Matt Yglesias was at Netroots Nation, and I wasn’t this year, so I’ll have to take his word for it that the conventioneers were depressed. It certainly wouldn’t surprise me. I’ve been immersed in progressive politics for seven years and I’ve never seen such bitching and moaning and infighting as I see around me today. Some of that depression is warranted. Look at the state of the economy. Look at the quagmire in Afghanistan. Look at the state of political discourse in this country. But a lot of progressive opinion leaders have developed a relentlessly negative narrative that is being sopped up by loyal readers.
I basically agree with Yglesias’s essay, which mirrors much of what I’ve been saying for months. I am one step above labeling people a bunch of ungrateful wretches, but there is blame to go around. The administration deserves plenty, and I think Matt is on to something here:
On the other side of the ledger, the Obama administration points to an impressive array of accomplishment. Their health-care bill is the most significant progressive achievement in more than 40 years. Financial regulation, the new START treaty, the Lilly Ledbetter Fair Pay Act, etc. are nothing to sneer at. But something the administration barely seems to recognize is that political activists do not live on policy accomplishments alone. Small donations, volunteer time, and even voting itself are undertaken primarily in exchange for psychological benefits. People engaged in the process want—need—to feel good about themselves for doing it.
This is something candidate Obama understood very well. People felt happy about the idea of being part of the election. But since taking office, the White House has largely avoided offering this kind of succor to the progressive base. The president likes to present himself as a “pragmatist” uninterested in questions of ideology, and his political strategy is largely organized around a posture of unctuous reasonableness in which he never loses patience with the opposition or affiliates himself emotionally with the passions that drive activists. This pose has bothered many for a long time, but with the progressive tide receding it’s becoming a real problem.
Again, this is mainly a problem not of style but of an infantile need to be hugged and patted on the head on the part of a bunch of cry babies. But the cry babies are also an important constituency who have the best track record of being right of any political group in the country. In the vast majority of cases, policy would be better if their advice was followed (or if it were possible to follow their advice). Progressives haven’t gotten what they wanted, at least not in untarnished form. They need a jolt. They need something that tells them that the president shares their objectives. And nominating Elizabeth Warren to head the Consumer Financial Protection Agency would be just what the doctor ordered.
I hesitate to even say that because the Joe Liebermans of the world seem to make it their mission to find out what would make progressives happy and then make sure that it doesn’t happen (remember Medicare expansion?). Sometimes I think progressives could get more by asking for the opposite of what they really want. Sometimes I think they’d find a way to complain even if they one day got what they really want. ‘If the president wants Warren then Rahm wants Warren then there must be something wrong with her.’ I can see it now.
The one thing I don’t agree with Yglesias about is the inevitability of big Republican gains this fall (especially in the Senate). We should not succumb to that stinking thinking. Because, aside from the defeatism, doesn’t this sound like something I just wrote earlier today?
Nobody knows exactly what the midterm elections will hold, but it doesn’t take a brain surgeon to know it’ll involve Republicans gaining seats. That means that the comprehensive climate bill that died this week won’t be coming back. It means that the outlook for immigration reform will only get bleaker. The outlook for bills on gay rights will only get bleaker. The outlook for labor-law reform will only get bleaker.
In the course of things, this results in a considerable degree of ill will toward Barack Obama and his administration.
It doesn’t have to be. But if you don’t get over your depression and inspire others to get to work, that’s going to be the self-fulfilling reality.
I have a slim hope that David Plouffe’s new presence in the administration might lead President Obama to remember what it was like to be candidate Obama. The contrast between the brilliance of the campaign and the blandness of the actual governance is just amazing.
The Party of No is like a ban on sugar on your breakfast cereal.
Mario Cuomo used to lament the difference between “the poetry of campaigning and the prose of governing”. Fortunately for all of us, Obama is much better at governing than Cuomo was….
No, he is better at campaigning.
Obviously this is just my opinion and opinions can legitimately differ. But, having lived in New York for a good chunk of Cuomo’s governorship, the man just was not a good executive (which is the reason he lost his job). Additionally, Obama has dealt much more effectively with our dysfunctional Congress than Cuomo did with New York’s famously dysfunctional legislature. Again, just my opinion.
Not questioning that. Just saying that Obama is better at campaigning than Cuomo as evidenced by the fact that he got the Oval Office and Cuomo didn’t.
Oh, okay. I agree with that. Although Cuomo was a pretty good campaigner and orator in his own right.
I don’t think Cuomo ever ran for the White House though. He probably wouldn’t have liked the process very much.
“I hesitate to even say that because the Joe Liebermans of the world seem to make it their mission to find out what would make progressives happy and then make sure that it doesn’t happen (remember Medicare expansion?).”
I haven’t seen polls, but it’s not my impression that progressives are the only ones that want Elizabeth Warren appointed. I think most Americans, assuming they know who she is, want her appointed.
I hope so. But, if so, all the more reason for me to be apprehensive about advocating for her. Why let the progressive-crushing moderates think it means something to me so that they can gain pleasure in dashing my hopes when they might hear from other voices they don’t enjoy tormenting?
.
Go with the best choice!
"But I will not let myself be reduced to silence."I just don’t think the Netroots has such a big influence, positive or negative, on whether Elizabeth Warren gets appointed. Her issues are of broad interest across the country. She is said to be the nation’s leading authority on economic problems of the middle class, a rather large constituency which does in fact have many economic problems. And anybody with brain one wants the banks reined in.
In support whereof …
http://www.huffingtonpost.com/2010/07/28/elizabeth-warren-possible-republican-support_n_662653.html
Again, this is mainly a problem not of style but of an infantile need to be hugged and patted on the head on the part of a bunch of cry babies.
What have we really gotten, that we were promised? Were we promised 1990’s Heritage Foundation RomneyCare? Were we given the liberal equivalents to Roberts and Alito? Sotomayor looks good so far, but Kagan?
Calvin, you are wearing on my patience. What do you get?
Day one, you got repeal of the Mexico City Policy.
Day two, you got fair pay for women.
Day three, you got funding for embryonic stem-cell research.
Day four, you got the Children’s Health Insurance Reauthorization Act.
Day five, you got American Recovery and Reinvestment Act, with massive investment in green energy and every goodie under the Sun.
Day six, you got the Omnibus Public Lands Management Act.
Day seven, you got the Edward M. Kennedy Serve America Act.
Day eight, you got the Serve America Act.
