizenship, respect for the border and enforcement of labor laws
This list is obviously not 100% aligned with a progressive wish list, but it’s pretty close. Obama is who he said he was, a center-left technocrat.
Libby
I totally agree Mistermix. All the armchair analysis by our young punditry makes me laugh. Obama has always worked to his own timetable and has a remarkable ability to ignore the hysterical demands for instant results/responses to what often turn out to be media fauxtroversies mainly invented to fill the 24/7 with easy content.
Agree or disagree with his policies, POTUS is a long range, big picture thinker. He’s not so gullible as the politerati would have you believe.
Maude
@Woodrow L. Goode, IV:
DADT is dead. We had hoped the law would change and it did.
Keith G
@cleek: Sorry I am late to reply. The real world occasionally needs attention.
Walker expressed an opinion that is shared, on one level or another, by a substantial number of folks who are at least nominally Democrats. While I am a bit agnostic about Obama’s behavior in this regard, I do not see the profit in insulting people who may just have an honorable difference in perception. Most here are on the same team and come Nov 2012, we may need all here and a bit more.
This is frustrating stuff. Humorous and pointed give and take is one thing, but the hair trigger insult/demean shtick is not helpful though it may feel gratifying at the moment. If he is wrong, prove your point. If it is an unknowable, wisely challenge the different opinion with what evidence you have.
Come next fall, most will. Now is the time for the various factions within any party to vent their concerns and to feel that they have been heard and respected. That is coalition building 101. To do otherwise, would serve to weaken the already tenuous bonds that some feel (mistakenly, in my opinion)toward the party and it’s current leadership.
As I said above, I think we will need them all. Telling them now to “shove it” is not smart party politics.
MoZeu
The idea that Obama needs anyone to explain to him that the GOP is an intransigent force hell bent on destroying him is laughable. How exactly do these people think he got as far as he did as quickly as he did in Chicago and Illinois politics – pretty much the epitome of a callous, cynical machine? It’s really not that hard to figure out the strategic advantages of adopting the posture that Obama does in the face of an unhinged, dangerous, irresponsible opposition. Having worked that out for yourself, you are faced with a binary choice: (1) Obama figured that out for himself as well and chose that course of action or (2) Obama is so stupid he hasn’t even figured out that there is a problem yet.
Anyone choosing (2) is not someone to be taken seriously.
Marc
@Woodrow L. Goode, IV:
He just proposed a long-term deficit plan, and the items on your list are, oddly enough, missing from it. And there are plenty of things that actual liberals would like.
So you’re not just being deliberately obnoxious – you’re also dead wrong on the facts of what Obama is proposing to do.
It’s so tragic that people don’t nod their heads and agree with everything that you say.
Marc
@Keith G:
If I read someone like Woodrow, actively lying about what Obama will do if re-elected, I don’t see someone on the same team. If someone like him comes in here parroting Sarah Palin they’re not on the same team.
The people we’re arguing with are either trolls (saying things they don’t believe to get a rise out of folks) or extreme leftists who don’t participate in coalition politics.
Respect is a two-way street: coming in and calling me a cultist doesn’t make me more interested in listening to someone. I understand (and at times feel) the frustration from some on the left. It’s be nice if the persistent critics could understand that the the endless left criticisms of Obama can also get frustrating.
And it gets bloody tiresome when example #3,715 comes in saying “you can’t stand any criticism of Obama” after dozens of posts in the same thread patiently explaining why that isn’t so.
Keith G
@Woodrow L. Goode, IV:
The problem I have with the list that follows the block is that you combine valid concerns (expand the American security state) with others that have no empirical grounds for worry.
Do you believe that upon reelection (assuming GOP control of both chambers), Obama will govern as a Lindsey Graham?
