Come for the politics, stay for the snark.

Our job is not to persuade republicans but to defeat them.

I did not have telepathic declassification on my 2022 bingo card.

When your entire life is steeped in white supremacy, equality feels like discrimination.

In my day, never was longer.

Wow, you are pre-disappointed. How surprising.

It’s time for the GOP to dust off that post-2012 autopsy, completely ignore it, and light the party on fire again.

Their freedom requires your slavery.

Republicans seem to think life begins at the candlelight dinner the night before.

Anyone who bans teaching American history has no right to shape America’s future.

Pessimism assures that nothing of any importance will change.

When do we start airlifting the women and children out of Texas?

I’d try pessimism, but it probably wouldn’t work.

If you’re pissed about Biden’s speech, he was talking about you.

A democracy can’t function when people can’t distinguish facts from lies.

They fucked up the fucking up of the fuckup!

Conservatism: there are some people the law protects but does not bind and others who the law binds but does not protect.

Let there be snark.

All your base are belong to Tunch.

Come for the politics, stay for the snark.

fuckem (in honor of the late great efgoldman)

A Senator Walker would be an insult to the state and the nation.

You don’t get to peddle hatred on saturday and offer condolences on sunday.

Republicans in disarray!

Infrastructure week. at last.

You are here: Home / Politics / I wonder what this is about

Reader Interactions

181Comments

  4. 4.

    Social Outcast

    He accidentally walked into the socialist party meeting in the secret “Red Room” just off the oval office. Or he found Obama’s real Kenyan passport at the bottom of a desk drawer.

    The possible reasons for this are just endless. I look forward to reading them all on the right-wing blogs tonight.

  7. 7.

    J.A.F. Rusty Shackleford

    President Obama will deliver a statement at 3 p.m. ET, likely announcing the resignation of White House Chief of Staff Bill Daley.

    This is great news for McCain!

  8. 8.

    seanindc

    its because he alienated congressional leadership. they are saying he’s a complete dick. so they are bringing in jack lew to change the diapers. this is about getting dems on the same page and getting some party discipline for pushing tough votes on the GOP. this is also known as a sloppy handjob.

  9. 9.

    kindness

    It must have been Daley saying something good about Tim Tebow and something about the Steelers being pantywaists….or something like that. That would be good enough for some…

  10. 10.

    EconWatcher

    By the way, I never could figure out why his brother gave up the mayor-for-life gig in Chicago (as a former resident, I was a fan). Anyone know the scoop?

  11. 11.

    r€nato

    wasn’t he kind of on his way out anyway? In November some of his duties were handed over to somebody else.

  13. 13.

    ornery_curmudgeon

    Are you asking what was Bill Daley doing as the White House Chief of Staff?

    Probably lots of good stuff for the country and We the People. Probably.

  14. 14.

    dmsilev

    @EconWatcher: A couple of things. One is that Chicago has some serious fiscal problems, and Daley didn’t really want to be the one who had to deal with them. If Chicago had gotten the Olympics, he’d have stayed through 2016, but without that, there wasn’t anything big on the horizon.

    Also, at the time he decided to step down, his wife was dying of cancer (and has since passed away), and that probably had a lot to do with it as well.

  15. 15.

    andrewsomething

    OT:

    Gallup has a new poll out that’s getting a lot of buzz as it shows that more people identify as “Independents” than ever before. I think that it’s really just an expression of discontent with the whole process that has led to this result, but I don’t think that it really means all that much. Most “Independents” lean one way or the other pretty heavily. They are not the “center” that the pundits dreams they are.

    The important thing is the opportunity for comedy:

    The percentage of Americans identifying as political independents increased in 2011, as is common in a non-election year, although the 40% who did so is the highest Gallup has measured, by one percentage point. More Americans continue to identify as Democrats than as Republicans, 31% to 27%.

    Notice a certain number?

  16. 16.

    Mike Goetz

    He was bad at his job, served Obama poorly, and constantly offended Harry Reid. He had to go.

    He was an experiment that failed.

  19. 19.

    Mike Goetz

    Anyone see “Boss” with Kelsey Grammer? Hilarious, Grand Guignol right-wing and professional-left fantasy of what Chicago politics is like.

  20. 20.

    J.A.F. Rusty Shackleford

    @andrewsomething:

    My wingnut father, brother and brother-in-law all claim to be moderate Independents – who just happen to always vote Republican.

    The more embarrassing their representatives are on the right the more likely a Republican will claim to be a Libertarian or Independent.

  21. 21.

    Frankensteinbeck

    Clearly he’s going to finally announce that he’s slashing medicare and social security and embracing the proposals of Simpson-Bowles. Man, he is SO late. He was supposed to have announced that two years ago.

    EDIT – On a slightly more serious note, I’m not hearing as many crazy insider predictions lately. You know, ‘Anonymous White House insider says Obama will announce he’s replacing Medicare with a new program called Soylent Green.’ What happened?

  24. 24.

    Brachiator

    from the wire services

    Mr. Daley offered his resignation to the president in an Oval Office meeting last Tuesday. The president asked him to think about it, and Mr. Daley made his final decision the next day. His letter said the time had come for him to return to Chicago. Mr. Daley recommended Mr. Lew for the job. A senior administration official said Mr. Obama “was surprised by Daley’s decision.”
    __
    Mr. Daley had an uneasy tenure since Mr. Obama named him chief of staff in January. A former banking executive, he was brought in to help repair the White House’s relationship with business and broker deals with Republicans. But he clashed with some White House staffers. His efforts to cut fiscal agreements with GOP leaders were unsuccessful, and, at times, his missteps embarrassed the White House.
    __
    In November, Mr. Daley announced in a senior staff meeting that he had ceded part of his White House duties to Pete Rouse, a longtime aide to Mr. Obama who served as interim chief of staff before Mr. Daley arrived.
    __
    In an interview with The Wall Street Journal at the time, Mr. Daley said the shift in his role was in response to a bitter summer fight between the White House and congressional Republicans over raising the debt ceiling. “The president challenged us all to pick up our game after the summer, and I think we’re all trying to do that,” he said.
    __
    But Mr. Daley’s role was left undefined beyond that he was tasked with managing relations with influential outsiders, and he appeared unable to regain his footing.

    Turf war. Nothing to see here. Move along.

  26. 26.

    Amir Khalid

    LA Times story at TPM’s link says Obama was taken by surprise when Daley sent in his resignation after Christmas vacation, as Daley had said he would stay through the re-election campaign. No mention of Daley falling out with anybody. It’s been a rough year at the White House, so I guess it’s possible that Daley just found the job stress too much for him.

  27. 27.

    Mnemosyne

    @EconWatcher:

    What dmsilev said, plus IIRC Daley had reached a milestone in being mayor longer than his father (who was the longest-serving mayor of Chicago) and didn’t want to be the third Chicago mayor to die in office.