Day nine, you got the Fraud Enforcement and Recovery Act, the
Helping Families Save Their Homes Act, Protecting Incentives for the Adoption of Children with Special Needs Act of 2009, and the Civil Rights History Project Act of 2009.
Day ten, you got the Credit Card Accountability, Responsibility, and Disclosure (CARD) Act of 2009.
Day eleven, you got the Weapons Systems Acquisition Reform Act.
I’m up to May of 2009 now. And I’m already out of breath.
You got two liberal Supreme Court Justices. You got the biggest expansion of access to health care in history. You got the largest expansion of consumer protections in history. You got significant regulation of Wall Street. You got tobacco under FDA regulation.
Fuck it, the list is too long to even do it justice. You got so much I can’t even list it. You got an urban affairs department. You got education loans taken out of private hands. Veteran’s have been treated like kings with a half dozen bills to help them.
You got executive orders to look after our coastlines and environment.
It’s ridiculous how much you got.
And then there is everything you didn’t get right up the ass because John McCain was giving you a taste of a different reality.
And we let Ben Nelson hold a woman’s right to chose hostage. Or have you not heard the latest on that?
that response is the definition of ‘relentless negativity,’ Calvin.
You have some strange need to obliterate the positive from your mind.
Calvin Jones, I have heard the latest on that, and I share your anger.
It’s at times like this that I find it helpful for my own sanity to remember that we didn’t let Ben Nelson hold a woman’s right to choose hostage. Ben Nelson had his own power, given to him by the voters of Nebraska, and in the end, there’s little-to-nothing that a progressive in California can do about it.
If Obama (or Chris Dodd, or Nancy Pelosi, or most Democrats) could have passed health care reform without Ben Nelson’s vote, then that part of the law would have been written differently.
There’s a difference between giving power away and recognizing the power that others hold in their own right.
“we let”
Love that. Because if Obama had given it a stern look and some bully pulpit stuff, Ben would have returned the the Nebraska Populism of the 1800s and gone all GRANGE on the Ruling Class.
No?
Ummm, Lyndon Johnson? Stop making excuses. He hasn’t pushed the party he represents at all. In fact, he’s obliged the right and given lip service to the left. My fingers are too tired to list all the instances
Johnson had to deal with a much more moderate Republican Party, larger Democratic majorities, and the halo effect after JFK’s assassination.
Were talking 1 or 2 votes that wouldn’t have to cater to an extreme right wing that pulls legislation over the center threshold. Your saying that he couldn’t “pull some arms” for 1 or 2 votes? Oh, but we need our democratic majority… What good is that majority when the conservative democrats fall in line with the republicans on major legislation? How about, no campaign contributions, no party apparatus support… please
Why don’t we make this productive, rather than just trading assertions.
Take any close vote on major legislation that you want. Some options are the stimulus bill, the health care bill, and the Wall Street reforms. But you can chose whatever you want.
Take a look at the roll call of that vote and tell us precisely whose arm he should have twisted to get a better outcome. Which vote could he have flipped and how would he have done it? Then we can have a real debate that might actually be enlightening.
Be prepared to talk about committee votes, where these bills were marked up, and conference votes where they were melded.
As much as your frustrated by a lack of progress in discussion to move us forward I and others are frustrated in the blind support for his actions which we don’t feel moves us forward but rather continues a demogoguery of progressive principles. How does supporting his actions futher the discussion? I feel you should provide evidence of this as well … The right gets things like tax cuts for the rich and conservative justice’s confirmed with less the 60 votes. It seems they are the one’s who are tied to their principles
By Golly, it’s almost as if the system were set up to favor the rich and powerful! I’ll be! Knock me down with a feather. Never suspected such a thing.
Obama should have “shown leadership” and “used the bully pulpit” is the only kind of answer you’ll get. Some people just love empty cliches.
I know this is kind of weird. But this bully pulpit thing, I believe it originated with Teddy Roosevelt, is kind of overrated in my opinion. Teddy might have used the hell out of it but I think Taft got more things done overall. I could be wrong though. Do not want the president to turn into a political Jimmy Swaggart. Whatever….
Success is not something that matters much to our “progressives”. They want confrontation, at least in words. If you read their complaints carefully, you can see that they are bitterly disappointed that Obama is not George W. Bush “on the left”. They want “megaphone moments” more than anything else.
you mean he has not started a new war? Yeah, that’s a disappointment.
Oh you mean civil rights? Well, poor Obama, LBJ had MLK, Bob Moses, Malcolm X, and Fannie Lou Hammer all putting people on the street and making it easier for him to sell the voting rights act as a compromise. Obama has 10,000 middle class babies screaming that they have not been given a bully pulpit pacifier.
Yeah, I’m not too happy. That’s what a liberal is: fighting for social justice until the markers are achieved, and even in “socialist” Sweden, those goals still aren’t met. However, there is room for celebration as you move forward. And one thing that’s been pissing me off not only with FDL, but especially people like John Aravosis, is “all we ask is that he keep his promises, not go above and beyond…and he can’t even do that.”
Yeah, but what has he done for us lately? And why didn’t he sprinkle his magic fairy dust and get me my magical pony?
I am astonished at all he has accomplished, given the Dem Congress he has to work with, the unified screaming opposition to everything from the right, the vile RW media that tarnishes everything he has accomplished by convincing too many Americans that good is bad.
He’s done a hell of a job.
Boo, you sound like a Democrat from 1979. You list a litany of accomplishments, facts and figures and expect that to sway the visceral disappointment. Yeah, much was done. But not much of that stuff was what Obama campaigned on. And it’s a proven fact that a dry listing of facts, figures, pie charts, and PowerPoint presentations with smiley faces for Democrats and frowns representing Republicans is a losing battle. Obama didn’t campaign on “marginal” change but it’s childish of me to even remember the campaign.
It was all just a dream and I didn’t get my head patted by the Glorious Obama. I must admit that that is why I’m so irate with that man in the WH. Now that I know that’s what it is, I can go back to watching Power Rangers. At least we know the Rangers won’t torture anyone or lie about Wars of Choice.
Calvin Jones, I was all ready to be disappointed in Elena Kagan’s performance as a Supreme Court Justice—then I remember she hasn’t been confirmed yet.
On a more serious note, we all will have our immediate, emotional reactions to Obama’s actions and accomplishments (or lack thereof). That’s fine, and good, and natural.