SteveinSC
Whoa ho, ho, Whoa fucking ho ho, LOL. LOL A bit late to the party or you just had your own epiphany? Also your goddamned statement is fucking backward. Try– “Only a blind fucking Obot wouldn’t say…” And by the way Michael Moore gave obama a thumbs up with a “we’ll see if he keeps it up.” Also too, he didn’t say the word Republican yet, so I’m with Moore. Department of Unintended consequences: I love it when the end of DADT helps the exquisite prigs here to “come out” with what they’ve really been thinking.
cleek
@Keith G:
not to be too pedantic, but i only insulted the perception (or “thing to believe”), not the person who holds it.
and since i don’t know if Walker believes that thing or not, i was trying to make my reply non-personal. those “you”s really were intended to be generic. i don’t think that came across, on second thought. alas.
still, i believe it is an idiotic idea, for the reasons i gave.
also, FWIW, i did try to tone-down my first reply to you, but FYWP decided i shouldn’t be allowed to edit it. yay WP.
Keith G
@Marc: Woody is an outlier and, no, I am not going to defend his evidence-free assertions.
And trust me, I have no wish to come off as a fucking “schoolmarm”. Woody and a few other aside, there are folks who bring up honorable concerns. This is a comment section of a lovable yet still second rate blog, so I am not expecting Socratic method, but a bit more intelligent interaction and less name calling would be a bit more interesting and useful – and would make Obama supporters here and I am one, seem less defensive IMHO.
nancydarling
@Keith G: Well, excuse us!
Elie
@cleek:
You got that right, Cleek. I am always amazed by those who actually think that they were there in all of Obama’s everyday meetings and conversations and know exactly what the conversation and decisions were or should have been. The sheer narcissism of it is really just funny in the end… funny and a bit disturbing. You know, that thing — reality.
Keith G
@cleek: I hear ya and I might well be making too much of it.
I sometimes feel we are like the Central Europeans opposing the Ottoman invasions. We don’t have to like each other, but we do have to find a way to live with one another for the next 58 weeks.
And always, FYWP.
Elie
@nancydarling:
LOL — We are “Lovable but Second Rate” —
Ohhh PLEEZ
Keith G
@nancydarling: Hey, I’ve been around for a number of years as well. Should I have said, “Second tier”?
Elie
@Keith G:
Keith, if you don’t mind my asking, why is it important to assign a “tier” or rank? What is buzzing around in that widdle bwain of yours about that? Who cares? What benefits are conferred to the first tier versus second, third, whatever? Is that like “I wouldn’t join any group that would have me as a member?”
Really.
Frankensteinbeck
@Woodrow L. Goode, IV:
Here is the thing:
You are factually wrong. Have you seen Obama’s poll numbers? Have you seen them break down? Obama has not lost the base. The base still loves him. Conservatives hate him more and more by the minute, and his overall poll numbers have dropped *marginally*. His numbers have dropped a bit among moderates, but in those same people the GOP’s – and every GOP candidate’s – numbers have plunged.
You asked ‘Is his plan working?’ Yes. His plan is empirically working. The GOP look like morons, polls say people think he’s the adult in the room and that he and not the GOP is the best hope we have to save the economy.
I grant that he has lost you. You represent only yourself. I’m sorry.
Oh, and in the process he’s achieved LBJ levels of legislative accomplishments. He is successful both in terms of politicking and in results. He is, empirically, a great president under truly Hellish circumstances.
Frankensteinbeck
And to the rest of you, THIS is the danger of ‘liberal’ ratfuckers that gets my goat. These people sucker you (using the universal ‘you’) into an argument about defending Obama despite his unpopularity *when he’s not unpopular*. They treat their narratives as assumed and those narratives get planted in the discourse even though they’re flat out false. They are the argument that the Overton Window exists, because they constantly move it in the wrong direction.
Keith G
@Elie: Dear lord, Elie. You are focusing on a throwaway line.
I was advocating that it may be a good idea to not insult but to engage those who have different perceptions, to ask, to share, to analyse, etc. That is a tall order, hence my comment about the Socratic method. There are blogs that can pull that off, such as Crooked Timber and Krugman – first rate blogs.
By design, this space is not like those. I was not demeaning folks.