  28. 28.

    trollhattan

    Benen weighs in.

    As someone who was less than thrilled when Daley got the job, I’m not exactly sorry to hear the news. What’s more, I’ve liked Lew, and have no doubt he’ll be excellent in this role.
    __
    My larger concern is that Lew is a great OMB chief, and getting the Senate to confirm his replacement, whomever that may be, is going to be exceedingly unpleasant.

    “Lew” is budget director Jack Lew.

    http://www.washingtonmonthly.com/political-animal/2012_01/daley_to_depart_as_wh_chief_of034643.php

  30. 30.

    Evolving Deep Southerner (tense changed for accuracy)

    “You’re not a wartime consiglieri, Bill. Things could get pretty rough with this move we’re trying …”

  31. 31.

    Mnemosyne

    @some guy:

    As long as you’re fine having no Treasury Secretary at all, sure. It’s been pretty widely reported that both Obama and Geithner would like to have Geithner step down, but there’s no way to get a replacement through the Senate, so Geithner has stayed on.

  33. 33.

    Pillsy

    This has been a long time coming, and AIUI Daley has been marginalized for a while because he fucking sucked at his job.

  35. 35.

    eemom

    I knew he was a jerk when I heard him make a stupid joke about the debt limit fiasco last summer.

    Financial armaggeddon? Ha ha. Real funny, asshole.

  37. 37.

    Evolving Deep Southerner (tense changed for accuracy)

    @Cat Lady: SHIT SHIT SHIT – Cat Lady beat me to it!

    Damn, just when I thought I was going to say something truly clever …

  38. 38.

    Hill Dweller

    @some guy:

    can he take the unindicted Treasury Secretary with him? please?

    Both Obama and Geithner wanted a new Treasury Secretary last year, but the WH staff didn’t think they could get anyone else confirmed.

    The coming struggle to get Jack Lew’s replacement confirmed, regardless of who it is, will give you a good idea the difficulty in getting a new Treasury Sec. confirmed. I don’t understand why they didn’t just let Rouse continue being acting CoS until the end of the year, and let Lew stay in place.

  40. 40.

    Nellcote

    I wish political types could come up with a better cliche than spending more time with their families. Getting eyeroll strains.

  41. 41.

    srv

    Bill just isn’t the hippie puncher that his Daddy or Rahm was, and that’s what the spirits told Michelle.

    How can this be a surprise to anyone? Daley’s “job” got reorganized four or five months ago.

  45. 45.

    Frankensteinbeck

    Hmmm. He was brought in to be a liaison to keep the peace between Obama, business, and the GOP. There was never any peace to keep. Now he’s quitting. That really all seems pretty straightforward.

  46. 46.

    Hill Dweller

    @Schlemizel: Jack Lew is leaving his current position as budget director to become CoS. Lew’s replacement will have to be confirmed by the Senate.

    As I said, getting Lew’s replacement confirmed will likely be an ugly process, but will pale in comparison to what Geithner’s replacement would face.

  48. 48.

    balconesfault

    Dailey’s the guy who gave an interview to Politico months ago that showed him to be a fool:

    “I call; I’m not as aggressive leaking and stroking,” Daley says. “I’m not reflecting on Rahm, but I’m not angling for something else, you know? Rahm is a lot younger , and he knew he was going to be doing something else in two years or four years or eight years, and I’m in a different stage. I’m not going to become the leaker in chief.”

    simon: You’ve got others for that, I say.

    “Yeah, and hopefully in some organized leaking fashion,” Daley says, laughing. “I’m all for leaking when it’s organized.”

  49. 49.

    Schlemizel

    @The Moar You Know:
    You can tell he is hard right by the cocaine, hooker, DUI, dump wife for teenie-bopper gf problems ol Kels has had.

    Apparently the coke is eating ol kels’ brain btw. I heard an interview with him where he said nobody would hire him after “Cheers” because he was a conservative. Thats correct sir, you had absolutely no work after that did you? Apparently that #1 show named after his character for 7 years didn’t exist.

  52. 52.

    Corner Stone

    @Schlemizel:

    You can tell he is hard right by the cocaine, hooker, DUI, dump wife for teenie-bopper gf problems ol Kels has had.

    Now, now. Who amongst us may cast the first stone?

  54. 54.

    Corner Stone

    I hope one day we get an accurate account of what decision making process President Obama went through when deciding to hire some of his staff and Cabinet.

  55. 55.

    Southern Beale

    Good, bring on a badass for Chief of Staff. My suggestion? Tabatha Coffey from Bravo’s Salon Takeover. I hear she’s expanding to take over other businesses. Washington could sure use someone who cuts through the BS.

  56. 56.

    Keith G

    Staffing has been a weak spot, I feel, and staffing is one of most important things a president does.

  58. 58.

    MikeJ

    @Mum: He was supposed to nationalize the unicorn ranch and distribute the foals to all the good little boys and girls.

  59. 59.

    The Moar You Know

    I heard an interview with him where he said nobody would hire him after “Cheers” because he was a conservative.

    @Schlemizel: I hear that horseshit from every conservative actor. And they usually say it while they’re working.

    Proving my theorem that the only time the conservative crowd pays homage to Jesus is when they get up on their self-made crosses.

  60. 60.

    Mnemosyne

    @Schlemizel:

    He’s probably thinking about how hard it’s been for him to find work after “Frasier,” but I think that has a whole lot more to do with his crappy movie choices and difficulty in getting insured due to his propensity for going on cocaine binges than his political views.

    It’s like when Bo Derek tried to claim she wasn’t getting work as an actress because she was a conservative. Yes, Bo, it wasn’t because your only acting experience was in your husband’s creepy soft-core pron movies — it was totally because you’re a Republican!

  61. 61.

    balconesfault

    Speaking of indictments – one very legit criticism from the left, imo, is that the Obama Admin has managed to not prosecute ANYONE involved in the bilking of investors and taxpayers during the Bush years.

    I can imagine that if Dailey, with all his WS connections, heard such prosecutions were coming down the pike, he would want to get out before he was associated with them.

    Just saying … or hoping …

  62. 62.

    Keith G

    @Corner Stone:

    I hope one day we get an accurate account of what decision making process President Obama went through when deciding to hire some of his staff and Cabinet.

    1. From Chicago and/or
    2. Worked on Wall Street

  64. 64.

    taylormattd

    Whatever it is, and without reading the other comments, I’m quite sure that FDL will have a perfectly even-keeled analysis of the situation.

  66. 66.

    Schlemizel

    @Corner Stone:
    Never having been in danger of any of those sins I feel liberated to flip a couple of chunks his way. That it is his type of moralizing hypocritical whore monger who condemns others for his own failings I have no reservations about it.

  67. 67.

    Martin

    @Schlemizel:

    Kelsey went full wingnut after 9/11. He’s pretty bonkers now. Drugs, fame, money, age, who the fuck knows – but more bonkers each year.