Then we’re faced with the question of how to act in response, e.g., with the upcoming congressional elections. As a strategic matter, it seems to me we progressives are better off claiming and celebrating every victory we’ve won in the past 18 months (yes, even Romneycare—which incidentally is hugely popular in Massachusetts) and pointing out that Republicans are actively obstructing the nation’s progress merely for their own political gain.
By the way, Reagan was masterful at this aspect of politics for much of his career—and it helps account for his success.
…on issues where he doesn’t need to cater to the center right of his party, like Afghanistan, the bank bailout, civil liberties….?
Sure, progressives have to work to keep the fascist republicans out of power, but make no mistake: this goes WAY…..WAY….beyond a need to be hugged.
you think that Obama didn’t get a thermonuclear shot across the bow over Guantanamo, torture, accountability for Bush crimes, war on terror policy, etc?
They wouldn’t fund the closure of Guantanamo or allow trials or confirm Dawn Johnsen at OLC. You think he had a free hand on these issues?
I hope not, because almost no Democrats had his back on any of it.
They wouldn’t fund the closure of Guantanamo or allow trials or confirm Dawn Johnsen at OLC.
I am wearing your patience? Do you have proof that proves Marcy Wheeler wrong on Dawn Johnsen? Because right now you are wrong on that. But that’s okay, believe what you want to believe.
it’s pretty easy to set up some inflammatory accusation or allegation and then say “prove me wrong” – but that’s just not the way civilised discourse works.
It was bmaz who was tracking the Johnsen confirmation.
Sorry about that.
And I should add, you know that Marty Lederman has left OLC and also another guy. Both were people Progressives liked. I wonder why that is.
f
Picking up on something that was said at Netroots Nation, that is “Let Obama be Obama.” You have to understand that folks down here understand that the right-wing has painted a target on Obama (sometimes quite graphically) and that the only way he can deal with that is unctuous reasonableness. And so Obama cannot be Obama until the racist epidemic that the GOP has whipped up has subsided.
Which is why grousing progressives need to understand that in 2010 it is not so important that Democrats win but that Republicans lose and lose big. And symbolically lose big. Bachmann, Foxx, Boehner all have strong opposition and the opportunity to use a lot of that footage we have been seeing of those GOPers. In other cases like Darrell Issa, we need to know exactly who the opposition is and how strong they are. Voting index I suspect is going to be a poor predictor in November because of the alienation of moderate Republican voters with the Tea Party nonsense, the irresponsible lockstep strategies of McConnell and Boehner, and the promise of GOP back to the Bush future.
And some of the carping progressives have admitted that they did not vote for Obama in 2008 and are claiming “I told you so.” So it’s a very mixed bag.
And yes, appointing Warren would be the right move. And it is most likely to happen as a recess appointment on the gamble that Democrats will still have control of the Congress in January and can reappoint her. But progressives will have to look up from their complaining long enough after the appointment and look at the process for setting up the CFPB. Dday has a piece over at FDL that raises the concern that Elizabeth Duke, a Fed governor might undercut the CFPB before it is born. I think that’s a little too much Kremlinology, but we nonetheless should be vigilant about how laws are implemented and regulations written after the bill passes into law. The fight doesn’t end when the ink is dry on the Presidential signature.
In the case of the CFPB, what is measurably achieved before mid-October will be a key factor in the election. Both for financial industry reform and for healthcare reform.
I predict some ads financed by the DNC, DCCC, or DSCC that showcase people who have been helped by the recovery act, by the newly-implemented high risk pools, by the credit card regulations, the Lily Ledbetter Act and other pieces of legislation. And I hope they are crafted to show what the local Democrat voted yes on. Touting the success of a law that a candidate voted no on will not be helpful.
It seems to me Obama made a past time of punching hippies.
Instead of him talking about how cool everything is. He could maybe explain why punching hippies is so important.
Obviously he thinks it is. Maybe it is important. In 20 years we’ll forget the punching and remember the loving. It worked for Reagan after all.
But if you gotta punch someone and expect them to love you, it might be a good idea to explain why you think getting punched is so important.
Who came up with this “punching hippies” thing? I hear it all the time and don’t know who developed it. Is the “progressive” community made up of solely hippies? This concept doesn’t seem very sophisticated. Being a punk rock fan; I don’t think I want hippies in control of things.
Digby. Atrios probably made it popular.
Thanks! I’ve read a lot of different catchphrases over the past year and I don’t know what half of what people are talking about. Then again I’ve deleted about half of my bookmarks over this same year.
A perfect example of whining victimization. Jeebus, grow a pair.
wanted to play
my bongos
in the dirt
but Obama
ripped the flower
from my shirt
wanted wear my love beads
and smoke my leaves and seeds
but Rahm kicked me in the knees
oh woe
oh woe
can’t even eat my brown rice
for lunch
’cause of pain
from that punch
it is self-delusional in the extreme to think that Obama is motivated by “punching hippies” as opposed to say doing what works and what is possible for the country. I doubt Obama gives more than fleeting thoughts to pissing off hippies – he seems to tend to make his decisions and let the chips fall where they may. Obama is President of the US not of progressives.
I remember hearing the Rev. Jesse Jackson speak when he was running for president in the 1980s. A regular part of his stump speech was talking about where the progressive movement went wrong and how we ended up with Ronald Reagan as president.
He said that in the civil rights movement, “we picked up our Bibles and we picked up the flag, and we marched! And we won! But somewhere along the line we put down the Bible and we put down the flag, and we stopped winning.”
I’m paraphrasing and condensing his message. But Rev. Jackson spoke for many veteran progressive leaders and organizers, who had learned the painful lesson that too much self-expression is dangerous for any political movement for change. (The tea party crowd is just beginning to realize that.)
Note: not taking sides here, just trying to provide some context.
Why would you call it infantile? It’s a very common human psychology and you can see examples of it throughout history. Nothing boosts morale like victory but to quote Waterson “A good compromise leaves everyone unhappy.” Thus nothing has felt like a victory and there are honest reasons for it.
And once again, I point out that you never know if that’s what Obama wants. Is Obama really a centrist incrementalist (not what is needed) or would he really be audacious if he could? That reasonableness is difficult to swallow, especially when the other side consists of psychotic lunatics. You have to really wonder about someone who wouldn’t see those psychotic lunatics as enemies even if you have to treat them differently in public.
Yes, you definitely do have to wonder about that! That’s the ultimate source of the discontent: a sense of unecessary pandering to the President Snowes and Collins’s of the world, the party of ‘up yours’.