There you go pulling the trigger on insults.
OzoneR
@Walker:
No, I don’t believe that, that’s a convenient excuse. He gets bashed for working toward concessions too (Bush tax cuts)
nancydarling
@Keith G: Two words: GROW UP, fer crissakes!
OzoneR
@Guster:
I disagree, I know people who think this who didn’t when during the HCR debate.
The problem is they also think his very existence is making the government dysfunctional and he’s expendable. Another words “Nice guy, but he’s too much of a bullseye, lets put someone in there who isn’t as easy to demonize.”
nancydarling
Also too, I enjoy the rowdiness of this blog, the finely honed insult, the not so finely honed insult. This is not the place to be if one’s feefees are hurt by scatological humor and criticism.
I learn stuff here and comments often make me laugh out loud.
Keith G
@nancydarling: So….is my next response supposed to be, “Fuck you”?
Is that growing up?
nancydarling
@Keith G: I can deal with it. Can you?
Keith G
Just checking. Cool.
Paula
@Keith G:
Crooked Timber …
I loves me some long winded academics, but they spend way too much time getting lost in the libertarian butthole of terminal narcissism. Also, I get why non-academic bloggers feel the need to grapple with the extreme mediocrity that is Matt Yglesias, but why Crooked Timber?
Paul W.
@Dustin:
Thanks for your comment, and to also pile on a little bit by pointing out that Bezos supports DEMOCRATIC candidates by and large. At least him personally, I don’t know about Amazon in general. Amazon is actually a democratizing force, in general, from what I can tell and they also have THE BEST customer service I’ve ever dealt with. I would add, however, that I am a bit defensive in part because he is a fellow Texan, and efficiency freak like myself, and a lover of books
See link to contributions here.
Keith G
@Paula: Not necessarily for content, I was speaking to process – the type of discourse.
I would exclude MY, since he has some well trod issues.
AxelFoley
@Woodrow L. Goode, IV:
Yeah, thought so.
AxelFoley
@Frankensteinbeck: @ post 105 & 106
Well stated, sir.
FlipYrWhig
@Woodrow L. Goode, IV:
But, here’s the thing. There’s no such thing as a single-issue gun control voter. It’s not parallel. The NRA could act like this and win, yes. That doesn’t mean all single-issue groups can. Or “liberals.” The NRA was spectacularly triumphant as a lobbying organization, no doubt, but I can’t think of another issue that could play the same role from the Democratic side: not pro-choice, not union rights, not gay rights… anyone have anything? Is there a liberal-leaning group that could threaten to withhold its votes for Democrats, have enough leverage to follow through on that threat, and be prepared to handle the harmful results?
SteveinSC
@cleek:
Idiot.
Marc
@Keith G:
Yea, understood. The annoyance factor with the same folks yelling “obamabots” is pretty high too, thus making it difficult to listen on substance. This doesn’t make attacks on people useful (they frequently are the opposite), but they aren’t coming from nowhere either.
cleek
@SteveinSC:
poopyhead
Paula
@Keith G:
So … how it translates to me sometimes is a libertarian thread on CT is a libertarian thread on BJ with longer words and less profanity.
Oh, well. YMMV.
cleek
@Paula:
boorrrrriinnng.
stinkdaddy
“So, it’s hard for his opponents to credibly claim that Obama is being his usual uncompromising self. I’m sure the 27 percenters will buy that, but they’ll buy anything.”
The same could have been said had the uncompromising behavior begun in January. The first 2 years weren’t exactly a study in iron-fisted despotism, and yes crazy people will believe anything. Is there a point here beyond excuse-making?
“By doing the latter, he appeared to be the reasonable person in the room, and now he has the benefit that his new, harder-edged rhetoric is placed in the context of his earlier, softer approach.”
Counterpoint: there’s no indication from approval ratings that the public actually gives a shit who is more reasonable, and given that we’re throwing out untested guesses it seems just as likely that people see the new approach and go, “Pfft, right, more politics.”