    – Observations from someone who did some work for he and his (ex) wife and spent considerable time interacting with both over several years.

    From what I understand, he didn’t like the Frasier character in the spin-off series as it developed into a more elitist, out-of-touch character vs where it started on Cheers (which was at least a bit more grounded). So yeah, he’s probably blocked the whole show out as a character undeserving of him.

  68. 68.

    taylormattd

    Oh christ, it’s worse than I thought, if Corner Stone is any indication. Nothing pushes the firebagger erection button more than Obama staffing gossip.

  70. 70.

    Schlemizel

    @Mnemosyne:
    No, he was very specific that “After Cheers I couldn’t get work. I was blackballed in Holley wood because of my political beliefs”

    @Keith G:
    I think the biggest failings of the last 3 Dem Presidents is not having real experience inside the Capitol. What made Truman, JFK and LBJ (particularly the last 2, primarily because of LBJ) so successful was they knew so much about the egos and mind games of the House & Senate. I had hoped Rahm would have filled that role but he was not that guy.

    If the Prez does not have it they really need someone who knows how to suck up to the gigantic egos and tender feelings of the prima donnas that get things done over there. It would also help if they know how to manipulate the process to their bosses advantage.

  71. 71.

    Keith G

    @Corner Stone: “Weak spot” does not imply total failure.

    As a team, I feel that they under achieved. Or maybe, their output was not effectively utilized by the top of the flow chart.

    edit

    Did you get wet?

  72. 72.

    Schlemizel

    @Schlemizel:
    To expand on that a bit – the last 3 GOP Prexies have not had this problem because of the intense discipline the GOP maintains (with a huge assist from the Blew Dogs types). If the Dems had the party discipline of the GOP they would have gotten a lot more of their programs passed.

  74. 74.

    Schlemizel

    @Martin:
    Interesting, thanks for the insight. I’m not sure I buy that but is possible (particularly if my theory on coke damage is correct. My guess it is just more “poor me” bullshit from the have-to-be-victims of the right.

  75. 75.

    Martin

    @Schlemizel:

    the last 3 GOP Prexies have not had this problem because of the intense discipline the GOP maintains

    Nah. The GOP doesn’t have this problem because Reagan defined success as tearing things down, rather than building them up. Procedural bullshit like the filibuster makes it trivially easy to tear things down, simply by creating gridlock, waiting for critical deadlines like the debt ceiling or the budget to come and then cranking up the pressure.

    Dems define success as building them up, which requires massively more effort and more importantly, requires majority support. So the Dems need 60 senators to declare victory (plus avoiding a veto), whereas the GOP just needs 1 senator to place a hold on something to declare victory.

    In a competition between a suicide bomber and a surgeon, the bomber will win every round.

  76. 76.

    Schlemizel

    @Martin:
    True enough but I still think someone who knows their way around the cloakroom and can powder and diaper the babies would have had a huge impact on our guys.

    Although take the Bush tax cuts, Iraq Medicare Part D – there are several ‘building’ disasters that the GOP have gotten through that no Dem in recent history would have.

  77. 77.

    Suffern ACE

    @Southern Beale: LOL. You had that guy with Rahm, who was the toast of the Dems when they won back the house in 2006 and was every progressive’s goat by March 2009.

  80. 80.

    Triassic Sands

    OT: For the first time in years I just took a look at RedState. Always prepared to publicly demonstrate his stupidity Airwick Airwickson son of Airwick is still hoping for a Perry resurgence. Apparently, Airwick is too stupid to recognize just how stupid Perry really is. I guess they’re a match made in…summer school?

    Poor baby, the only two candidates that the Doughboy can support are Perry and No More Mr. Niceguy Newt.

  81. 81.

    trollhattan

    @Schlemizel:

    No, he was very specific that “After Cheers I couldn’t get work. I was blackballed in Holley wood because of my political beliefs”

    I remember reading that, flabbergasted. It seemed as though “Frasier” hit the screen about seven hours after they wrapped “Cheers.” Wasn’t it enough they hired Ron Paul to play his dad? Sheesh.

  84. 84.

    Hill Dweller

    Obama over-learned the lessons of Clinton’s first two years in office. Instead of bringing in a crop of fresh new faces, like Clinton did, he brought in experienced people. Unfortunately, there had been just one Democratic administration in the last 30 years, meaning any experience was coming from the Clinton era.

    I suspect Obama would have been a bit more agile in replacing some of their initial mistakes if the confirmation process hadn’t been crippled. That said, Obama deserves some blame for not anticipating the Republicans’ nihilism.

    The Daley pick is all on Obama. It was reactionary and, ultimately, self-defeating. It didn’t tamp down the ‘Obama is anti-business’ nonsense, but it did reinforce the Obama as Wall Street stooge caricature.

  86. 86.

    taylormattd

    @Corner Stone: ZOMG, did you hear??? Naomi Wolf told Al Gore to wear EARTH TONES!!!!

    @everyone else. Who said this? “It is often misunderstood. Social Security does not contribute to the deficit in the medium term…. There is no need to deal with Social Security, and dealing with it would have at best a negligible impact.”

  87. 87.

    Bret

    I follow politics incredibly closely. I come to BJ at least a dozen times a day to look for updates, I have HP, TPM, and a few other news sites open at least half a dozen times a day. I read nearly every post, even ABL’s.

    I had completely forgotten a man named Bill Daley was Obama’s Chief of Staff.

  88. 88.

    Schlemizel

    @WereBear (itouch):
    It would have been a good thing when Dems had the majority – all of Carters, the start of Clinton’s and the first two of Obama’s. They could have had traction in Carter & Clinton’s time but you are right there is no dealing with those bastards today. Still it might have been possible to have avoided the 06 debacle had Dems banded together and passed a real stimulus bill along with moving some other things forward.

    While I have been disappointed by the Obama administration it really in large part because of the spineless worms & corporate sellouts with a D after their name that made the situation what it is. Some who knows when to kiss it & when to kick it might have made a difference (or I’m just wishful thinking again)

  89. 89.

    boss bitch

    @Hill Dweller:

    That said, Obama deserves some blame for not anticipating the Republicans’ nihilism.

    Uhm, No. No one saw all this coming. No one. Anyone who says they did is lying. Plenty of Obama critics and supporters STILL didn’t see until Obama introduced and pushed for the American Jobs Act. I have noticed an eerie silence from the “bully pulpit” crowd since then.

  90. 90.

    TG Chicago

    @EconWatcher: In addition to what dmsilev said at #14, there was outrage over the parking meter privatization deal. That would have given an opening to someone to make a serious run against him. He probably still would have won, but his legacy will probably look better for getting out when he did. But the end of his tenure–with the parking meters, the Olympic loss, fiscal problems, more stuff coming out about police torture under Burge, etc–did not allow him to leave on a high note.

    That said, I think the #1 reason was likely his wife’s health.