That’s begging the question.
How many votes have we gotten from Collins and Snowe that we didn’t need?
None. But they call the punches. I don’t know what begging the question means.
Now you do.
For me, any “infantilism” is more than made up for by an overwhelming condescension on the other side of the argument. I don’t need to be patted on the head, but I don’t need to be mercilessly sneered at either.
But then again I’m not “depressed” about the state of things, so I’m not really taking any of this personally. Much.
It’s just more of Boo’s ad hominem attacks on anyone who doesn’t tow the party line (Is Obama a great president or the GREATEST President in the history of Presidentialism?). He always does that, only to retreat into his “pragmatic” facade; kinda like his idol President Obama does when he triangulates himself off the “extreme” left to aggrandize himself to a bunch of “reasonable” voters who really want him dead. No wonder he’s such a fan.
I don’t tow the party line myself and I don’t give a crap if you do or don’t. I’m focused on beating Republicans, who happen to be towing a racist, xenophobic, miltaristic, anti-gay, anti-science kind of violent know-nothingness line.
‘Toe the line’. That’s a tricky one, for sure.
Isn’t this post the reason for the excuses pushed onto us time and again for the triangulating, watered down policies of the DLC and the “new progressive” theme pushed by the democratic elites/establishment in a not so blatant fashion? infantile need to be hugged and patted on the head? Really? So, would you have the true progressive activists who knock on doors, phone bank, volunteer etc. just sit down and be thankful for a “healthcare”, oh sorry, a “health insurance” reform ( That was the platform for Bob Dole’s proposal in the 90’s as well as Mitt Romney’s accomplishment in Mass. ? )that forces us into a corrupt greed infested industry ( Oh, BTW my premiums are already increasing! Something I couldn’t afford to begin with ) that wasn’t campaigned on? Should I suck it up and continue contributing to the democratic machine that allows the big banks to further consolidate, pay bonuses on par with pre-meltdown times while millions are still out of work because of his WATERED DOWN stimulus? Should I hit the pavement again for greater secrecy than the bush admin. and more whistleblower prosecutions than the prior 5 administrations combined? You sound like an administration mouthpiece. The dissatisfaction is not a naive, immature, uninformed response to waterdowned policies that were enacted in this crisis that in no way reflect a left of center, much less progressive policy mindset but that throughout the past 18 months he’s shown no leadership on the issues that we care about the most. He’s allowed former bankers/financial “experts” or former private for profit ceo’s of bloodsucking healthcare industries who played tremendous parts in the meltdown themselves to practically write the policies encated.
Please stop treating the people who care most about the movement and who know the intricate details of the issues with disdain for merely trying to hold them accountable. I’m not sure how your post further’s the movement/policies. Just sayin’
Yeah Boo! Stop writing about what you believe to be true!
Your comment reeks of depth. You would fit right in with the Larry Summers and Rahm Emanuels of the administration. Republite
Wow, I’ve gone from casting my first ever vote for Jesse Jackson to Republite. That’s quite a trip!
You should understand triangulating in its proper context.
If you don’t, then you’ll think all compromise is synonymous with triangulating.
Clinton helped develop the DLC as a response to Mondale’s crushing loss in 1984 and he gained momentum when Dukakis was crushed in 1988. It’s a different model than the traditional liberal model, and it is based on an affirmative policy with a mix of liberal priorities like health care and gun control, and pro-business policies like free trade and deregulation. Clinton had to drop the liberal part when he lost Congress, but what he passed with Gingrich was what he wanted to pass. He wasn’t just compromising on a liberal agenda, he was passing a pro-business agenda that he campaigned on and believed in. Some of that pro-business agenda I agreed with, like focusing on a balanced budget.
Obama’s compromises are different. He is getting a liberal agenda passed by making compromises with business interests, but he is not getting a business agenda passed for its own sake.
He cut deals with the health industry to get them to help him pass a bill to grant access to health care to all Americans. He never campaigned on the lack of a public option or said the bill was better without one. He passed what he could pass. Same with Wall Street reform.
Now, I know the narrative about Geithner and Summers and Goldman Sachs, but even there the policy is about stabilizing the markets. Regulate without causing panic. Stand the banks back up so they can lend, and get jobs created. He’s not relaxing the rules, he’s strengthening them. But he’s not willing to rock the boat too much and risk a backlash that undermines the recovery. He can be blamed for caution or praised for prudence, but he can’t be fairly blamed for taking a pro-business stance for its own sake.
Contrast this with Clintin’s NAFTA, GATT, Telecommunications Refom Act, and Gramm-Leach-Bliley Act. Compare it with school uniforms and welfare reform. That’s triangulation.
What Obama is doing is pushing to the left and making compromises with the middle. Clinton was pushing to the right and ditching the left (especially after the rise of Newt).
If you think appointing Warren will stop the whining and bitching, think again. There is nothing Obama can do that would stop it, even for a day.
I think these people would be at their happiest level of unhappiness if the GOP was back in charge of everything.
Depends on which “these people” you are talking about. There are some so progressive that they didn’t vote for Obama for President. I don’t know who they voted for or if they voted at all – or what state and CD they are in (but I suspect that they are in Pelosi’s Congressional District).
Then there are those who voted for Obama and thought he was the next FDR. And went into despair when the momentum got stalled last April.
Then there are those most concerned about law and civil liberties, an area in which the Obama administration looks to be following the policies of the Bush administration. And they are concerned for the future of dissent in America.
And then there are those who are single-issue voters and are frustrated by the Stupak amendment, the failure to get DADT repealed early, has not gotten momentum behind climate change legislation, dropped the public option.
And then there are those who are appalled with the deals with the healthcare industry that were done to ease healthcare reform through.
And then there are those who are disappointed that Obama, Reid, and Pelosi have not put the pressure on the Blue Dogs and Conservadems that they have on progressives to get legislation passed. And they understand that the public opposition of Blue Dogs and Conservadems more than anything else is what added a false legitimacy to the charge that the legislation was radically leftist. Include in these grievances is the failure to strip Lieberman of his committee chair for supporting John McCain.
I don’t mind people whining and bitching about Obama as long as they get out and work to make sure the GOP loses in November. My concern is that their whining and bitching will create a self-fulfilling prophecy that will hamstring us like in 1968. I’m too old to wait another 42 years for a progressive agenda to be enacted.
..or what state and CD they are in..