  91. 91.

    Schlemizel

    @Suffern ACE:

    That actually fits with what Martin said above about his blocking “Frasier” from his memory. I think you two have probably explained it!

    Of course given his acting chops I seriously doubt his politics affect his career opportunities at all. Had he been given a great part in a blockbuster movie his whine today would be about how the liberal elites in Hollywood edited the film to make him look bad because he is a conservative.

  94. 94.

    boss bitch

    @Hill Dweller:

    The Daley pick is all on Obama. It was reactionary and, ultimately, self-defeating. It didn’t tamp down the ‘Obama is anti-business’ nonsense, but it did reinforce the Obama as Wall Street stooge caricature.

    Wrong again.

  95. 95.

    Schlemizel

    @boss bitch:
    So no one saw the impeachment effort back in the 90s? No on was listening to the rhetoric coming from the right? No one noticed that while they were in power the GOP completely shut out all Dems from conference committees? No one saw how the GOP behaved after 06 when the Dems took control of the Senate?

    You may be right that no one in the incoming administration didn’t know what was coming but I hope not, that would be even more disappointing then the rest of the stuff combined.

  96. 96.

    WereBear (itouch)

    @Schlemizel: I think you are right about a lot of that. LBJ sure knew when to kiss, and when to kick. :). And he made some tremendous accomplishments.

    I just don’t think President Obama is someone who likes to
    put the boot in; which is fine. He does very well with the withering ridicule and this is something his opponents cannot do.

  97. 97.

    Schlemizel

    @Calouste:
    Sad, I had forgotten him. You are correct. I wonder how much input he has, he never gets a mention which might not mean anything at all but who knows?

    He is exactly the kind of guy who should know how to make it rain. Now I am really despondent!

  98. 98.

    Brachiator

    @Martin:

    Kelsey went full wingnut after 9/11. He’s pretty bonkers now. Drugs, fame, money, age, who the fuck knows – but more bonkers each year.

    The man has had a hard life. Had to deal with a lot of demons.

    Grammer’s personal life has been affected by several tragedies. In 1968 his father, whom he had seen only twice since his parents’ divorce, was shot and killed. In 1975 his younger sister, Karen, was abducted, raped, and murdered. In 1980 his twin half-brothers died in a scuba diving accident, and in 2001 David Angell, close friend and producer of Frasier, died in the 9/11 attacks.

    Don’t know him from beans, but some of his behavior reminds me of people I know who are seething with rage from just trying to contain their feelings of helplessness and anger and grief.

  99. 99.

    Suffern ACE

    OT – well at least the AP story on the “Revelation” about Secret posh Hollywood parties from the Obama book ends with:

    White House spokesman Eric Shultz disputed Kantor’s take, saying the event was not covered up for fear of public backlash. “This was an event for local school children from the Washington DC area and for hundreds of military families,” Shultz said in a statement released to Politico. “If we wanted this event to be a secret, we probably wouldn’t have invited the press corps to cover it, release photos of it to Flickr, or post a video from it on the White House website,” he said.

  100. 100.

    FlipYrWhig

    @Suffern ACE: That’s not the way I remember it. I remember that Rahm’s idea was to recruit deep-pocketed candidates to run in carefully targeted races and dump more institutional money into helping them out, which ran against Howard Dean’s idea of running candidates and staffing up pretty much everywhere, and dividing the money relatively equally Of course the argument about how best to use party resources got transposed into an argument about ideology, so Rahm became a caricature of DLC middle-of-the-road-ism and Dean of progressive true belief, even though both were dedicated to making inroads into Republican territory with conservative-palatable candidates and both were responsible for the boom in Blue Dogs that resulted from 2006.

  103. 103.

    RP

    I’m not convinced that Daley or Emanuel or any of the other questionable staff picks have made that much of a substantive difference. What exactly do people think we could have gotten with a perfect chief of staff pick? A larger stimulus? I know many people hate Geithner, but what exactly would Secretary Krugman have done differently?

  105. 105.

    Hill Dweller

    @boss bitch: If Obama didn’t anticipate it before being sworn in, he and/or his staff should have realized it once the Republicans filibuster the stimulus.

    Furthermore, there is some precedent for Republicans using the filibuster as a weapon in Clinton’s first two years. They had also used it liberally after losing the House and Senate in ’07-’08.

    Granted, I’m not sure anyone expected that level of nihilism(hell, the republicans are probably as surprised as anyone it was this successful), which has made the Gingrich era look like a walk in the park, but the administration should’ve gotten the message much more quickly.

  108. 108.

    boss bitch

    @Schlemizel:

    I’m not just talking about the administration. No one predicted that Republicans would act like this. No blogger, no pundit. None of the know-it-alls in the comment threads of any blog. NO one. Hindsight is 20/20 and we can call sit here and say ‘well what just happened reminds me of what happened then’ but NO ONE can say they knew all this was coming.

    Like I said up until very recently a lot of people STILL had it in their heads that the GOP would just roll over if Obama just used the bully pulpit. The very people who were saying Obama didn’t get it didn’t get it themselves.

  109. 109.

    Schlemizel

    @boss bitch:
    Sorry, no – several bloggers I read predicted it. I predicted it (yes I am well aware I am nobody, have a bad attitude and have no written record to prove this). When you start on something huge like invading Iraq, becoming the President of the US pick something, one of the things you have to do is anticipate the possible outcomes and how you are going to react. The Republican behavior was quite predictable & should have been anticipated.

  110. 110.

    B W Smith

    @Schlemizel: I think the level of animosity was not foreseen. I do think that Obama naively thought that he could reach out to Republicans and win over a few, enough to get things passed. No one felt it would be cakewalk because of the previous actions you have pointed out. I don’t think anyone thought the Republican party would risk taking down our economy to prove a point.

    @FlipYrWhig: I concur with your memory of events. I like Howard Dean, but he is not a purity lefty as some believe.

  111. 111.

    Brachiator

    @RP:

    A larger stimulus? I know many people hate Geithner, but what exactly would Secretary Krugman have done differently?

    I don’t see that Krugman has either the background or temperament to be a Secretary of anything. While he may have been on point in saying that the stimulus needed to be bigger, some of his ideas on how the money should have been spent were just plain stupid.

    I’m not sure that he would even make a good economic advisor.

    @Hill Dweller:

    If Obama didn’t anticipate it before being sworn in, he and/or his staff should have realized it once the Republicans filibuster the stimulus

    Anticipated it and done what?

  112. 112.

    boss bitch

    @Hill Dweller:

    Granted, I’m not sure anyone expected that level of nihilism(

    That’s what I’ve been saying.

    And if the administration had gotten the message sooner what were they supposed to do about it? Sit and wait for the next election while the economy goes into free fall? Obama can’t do that. He has to work with what he’s got and take advantage of any opportunity he can.

    Say what you want about his early years, he is using it to his advantage for his re-election.

  113. 113.

    Hill Dweller

    @boss bitch: Again, Obama might not have anticipated it before being sworn in, but the minute the Republicans filibustered the stimulus, and offered no legitimate alternative, in the middle of a once in a lifetime economic collapse, they should have got the picture.

    As an aside, while I might lament some of, what I perceive to be, the administration’s mistake, I haven’t lost sight of the fact Republicans are the real culprits here. They’ve done shit we’ve never before seen before. In a sane world, and with a competent press, the Republicans would have paid a dear price for their nihilism. Alas…

  114. 114.

    RP

    Maybe I’m just a panglossian at heart, but I fundamentally just do not get the disappointment in Obama’s administration. We got

    – a $780B stimulus

    – imperfect but still very important health care reform

    – Dodd-Frank, including the CFPB

    – end of don’t ask, don’t tell

    – end of the war in Iraq

    – intelligent handling of the situations in Egypt and Libya

    – two good Supreme Court justices

    – a bunch of other stuff

    He’s made plenty of mistakes, but all in all he’s accomplished a lot. I just don’t buy the idea that he (or President H. Clinton) could have done significantly more given congress (even the 2009-2010 version), the media, and the public. Those who did expect significantly more are not living in the reality-based community IMO.

  115. 115.

    boss bitch

    @Schlemizel:

    It is the height of arrogance to say you or anyone saw this GOP obstruction coming. You did not. No one did. Constant yapping from the left about what Obama needs to do and needs to say – You all did not get it because you all still thought the GOP could be moved. The AJA campaign shut the lot of you up though.

    Monday Morning Quarterback.

    -that is all.

  116. 116.

    Rita R.

    @B W Smith:

    They weren’t risking taking down the economy to prove a point, the point WAS to take down the economy, to ensure that President Obama wouldn’t get re-elected.

    Personally, I give Obama credit for trying to fulfill the idea that made him famous in the first place in his 2004 convention speech, that we’re all one America and bringing people together, and that helped get him elected.

    On top of that, he was dealing with a compelte sh*tstorm when he took office, and was up to his neck for a long time in just trying to keep the economy from collapsing. I think he’s finally gotten the message though, and I hope he continues to outmaneuver and the Republicans and kick their asses through the next year and the next term I believe he’s going to win.

  117. 117.

    RP

    I don’t see that Krugman has either the background or temperament to be a Secretary of anything. While he may have been on point in saying that the stimulus needed to be bigger, some of his ideas on how the money should have been spent were just plain stupid.

    I’m not sure that he would even make a good economic advisor.

    Absolutely. I was just throwing a name out there.

  118. 118.

    Keith G

    @Schlemizel: Be careful now Schlem. You are getting really close to implying that a bit of Obama’s problems may have been made worse by Obama and his staff.

    For some, them is fighin’ words.

  119. 119.

    Joel

    @Mike Goetz: Mix in a little Skinemax and you’ve pretty much nailed it.

    The first episode was moderately interesting, but mostly the show turned out to be a flop. Kind of like if Hype Williams directed a season of “The Wire”.

  120. 120.

    taylormattd

    @Schlemizel: wait, the people rubbing their crystal balls, purporting to divine superior insight into Obama’s soul via politico reports of staffing decisions are talking about “empty arguments”?

    Can you next tell me how Desiree Roberts quitting as White House social director was a devastating indictment of Obama’s gravitas?

  121. 121.

    Nellcote

    @Suffern ACE:

    Eric Shultz via the WH Blog:

    This mischaracterization of a celebration in support of military families is unfortunate but also instructive. When book authors attempt to stretch isolated incidents into grandiose insights, they end up going down the rabbit hole.

    [heh]

  123. 123.

    B W Smith

    @Rita R.: I agree with you, that was their point. I also agree that nihilism is a much better descriptor of their actions than animosity. Animus is just an interesting byproduct. I have followed politics for more than 35 years and I have never seen, nor would I have believed, we would come to this.

  124. 124.

    WaterGirl

    @boss bitch:

    Say what you want about his early years, he is using it to his advantage for his re-election.

    Amen!

    I was as frustrated as anyone when Obama was seeming to roll over at every turn. But he did what he always does with things like this. He waits until everyone is screaming “what’s wrong with you – stand up to them!” He waits until public opinion gets ahead of him. And then when he does whatever it was they wanted (and he likely wanted) they can’t go all ‘angry black man” on him. Instead, people are saying “it’s about time!”.

    Well played, in my opinion.

  125. 125.

    Brachiator

    @Keith G:

    Be careful now Schlem. You are getting really close to implying that a bit of Obama’s problems may have been made worse by Obama and his staff. For some, them is fighin’ words.

    Not really. This just gets people lost in the land of woulda shoulda coulda.

    He and his staff should have done … something differently or better… Or both. More fighting, more taking it to Congress. Fewer calls for bipartisan co-operation. More bully pulpit. More jawboning. More arm twisting.

    Yeah, whatever. But what I have seen is a greater degree of obstructionism than plagued Clinton. And a Republican opposition that even fought the president on stupid stuff (raising the debt ceiling) that they had never fought previous presidents on. Saw an intensification of blocking Obama appointments and nominees, as happened with Clinton, and a more determined effort to flat out prevent the Democrats from governing.

    I don’t know of any president who, faced with similar challenges, could have done better or how. Heck, I’m surprised that Obama didn’t stumble even more than he did.

    And I am on the record as noting how disappointed I was at the picks for Secretary of Labor and Commerce, and also how disappointed I was at the appointment of a lot of former Clinton people instead of fresh faces. I think that Hillary Clinton as Secretary of State has been merely adequate, and a lot of the foreign policy staff who were supposed to be hot Afghanistan and Pakistan people were dopes.

    But I also recognize the plain fact that the Republican dumbasses in the Senate would have held up replacements had Obama done a more serious, swifter, house cleaning.

    Still, with all this, I am amazed at some of the good stuff that the Obama was able to accomplish, despite idiotic opposition.

    And so, where do we go from here?

  126. 126.

    Nellcote

    @WaterGirl:

    And then when he does whatever it was they wanted (and he likely wanted) they can’t go all ‘angry black man” on him. Instead, people are saying “it’s about time!”.

    Didn’t we have the discussion about the difference between tactic and strategy during the last campaign?

  127. 127.

    WaterGirl

    @Nellcote: A lot of people don’t know the difference. Or maybe it’s more accurate to say that they don’t recognize the difference when they see it being played out.

  128. 128.

    Chuck Butcher

    @boss bitch:
    Boss? Myopic might be a bit better description. Despite what achieved notice of your narrow view, a hell of a lot of people stated in no uncertain terms that “bipartisan” was entire and complete wishful thinking during the Primaries of 08 – despite supporting Obama in nearly the same breath.

    The increasing magnitude of GOPer bullshit in this regard was clearly on view from Clinton through GWB. I was not a lonely voice in the wilderness on this point.