OK – I read that as: ..or what state of Cognitive Dissonance they are in..
Maybe just as relevant…
It’s been a long day already here in Jurp, time to wrap up soon.
Hmm, not sure this is really true, or the numbers very significant
and living in the district just north of Pelosi’s, with similar political profile, I didn’t notice a lot of folks on the left in my area griping about having to vote Obama — on the contrary, most lefty-libs I talked to were stoked about voting for him, as I was.
Remember, there will always be hardcore purists on both ends of the spectrum for whom nothing less than Ivory Soap pure is good enough, or a few small number of lefties (Geo Carlin cynics) who don’t want to enable this corrupt electoral system by voting. But in 2008, my sense is more of these purist types actually showed up to vote O. Just think of the purist progs and normally hard to please lefties who publicly endorsed or very favorably treated Obama during the election: Noam Chomsky, Tom Hayden, Daniel Ellsberg, Amy Goodman, Katrina vanden Heuvel (and probably all The Nation crowd of writers and editors).
Unfortunately, most of this latter group of lefties and lefty-libs tended to overestimate Obama, often to absurd FDR, MLK and JFK lengths. The greater the expectation, the greater the disappointment. Tom Hayden I think fell hard for O, then recently loudly fell out of line.
But, to his credit mostly, Daniel Ellsberg, quite a critic of O’s FP and nat’l security policies, has said he still expects to vote for him in 2012. And that’s about where I am. Meanwhile, there are some good Ds on the ballot this Nov, and I’ll be at the polls once again voting for them — Woolsey, Boxer and Brown.
The numbers aren’t significant in voting; they sit out or vote for other candidates. But they are present on a lot of blogs, consistently and unwaveringly beating the drum against that corporatist Obama. And what did you expect. And….
My snark about Pelosi’s district needn’t be taken literally but I get the impression that they are from Congressional Districts where you always have the choice of a progressive.
What they don’t realize is how their purity has made them powerless.
I wouldn’t take too much written by commenters on blogs too seriously, and always would discount by a fair percentage for those posting anonymously, professing to be Dems or libs, who seem a little over the top in their anger or even hatred of Obama.
Has the Daily Kos disease now polluted the pond?
I am really tired of being called a whiner because I have deep concerns about what has and has not been done on civil liberties, the Middle East and other critical issues.
Booman lists executive orders protecting the coasts and the environment as one of Obama’s accomplishments. Is the Gulf Coast exhibit A?
Needless to say, none of us wants the crazies to take over Congress, and we all feel fairly certain that what Obama found when he entered the WH was even worse than we suspected, but why the gratuitous slaps like having the anti-gay evangelical from Orange County speak at his inauguration? He went very quickly from someone who seemed in tune with the public to someone who oftentimes appears tone deaf. And whatever happened to the bully pulpit?
I suspect that Rick Warren’s appearance at the inauguration was the quid pro quo for Obama’s being able to have a conversation at his church during the campaign. Make of that what you will. I don’t think it was gratuitous. I’m not sure that Obama’s appeal to evangelicals worked as well as intended but there must some reason that the right wing keeps beating the “secret Muslim” drum. Why exactly does it take so much rightwing propagandizing if evangelicals hate Obama?
As for the bully pulpit, Obama did use it promoting the passage of healthcare reform and financial industry reform. But the bully pulpit doesn’t move an intransigent Democratic caucus. The disconnect between the people and the Congress on both of these pieces of legislation was remarkable.
Obama is not tone-deaf but he is in the White House bubble instead of the campaign bubble. And his informants and communication staff are not serving him well.
Tarheel Dem, I don’t know what deals were cut that led to Obama choosing Rev. Warren to give the opening prayer at his inauguration. I’m pretty sure it was a signal to theologically conservative evangelicals that Obama respects them. I’m pretty sure it was a signal that Obama, like Rev. Warren, is interested in moving the evangelical movement away from the politics of Revs. Falwell, Robertson, et al, and toward a new politics that deals differently with issues like immigration reform, the environment and global development.
As progressives, let’s not forget the other “dog whistle” sent by Obama’s choice for the closing prayer, Rev. Joseph Lowery, longtime president of the Southern Christian Leadership Conference. My 16 year old heard that whistle loud and clear while watching the inauguration in school that day.
Rev. Lowery began, “God of our weary years, God of our silent tears…” which my child, alone of his classmates, recognized immediately, and tears came to his eyes. Lowery began by quoting, in its entirety, the 3rd verse of James Weldon Johnson’s magisterial “Lift Every Voice And Sing”, the Black National Anthem.
Now, there’s a separate discussion that can be had about the appropriateness of prayers at the inauguration of any president of a nation that has a constitutional amendment like our first one. But particularly when we’re feeling frustrated and downhearted, we progressives need to listen for and remember the “dog whistles” the president we helped elect is sending to us.
The whole Rick Warren flap was BS. WTF cares about some two-bit nut? Obama also had others speak, and he was the first POTUS in my lifetime(maybe ever) that also gave a shout out to non-believers.
TD, I’m not sure about your qpq take on Obama-Warren. What did Obama owe him after agreeing to participate in that unusual debate/conversation/joint appearance with McCain at Warren’s own church, and moderated by camera-loving Warren himself.
That was huge pub for the rev (and nearly a costly political blunder by the naively trusting Obama team). If anything, Obama lost ground after that mixed-bag appearance, while McC (who knew some of the Qs to be asked) gained ground.
At that point, why would Obama want to give another freebie to Warren?
At the inauguration, Warren was a negative and puzzling presence, someone who obviously looked uncomfortable because he was so out of place. Obama gained little or nothing with evangelicals, while he annoyed his base — a net negative, then and now.
Re Obama and the bully pulpit on HCR, he didn’t use it nearly effectively enough, and early in the process, towards advocating for a robust public option. As we know now, he tended to pre-compromise as he then went on to speak in moderate terms about achieving a moderate bill. Opportunity lost, roughly in the first 4 months.
I think most of the problem is that Obama’s progressive critics and his defenders are dealing with different scales in evaluating his performance. BooMan and other defenders say that Obama and this cohort of elected Democrats have accomplished a tremendous amount relative to progressive measures accomplished by all other Democrats since the Johnson Administration, and that they are and would continue to be much more progressive and less disastrous than the available Republican alternatives. All of this is undeniably correct.
But there is also an absolute scale by which I think this cohort of Democrats needs to be evaluated. Rather than evaluating their work relative to previous cohorts, this scale would evaluate their performance relative to absolute needs, to adequacy rather than comparative fulfillment.
So, for example, by this scale the financial reform bill would need to be measured not by whether it is better than the status quo ante, or what else might have been possible, or what previous administrations have done in the area, but by whether or not it will be adequate to prevent another round of looting of the private sector, collapse, and then blackmail of the public sector.
ARRA may have been the best stimulus package politically possible, but was it sufficient to stimulate the economy back to self-sustaining life? The Governor Romney Healthcare Reform bill was surely much better than the Presidential Candidate Romney Healthcare Reform bill, but will it actually lead to better healthcare outcomes for more Americans AND reduce costs? A thought-out approach to Afghanistan is definitely better than the corrupt, scattershot approach of the Bush Administration, but is it still leading us to a fiscal and foreign policy disaster, albeit on a reduced relative scale?
On the relative scale, the Obama Administration and this Congress have accomplished a great deal and they are to be thanked, congratulated and rewarded for it. But I worry that on an absolute scale – the nation has been without effective progressive leadership for so long and has suffered from effectively corrupt right-wing leadership for such sustained periods – the problems have built up to such a threatening magnitude that these accomplishments will prove to be inadequate to actually dispose of the problems rather than temporarily palliate some of them. Were that to prove to be the case, these measures which are accomplishments on a relative scale will be turned into evidence that government can or should attempt nothing progressive.
Here’s the problem. Steven and I are critical of this administration on pretty much all the same issues as other progressives. But we’re willing to put things in perspective and to apportion blame broadly and fairly.
Speaking only for me, I don’t mind valid criticism and even welcome it, provided that it isn’t all you do, all the time. And, provided it comes with an understanding of what the president is up against in his own party, in the mood of the electorate, in the opposition party, on procedure, on resources, etc.
Pointing out the optimal path is fine. Expecting it is naive. Understanding why you didn’t get the optimum is the most important, because then you have a shot of doing better next time.
There seems to be a lot of arguing among ourselves, wherever on the progressive scale we happen to be. What a strategy for the Republicans! We are aiding and abetting them.
Booman’s argument, I think, is much like Obama’s: “keep your eye on the long game.” Whatever the dissatisfactions, big or small, the alternative is absolutely worse. And the whining, carping, name-calling among ourselves is disspiriting and will result in killing off what incremental progress has been made and put the Republicans in power.
Remember, our dissatisfactions seem to be more about the degree of progressive change, not the general direction. Maybe in time we have to build on what movement there has been, be more patient, work harder, etc. But if you think you’ll have any chance to keep working in that direction if there is a Republican congress, then you are way off base. All you’ll get if the Republicans win is a greater chance to shout and pout at the direction of the country. If that’s what you like doing, I guess you’re on the right path to be so critical of the Obama administration.
One more thought: There are (at least) several types of progressives, I believe. One type is sort of intellectual about its progressivism — concerned about issues like Guantanimo. Others are more visceral, concerned about uplifting those left behind: the poor, the undereducated, those bereft of hope. It is these second who don’t much write on blogs like this but who vote for progressive change. They are generally not represented in the Senate and are vilified by the Right as “redistributionists” and “socialists.” There is a racial element to this which is resonating now: the Black Obama wants to take from Whites and give to people of color. I believe as progressives we have to beware of allowing our differences to undercut this second progressive agenda, which is just as crucial as any other aspect of progressivism.
Speak for yourself. I’m all about direction and the direction of this president is not progressive, it’s corporatist. A few sops were made in the progressive direction. Lilly Ledbetter and whatnot. Yeah, I get it. I disparage that “accomplishment” because ANY Democrat would have done that and any number those other “accomplishments” Obama secured. Obama’s political death will be one of a thousand cuts, not the Titanic capsizing of Clinton. For every big legislative accomplishment, we get 10 preemptive and unnecessary compromises, 9 name-callings, 8 religiously bigoted defenses of DOMA, 7 lies, etc.
I must say that I am the base. I am one of those who never voted before Obama came on the scene. I thought I was voting for a strong, principled man of dexterous intelligence. It turns out that I was wrong on the first two qualities. But MAN is that packaging SLICK!
I was sold, hook, line and sinker. And now I feel like quite the fool.
I wonder how you will praise Obama when he “accomplishes” the the literally fait accompli dismantling of Social Security on his watch. Will you then say, “Obama was right! You lazy-ass old and infirm need to get JOBS.”?
For someone who claims to be as passionate about progressive issues as you, it’s a bit surprising that you never voted before 2008. Honestly, I admire you for admitting that fact, given how much it undermines your stance of high moral dudgeon.
Ummm…I’m not that old. And I didn’t have a political awakening until after the Iraq war. Previously, I was your average dispassionate, cynical American who only cared about consumerism. I ain’t apologizing for that at all. Just the facts, ma’am!
Just because I wasn’t out marching with Susan B. Anthony doesn’t mean that my views do not have merit. Same as just because Obama was a Constitutional scholar and community organizer, doesn’t mean that he wouldn’t subvert the Constitution (wiretaps, anyone?) or allow ACORN to wither and die.
One thing has nothing to do with the other.
I didn’t say you should apologize for it. Nor does your youth disqualify your political opinions. But the language you use in these comments indicates a wild anger at Obama and at what you apparently see as his betrayal of progressive values. That’s valid, I suppose, although I think your ad hominem attacks here are very weak. More to the point, the fact that you feel so emotional about these issues right now, and in 2008, implies that you should have been at least reasonably engaged and politically aware enough to have voted in 2004 too (which I’m assuming you were old enough to do). Yet by your own words, you were not and did not. Thus, to me, your anger either seems shallow, and/or shows that you don’t really understand the politics at play in these issues you claim to care so much about.
Ad hominem means that I used who you and your lack of accomplishment as a cudgel to invalidate your outlook. I did that nowhere.
Also, why would I vote for either Kerry or Bush? They’re both reasonably the same person, save for Kerry’s somnambulance-inducing speech patterns. My vote didn’t make a difference then, so why bring that up if you aren’t trying to backdoor your own version of the ad hominem attack?
Yep, you get to it the crux. You’re more experienced than I am, hence politically better, so my childish ass needs to STFU. I get it. Now, you, sir, can hold your head up high and beat that weary drum til your heart is content. It makes me no bit of difference but that still doesn’t make me anymore wrong than you are.