  129. 129.

    Keith G

    @Brachiator: We fight…we fight.

    The problem is that Obama is ten months away from being a lame duck president and he is not a “movement politician”. Therefore I am not sure what he will be able to leave behind as far as permanent political infrastructure goes.

    So another thing we have to do besides fighting is building up our bench. We are going to need it.

  130. 130.

    Suffern ACE

    @Brachiator: I think they knew the Senate would be a problem or they wouldn’t have worked to get to a sixty that included Lieberman. If they thought the Republicans could budge, I don’t think Lieberman gets his chair.

  131. 131.

    fasteddie9318

    So it’s, what, 50/50 whether Daley endorses Obama or Romney in the fall? Good riddance. Only problem now is that they’ll never get an OMB head confirmed by this Senate.

  132. 132.

    Kola Noscopy

    @boss bitch:

    Like I said up until very recently a lot of people STILL had it in their heads that the GOP would just roll over if Obama just used the bully pulpit. The very people who were saying Obama didn’t get it didn’t get it themselves.

    My god, you are a shockingly blatant liar. And dissembler. And a disingenuous brainwashed Obot of the worst type to boot.

    The “a lot of people” trope you use to imply that NO ONE saw this coming is utter bullshit. Millions of people saw it coming. You just told us to STFU and clap really loudly.

  133. 133.

    Elie

    @EconWatcher:

    Y’all got the wrong Daley.

    Richard Daley was the Mayor of Chicago until recently when Rahm Emmanuel was elected. HIs wife Maggie, much beloved by the Mayor and the city, passed this Thanksgiving.

    This is BILL Daley — brother of Richard. Has never been Mayor of Chicago.

  135. 135.

    Kola Noscopy

    @boss bitch:

    It is the height of arrogance to say you or anyone saw this GOP obstruction coming. You did not. No one did.

    You are an idiot and either a paid Obama flack or just as dishonest as a person can be.

    I and millions of other people saw the gop obstruction coming and you and yours told us to stfu. You’re trying to rewrite history of course.

    Anyone who saw what the republicans did during the clinton impeachment, the Bush 2000 election theft, the handling of 9/11, the bogus Iraq War, etc etc, who would not think these freaks were capable of ANYTHING should not be in the white house. Or maybe that is precisely why he IS in the white house. Go along to get along, and all, am I right?

  136. 136.

    Chuck Butcher

    There has been a lot of bullshit around the “bully-pulpit.” I can’t speak for everyone on the topic, but I have never seen it as a method to directly shove Congress, I’ve always seen it as the means to push the public opinion in a direction and by that means, public opinion – drive Congress. It certainly is an open question as to Congress’ reaction to where public opinion is at.

  137. 137.

    WaterGirl

    @Keith G:

    The problem is that Obama is ten months away from being a lame duck president and he is not a “movement politician”.

    You say that like it’s certain that President Obama will not be re-elected. Why so negative?

  138. 138.

    Chuck Butcher

    @Suffern ACE:

    I don’t think Lieberman gets his chair

    I have pretty clear memories of being told to suck up LIEberman thanks to GOP bullshit… ummm Joe the McCain surrogate… Along with any “D” is better…

  140. 140.

    Brachiator

    @Keith G:

    The problem is that Obama is ten months away from being a lame duck president and he is not a “movement politician”. Therefore I am not sure what he will be able to leave behind as far as permanent political infrastructure goes.

    I have no idea what difference it would have made had he been a “movement politician.” He had, and still has, practical shit to deal with, like a woefully moribund economy.

    I don’t even know what a “permanent political infrastructure” is supposed to look like. There is no equivalent to the Tea Party movement for Democrats, but this is not Obama’s responsibility. It is interesting though, to note that even though supposed progressives have made all kinds of demands on Obama, the progressive movement is largely in the wilderness, and cannot connect with voters to get elected to Congress or to many state houses.

    And despite Pelosi’s best efforts, the Democrats in the Congress could not seize the opportunity to do more when they had a chance.

    So yeah, Democrats need to build their bench. But, hell, they should have had a freaking game plan as soon as Obama became the official nominee. Earlier even.

    @Suffern ACE:

    I think they knew the Senate would be a problem or they wouldn’t have worked to get to a sixty that included Lieberman.

    Yep. And yet I have seen the Congress, especially the Senate, get nastier and more obstructive when in the past there would have been side agreements to get done stuff that everyone knew needed to get done.

    But as I noted before, the GOP has intensified stuff that began with Clinton, and, abetted by the Tea Party People, they seem to believe absolutely that only Republicans have the right to govern, and that Obama must be forced to yield to them. And they have little problem with dismantling the federal government and even throttling the economy to prevent the Democrats from wielding power.

  141. 141.

    Corner Stone

    @Suffern ACE:

    LOL. You had that guy with Rahm, who was the toast of the -Dems- DLC when they won back the house in 2006 and was every progressive’s goat -by March 2009-.

  142. 142.

    Corner Stone

    As usual for some of this crowd, there’s a god damned lot of re-writing history going on in this thread.

  143. 143.

    Keith G

    @Chuck Butcher: Also no one that I know of has used “The Bully Pulpit” to mean one or a series of speeches.

    In the modern presidency, its meaning has shifted to describe a process and not an event. Using the Bully Pulpit has now come to mean developing, planning and using all the resources (unique and common) that a presidential administration can utilize. It means using a team of surrogates and a sophisticated media campaign.

    Even then success is not certain, but it does give the administration its best shot at getting their story out first and defining the terms of the coming battle of ideas. And, that is a lot.

  144. 144.

    Corner Stone

    @boss bitch:

    It is the height of arrogance to say you or anyone saw this GOP obstruction coming. You did not. No one did.

    This is the height of either stupidity or outright ignorance.

  146. 146.

    eemom

    @Keith G:

    The problem is that Obama is ten months away from being a lame duck president and he is not a “movement politician”. Therefore I am not sure what he will be able to leave behind as far as permanent political infrastructure goes.

    The shark. You’ve jumped it.

    This is an utterly ridiculous statement, whether you’re referring to a loss in November, or the two term limit.

  147. 147.

    Catsy

    @Hill Dweller:

    Obama might not have anticipated it before being sworn in, but the minute the Republicans filibustered the stimulus, and offered no legitimate alternative, in the middle of a once in a lifetime economic collapse, they should have got the picture.

    For me, the turning point was when the Republicans decided to literally commit economic terrorism against the United States by holding the debt limit hostage in order to extract concessions on various longstanding conservative shibboleths.

    It was one of the most despicable, criminal things I’ve ever seen an American political party do. At that point, there was no line I judged them incapable of crossing. They might as well have brought a bunch of random people in to the Capitol and held them at gunpoint.

  148. 148.

    Frankensteinbeck

    @RP:
    This.