I don’t care how old you are. I don’t care if you don’t tow the party line. I don’t care if you can see any difference between Bush and Kerry. But you might feel better if you took some time to see what the administration is doing everyday to help people. Here’s just a sample from this week.
Hey, look!! A subcommittee screwed us!!
Be disappointed all you want, but at least know what it is that you think is crap.
Have we completely set aside the fact that a large portion of the voting block for Obama in 2008 voted for what he was campaigning on at the time and not just a pure like minded voting block that would stick with him through the long run? A large portion of people who wanted “change” were not a part of the party apparatus or activist wing of the left but rather an independent minded set of people who wanted progress that was bold enough considering the dem’s control of the house, senate and executive not wanting triangulation or mass compromise to the point that it was change of the outside only. That voting block, as well as the true party progressives are the one’s dissatisfied because we’ve been force fed this theme of we don’t have the house, then we don’t have the senate then we don’t have the executive then we don’t have enough to overcome a filibuster. Trent Lott said exactly what the right’s game plan was and to not take it at face value is either stupidity ( which I don’t buy ) or a reluctance to anticipate and counteract due to more excuses for why they can’t due what they were sent to do. I’m not buying it. It’s the same old line
Thanks, Truth. This is what I’ve been trying to say. Is it my fault that I was inspired by the campaign to do things that I’d never considered giving a solitary thought to, let alone get involved? According to Boo, it is my fault. I should have known better than to believe Obama at his word and that I’m a disgruntled, uneducated child who can’t get his facts straight because I so need Obama scraps from Obama’s lovely table. I was never a Democratic activist so I don’t really care about cap-n-trade, Ledbetter, forced health insurance mandates (yeah, I said it!), etc. Those weren’t things Obama campaigned on, either.
Obama’s campaign inspired people beyond themselves. Obama’s leadership style is quite the opposite: some Obama voters trying to scream about accomplishments while all the other Obama voters see is compromise and failure, but never a failure to compromise, go figure.
Obama’s campaign slogan should have been: “Margins!” “Margins you can believe in.” “I will try my best. Damn Republicans!”
So, this game is fixed. Boo and all the other Obama fealty will blame us when the Democrats and Obama lose the House and Senate. It’s already our fault because we aren’t effusive enough in our praise and everlasting gratefulness. Obama will then hit the bully pulpit to blast us for not being grateful for all his toil and sweat and tears. But don’t ask Obama to hit that same bully pulpit for a principle or to try to steer legislation. Nah, that’s just too mean to those Republicans, and he just doesn’t cotton to fighting.
You don’t care about fair pay for women, the climate, or heath care?
Okay, what do you care about?
What promises are broken for you?
And, BTW, Obama campaigned on all of those things (excepting the mandate part of health care).
I care about dismantling Bush’s Security State. But Obama only serves to strengthen it and lend his congenial face to the policies so that more of his fans will accept them as the only pragmatic way to go. “See, Obama does it, so it must be what’s right because Obama is always trying to do the right thing.” (eyes roll)
I care about not being told that oil doesn’t spill. I care about
I care about these two stupid wars that are blistering on with no checks or balances. You’d vote for them, yes. I get that but you’re still on the wrong side of history but you sure are on the right side of war politics (pun intended). Yet, then you go on and on about deficit reduction. You are so confusing.
I care about not being taken advantage of. I consider myself reasonably intelligent but watching Obama pander to a bunch of racists out of respect for their tender mercies is too much to bear.
I care about not being forced to purchase anything.
I care about not prosecuting whistleblowers to the fullest extent EVER.
I also care about JOBS. But the slight stimulus relative to the problem helped but Obama didn’t do what economists recommended; he went straight for what was politically expedient and now that the chickens have come home to roost, it’s all my fault because we’re whining and can’t see the forest for the trees. I knew what was happening from the git-go. Why didn’t Obama? Because he was so busy reveling in his own narcissism that he projected 80 bipartisan votes. Remember that?
As you can see, I care about several things at least.
I’m not going to defend Obama’s record on civil liberties anymore than I am going to defend FDR’s treatment of Japanese-Americans. I disagree with several decisions Obama has made, including in court, related to national security and transparency.
Some of your complaints are not fair, however.
Obama made a weak nod to offshore drilling in the future as part of a plan to cobble together the votes he currently does not have to tackle the climate issues you profess not to care about.
He had nothing to do with the firing of Shirley Sherrod and fixed the mistake immediately.
The health insurance mandate is required to keep insurance companies profitable even when they cover those with preexisting conditions.
Whitlesblowers who reveal classified information do, in some cases, need to be prosecuted. That’s a discretionary matter and it depends on what they’ve divulged, for what purpose, if the public interest was served, and if lives were endangered. Not all leaks are created equal, and a government must be able to protect its legitimate secrets. I’d like to see less sweeping discussion of this issue and more focus on individual cases. But, yes, there are some cases where there has more chilling effect than justice.
The Stimulus bill passed with the bare minimum of votes and ended the career of Arlen Specter. It wasn’t getting much bigger no matter what Obama said or how hard he fought. See: Party of No.
On the wars Obama inherited from Bush, I agree that Obama is not winding them down fast enough. I would have been in the Biden camp, or even in a camp to the left of Biden. I have grave concerns about our Afghan policy, as I keep saying on a regular basis.
I’m not sulking because Obama betrayed a campaign promise. I’m admittedly sulking because I voted for an empty suit who will say anything to obtain glory for himself. I see a deft talker but a middling doer. I feel betrayed when his functionaries call say that I like bestiality and am a lesser person. But it’s not even about just that. I just see someone who will compromise anything just so that he can pencil “done” on his manifesto. I left my blinders behind last summer when I witnessed the shamble of Obama’s “leadership” toward putting a new tax on me. He may as well have said, “Read my lips…” What really galls me is how much Obama reveres compromising. I’ve never witnessed a politician who doesn’t fight for anything but I guess I was too new to the game that I didn’t know that Bush compromised on everything, too. I missed those announcements. I thought he got EVERYTHING he wanted (save SocSec going to Wall Street) with less than 60 votes. I guess “progress” is different than progress and “change” is different than change. Obama taught me an awful lot about politics and politicians in a scant 20 months.