    Arguments about why Obama didn’t get much done are ridiculous. He kicked ass and took names. His legislative accomplishments in his first term are on a level with LBJ. The man can’t get credit for anything.

  149. 149.

    Keith G

    @Brachiator: The fact that he is not a movement politician is not a knock on Obama (oh why must everything be one). Movement politicians help to create and build a set of energizing ideals that push on even after they are gone. In my life time, Goldwater, McGovern, and Reagan are a few examples. Movement politicians not only “move” their political parties, but they reach beyond their own circle and bring new faces into the process and give them jobs building that political infrastructure.

    So yeah, Democrats need to build their bench. But, hell, they should have had a freaking game plan as soon as Obama became the official nominee. Earlier even.

    That indeed is what I am identifying as a concern. Obama is the leader of this party. It’s future will be easier or harder according to his efforts at organizing a political legacy. Now, he doesn’t have to, but if he cares about helping the party that got him elected he should attend to this.

    He is a good person either way, and if he can be more successful at party building, many of his accomplishments will have a better future when he is gone.

  151. 151.

    Suffern ACE

    @Corner Stone: Yes. I remember now, all those GBCW posts at Kos, crying their sad eyes out on Election night as the House flipped because Rahm was in charge House fundraising.

  152. 152.

    FlipYrWhig

    @Chuck Butcher:

    There has been a lot of bullshit around the “bully-pulpit.” I can’t speak for everyone on the topic, but I have never seen it as a method to directly shove Congress, I’ve always seen it as the means to push the public opinion in a direction and by that means, public opinion – drive Congress. It certainly is an open question as to Congress’ reaction to where public opinion is at.

    Yes, that is supposed to be the point of the bully pulpit: because the president is the pastor of the nation, the metaphor goes, he should be able to preach directly to the people. But, as you point out, the problem is that House and Senate Republicans openly gave up on caring what public opinion was, on issue after issue, as a kind of experiment to see if they could get away with it, and they did.

    The “bully pulpit” debate that raged for years in the blogosphere was always over the idea that Obama wasn’t getting more progressive outcomes from his legislative battles because he wasn’t trying hard enough to do two things: “the bully pulpit” (i.e., rally the public to take his side and apply pressure) and/or “armtwisting” (i.e., threaten the perks of holdouts in Congress).

    But IMHO neither of those devices would have yielded better results, because Republicans put on a honey-badger-esque attitude that made them impervious to pressure in a progressive direction. They concluded it was more in their interests to deny Obama victories than it would be to participate in improving the economy or making policy. And for at least one election cycle, it worked fabulously. For the next one, we’ll see.

  153. 153.

    FlipYrWhig

    @Keith G: McGovern “help[ed] to create and build a set of energizing ideals”? If only. I’m pretty sure conventional wisdom is that the wipeout McGovern suffered made it practically impossible to run as a progressive. I don’t think I’ve ever heard a Democrat call himself a proud McGovernite.

  154. 154.

    taylormattd

    @Corner Stone: In the mid-1990s, you would have been seen along side Jerry Falwell shilling copies of the Clinton Chronicles, insisting your narrative of Bill and Hillary’s “history” was fact.

  155. 155.

    FlipYrWhig

    @Suffern ACE: The Rahm vs. Dean wars were pretty heated, or would have been if there had been anyone defending Rahm, which I don’t recall at all. IIRC there was a surge to credit Dean and the 50-state strategy, and to scourge Rahm for hand-picking candidates like (I had to look it up) Tammy Duckworth over Christine Cegelis.

  156. 156.

    Keith G

    @WaterGirl: Please carefully reread what I typed. In ten months after Obama wins (as I hope and assume he will), he will be a lame duck.

    He will have a few months of legislative influence in early 2013, but he will be on his way out and all of DC will treat him accordingly. That is where party building comes in. Obama will need solid strategy and a lot of help to stay legislatively relevant as the months pass.

  157. 157.

    Brachiator

    @Keith G:

    The fact that he is not a movement politician is not a knock on Obama (oh why must everything be one). Movement politicians help to create and build a set of energizing ideals that push on even after they are gone. In my life time, Goldwater, McGovern, and Reagan are a few examples. Movement politicians not only “move” their political parties, but they reach beyond their own circle and bring new faces into the process and give them jobs building that political infrastructure.

    I don’t take this as a knock on Obama. I take it as an unnecessary and odd expectation. It’s almost as though people who wanted this still don’t realize that the economy is screwed up and the financial system was in melt down when Obama took office.

    And McGovern? Seriously?

    Goldwater inspired a movement, but didn’t build much of anything.

    That indeed is what I am identifying as a concern. Obama is the leader of this party. It’s future will be easier or harder according to his efforts at organizing a political legacy. Now, he doesn’t have to, but if he cares about helping the party that got him elected he should attend to this.

    I think you have this backward. The Democratic leadership in Congress and out, should have had some sort of plan before they had a nominee as to what they wanted, and how they would proceed if they got back into power.

    And it is still not about “helping the party.” It’s about developing and using the power of the party to help the damn country.

    But maybe we agree on the following: Obama’s style is to defer to the Congress, to recognize both parties, and to expect them to come up with programs that reflected his broad policy goals. Maybe this is somewhat professorial. But he chose not to set a hard, detailed agenda, or to do that “pass my plan” Bush thing.

    And Obama keeps trying variations of this even though Congress is not up to the task, and despite the Republicans’ clear refusal to do anything other than defy him.

    But of course, the GOP would go ballistic if the president took a more active approach to setting the political agenda.

    Also, I don’t think that presidents should spend time worrying about their legacy.

    ETA: OK, I see more of what you mean assuming that Obama gets re-elected and looks to 2014 and beyond. Democrats in Congress still has to get off their butts and do more with the president. It is a mutual thing, not the president as party leader pulling them along.

  159. 159.

    Mino

    Obama validates Republican framing on austerity. If not for Occupy, we’d be in even worse shape, politically. This should be anathema for any Dem to do.

    Jobs were an afterthought to Dems. How crazy is that??

    And despite all the thrust and parry of several bloody deals, I don’t think the Dems have increased revenues statutorily by a single cent. In three years. Only cuts.

  160. 160.

    FlipYrWhig

    @Brachiator: I think Obama’s style _was_ to defer to Congress, and over time he got so frustrated with their ineffectiveness and byzantine procedural bullshit that he’s begun to swing in the direction of using executive power instead. (And IMHO he wants to use executive power because legislative power is so circuitous and time-consuming when it works at all–which is not much lately–as opposed to because he’s a power-hungry dictator wannabe.)

  161. 161.

    Keith G

    @FlipYrWhig: Are you being snarky? First of all George McGovern is a great American hero whose views about defense spending and war are still central to most Democrats who are not in the White House

    Second, a lot of Politicians who came to power in the 90’s were part of the surge of college students who did the ground game for the McGovern campaigns including Bill and Hilary. Prior to that effort, McGovern was able to convince the Democratic Party to radically change its Caucus and primary process and over haul the insider morass that was the National Convention. Google “McGovern Reforms” if you have time. Those rules made it more likely that Obama could win the nomination.

    He lost an election sure, but he significantly changed his political party for the better.

    edit

    Goldwater did not win, but he is regarded as the necessary prelude to Ronnie. Oddly, Hils worked on his campaign too. Go figure.

  162. 162.

    FlipYrWhig

    @Mino: I think you give too much credit to Occupy, who seem to be fading away from the consciousness. I wish that wasn’t the case, and I want to be wrong (my brother is a West Coast occupier), but it looks like the moment passed.

  163. 163.

    WaterGirl

    @Chuck Butcher:You said:

    Lame duck – Can’t run again?
    Think about it?
    Kneejerk – what is that?

    Your message was so cryptic that I don’t understand what you were trying to say. So I will just explain what I was thinking. The quote was:

    The problem is that Obama is ten months away from being a lame duck president and he is not a “movement politician”.

    Obama is only a lame duck ten months from now it he doesn’t win the election that is in November, 10 months from now. I see no reason for the certainty that Obama won’t win, which is why I asked the question I did upthread.

  165. 165.

    FlipYrWhig

    @Keith G:

    First of all George McGovern is a great American hero whose views about defense spending and war are still central to most Democrats who are not in the White House

    McGovern has many merits. But McGovern did not build a movement. If anything the highest-profile Democratic strategies for 30 years were stem to stern rejections of everything McGovern stood for. (And, to be fair, that was a lousy development that didn’t help liberal or Democratic causes or wishes.) Maybe the Obama campaign reinvigorated ideas formerly associated with McGovern, but not by name. I’d still say that you are _far_ less likely to hear a Democratic politico say that he was inspired by McGovern than a Republican say he was inspired by Goldwater. And Reagan is in a whole other category.

    ETA: I think we’re disagreeing most on “movement.” ISTM your points for McGovern are inward and process-oriented, related to the Democratic party as an organization.

    ETA2: In which case Howard Dean would be a “movement” figure too. Would you agree with that?

  166. 166.

    WaterGirl

    @Keith G: You said: “Obama is ten months away from being a lame duck president”, which only makes sense if Obama becomes a lame duck president the moment he gets elected. Are you kidding me?

    I guess we have a fundamental disagreement on what a lame duck president is.

  167. 167.

    Keith G

    @Kola Noscopy: I have bee criticizing folks who throw around emoprog etc. as being unhelpful, so in the interest of equal time….

    “a disingenuous brainwashed Obot of the worst type to boot”

    Drop the Obot. It seems so disagreeable.

    Edited to fix block.. Didnt work. FYWP

  168. 168.

    Keith G

    @WaterGirl: Formally, you are right.

    Yet you will find that not long after the inaugural and certainly by the time that next Christmas comes, the press and the politicians are all beginning to look over the horizon to prep for the next new thing. I think it is going to be a wild time, and I hope Obama has a plan to deal with the notion that with each passing day his vision and voice will be less cared about than before.

  169. 169.

    Mino

    I’d like to see Dem turnout in the states drive the national count. I think the radicalism of this wave of Republican governors should have scared the shit out of state parties. Make Michigan’s emergency managers malpractice a poster child. Folks flipped out over the Supremes eminent domain ruling a few years back. This is that on steroids.

    Drive home the fact that a bad state government can hurt you just as bad as a national one.

  170. 170.

    Brachiator

    @FlipYrWhig:

    I think Obama’s style was to defer to Congress, and over time he got so frustrated with their ineffectiveness and byzantine procedural bullshit that he’s begun to swing in the direction of using executive power instead.

    Yes, I pretty much agree. However, Obama is still deferring to the Democrats and to Congress with respect to much of domestic policy. For example, Obama wants to tax the wealthy more, but this is not the same thing as a comprehensive tax policy. He is still letting Congress cobble together details. And there is no comprehensive alternative to whatever goofiness the Republicans come up with.

    And yeah, money bills have to come from the House. But Bush was much better about shaping an agenda and forcing the Congress to react to what he wanted.

    Obama need not go that far, but he has got to be more proactive.

  171. 171.

    Benjamin Franklin

    Maybe the Obama campaign reinvigorated ideas formerly associated with McGovern, but not by name.

    Fer Christ’s sake. Read “Fear and Loathing on the Campaign Trail”

  172. 172.

    WaterGirl

    @Keith G: Bush sure did a lot of damage during his second term, and I think Obama can have a huge impact in his second term, too.

  173. 173.

    Corner Stone

    @Suffern ACE: You seem to be having a fundamental disagreement with reality, not with me.
    Rahm did his level best to pour money into a limited number of losing candidates. And then when a broader strategy, one he screamed and ranted about the whole fucking time to the dismay of whoever the fuck “progressives” were, took hold and brought in newly elected D’s he smiled like the cat who ate the canary and held his arms up in victory.

  174. 174.

    Keith G

    @FlipYrWhig: Dean is a rough case. He had the making, but not the depth of support it seems. I am not sure there are either/or contrasts in all cases. Not all politicians have movements (did I just type that?) and not all movements have politicians – until there is some benefit to be harvested.

    As a side but related issue, I do wonder what the seeming death of the political parties that I knew will mean for our process. Starting with post Watergate reforms and ending with the Net and Citizens United, the old parties seem to be eviscerated. That could be a good thing, but what will take their place?

    As bad as they were, the old parties vetted people and ideas and created commonalities. And with their ability to raise cash and do favors, they could create a disciplined process. There was a lot to despise, but I am not sure that what will come next will be any nicer.

  177. 177.

    FlipYrWhig

    @Keith G: I think I’d put McGovern and Dean in comparable categories, losing candidates whose campaigns tapped into (or galvanized) new energy, but I don’t think I’d give either one credit for a “movement.” And I’d probably say that Dean had a lot more to do with institutional reforms and changing thinking among Democrats, but that may be because I remember rather well the Dean campaign and the emergence of the liberal blogosphere, and am slightly too young to know of the McGovern campaign except as a historical curiosity kind of like the USFL.

  178. 178.

    FlipYrWhig

    @Lojasmo: Was the swing from R to D attributable to Rahm or to Dean, and was the swing back from D to R attributable to either one? It’d be putting the thumb on the scale to say that the ’06 wins were Dean’s and the ’10 losses were Rahm’s.

  179. 179.

    Mnemosyne

    Sometimes I forget how much younger I am than a lot of the posters here, and then I realize that I was 3 years old when George McGovern ran for president, so that’s probably why he never had much influence on my political thinking.

  181. 181.

    FlipYrWhig

    @Mnemosyne: I was born Nov. ’71, but I did a presentation on the McGovern campaign in history class in high school. That doesn’t usually make me feel young, so I like this crowd. ;P

Comments are closed.