Some of your criticisms are completely valid, but shouldn’t we at least take care to be accurate. George W. Bush did not get his way with Congress all the time. He didn’t want a Department of Homeland Security, for example, but he got pushed around and felt compelled to create one. He could not pass his tax cuts under regular order (requiring 60 votes) so they passed under budget reconciliation rules (requiring 51 votes) and are about to sunset as a result. He couldn’t get Harriet Miers confirmed to the Supreme Court. His signature second-term item (Social Security privatization) went absolutely nowhere. Many of his judicial appointments were never confirmed. If you look at his legislative accomplishments, with the exception of 2003, he signed a comically low number of bills into law. Obama has almost surpassed his eight years in eighteen months in terms of signing significant (non-post office naming) bills.
Bush ruled by looting the Treasury with tax cuts and deficit-fueled no-bid contracts and deregulation and lack of oversight. He really only needed four votes to pull that off: AUMF-Afghanistan, AUMF-Iraq, and the two tax cut bills.
Bush got those votes and didn’t have much use for Congress after them. He had the tools he needed to enrich his buddies.
I hate that I am about to say this but: Bush FOUGHT for something and he actually STOOD UP for his convictions. I despised the man, yes, but I can’t help but acknowledge the STARK contrast and actually admire that he didn’t preemptively compromise his queen during his first move on the chessboard during each battle. Bush had character. A frightening, maddening character to be sure but just like he campaigned in 2004, we always know where he stood. That’s in stark contrast to this current guy in the WH. I still don’t know what Obama stands for. I hear the aspirations that people like you put onto him about “his heart being in the right place.” But when the time comes for action, Obama’s listening to his political nerds telling him to remain a question mark while awaiting the politically opportune time to swoop in like Superman and save the proverbial day. The thing is that I don’t believe Obama anymore. In fact, I distrust him fervently. And I did nothing wrong to foster this mistrust and I resent it when people like you claim that I’m the bad guy for seeing him with such a jaundiced eyes.
I’m really sorry that I cannot feel the joy. I want to so much. And I’m not being upset for the sole purpose of being contrarian or “the troll” on this site. I read the lists you compose. I listen to the words you say. But I no longer listen to the (interminable) words Obama spews because he is just another politician who, as you suggested, is doing a f**king horrible job being president out of fear of his own life. That may be an excuse for you but Obama wanted this job. And that suggests that now that Obama has the glory, screw all the promises and cherished goals.
I got minez!
I am not one of the people who have used fear of bodily harm as an excuse for anything. You’re confusing me with someone else.
You may like Bush’s style better than Obama’s but it’s Obama who gets things passed into law. You want him to fight, but you’re not going to get much demonstrative evidence of that because he’s not about yelling and stomping his feet. Yglesias called it an ‘unctious reasonableness.” You could call it self-control, lack of passion, or reminiscent of Mr. Spock. He wants to treat you like an adult, but you want to blame him for things he didn’t even do and that you don’t even care about.
Goodness. I don’t want childish antics. That’s just a strawman you built. I’m sorry that you feel the need to condescend to me even during this supposedly rational, “reasonable” discussion. I don’t want stunts or ploys or Obama looking stupid on television talking about getting in someone’s ass when the spill catastrophe was at its peak in the nation’s consciousness. I want a fighter not a poseur. A fighter doesn’t need to make public projections of strength all the time; one just knows not to eff with said individual.
whatever…
Oh yeah. And what happened during the Bush Administration that you didn’t directly attribute to him? I don’t remember that kind of parsing here then but now the “Obama didn’t do it; it’s only his administration, he’s not in charge (except when he is)” meme has been born.
“You may like Bush’s style better than Obama’s but it’s Obama who gets things passed into law.”
Exactly why he’s losing his base and independents who were left leaning and voted for him ( Read my post above about independent outsiders who voted for him for real change and are leaving now ) and why were bracing for loses in 2010. Because he’s getting things done? With disapproval of the electorate at large and mild approval amongst the left.
Bush never had Obama’s majorities but he got Roberts and Alito confirmed to the Supreme Court. He got tax cuts enacted under budget reconciliation, something the democrats are, who would have guessed, too timid to use out of **sigh** fear… And, Harriet Miers wasn’t confirmed because she was so unqualified even republicans couldn’t vote for her.
Yglesias is in the minority on the left who holds this view.
Obama the candidate was necessarily different from Obama as President, especially when viewed through the lens of politics. Many progressives never trusted candidate Obama, including an embarrassing number of them who simultaneously bought John Edwards’ b.s about “two Americas” and “the cause of his life” hook, line and sinker. I think it’s more a question of style than it is a matter of substance. His style is all stealth, very much in the vein of Sun Tzu’s The Art of War. After all, why is it so startling each time a list is compiled of tangible accomplishments less than two years after taking office? Nothing Obama does will ever be enough for a large segment of the progressive community until he’s out of office and perspective finally sets in. I think it has a lot to do with the fact that he refuses to grandstand, and in regard to the progressive community, he is content to be judged in the end by the results he manages to achieve.
This is not at all to say that he should not be sharply criticized for any number of things, but rather to suggest that people who frequent the pond at least divorce the means from the ends. A case in point arose last night on Chris Hayes’ fill-in appearance as host of Rachel Maddow’s show. One of his guests was Christian Parenti of The Nation, who has a great piece up called The Big Green Buy. This is something the Obama administration has been quietly moving towards: using the immense buying power of the federal government to create a market for green technologies. Obama has already (last year) persuaded the Pentagon to move in this direction. It’s ironic to see this article during the same week the Energy Bill flamed out, with Obama drawing a significant portion of the blame from those most concerned about the environment. I’ve noticed a fair number of such stealth policies surface over the past year and a half.
Funny – you’d think that conservatives would be paranoid about these sorts of “real” stealth policies, as opposed to silly things like NBPP and the Fairness Doctrine.
They are paranoid about them. They don’t know how to handle them. It’s the propagandists media people who are obsessed with the Fairness Doctrine. They know that they would be off the air if the Fairness Doctrine and obligation of broadcasters to act in the public service were re-instituted in the form they were in the 1950s and 1960s.
The NBPP is part of a broader racist framing that seeks the overturning of affirmative action and a permissive attitude with respect to discrimination in employment, housing, schools, and other social benefits.
You may have something there. The complaints start with “He refuses to stand up for the principles he campaigned on.” and “He didn’t use the bully pulpit.”
Part of it is strategic. He lets the opposition play their entire hand before he moves. He did this on healthcare. Well he also did it during the campaign. Another metaphor likens it to Muhammad Ali’s rope-a-dope strategy.
Another part of it has to do with his own personal security. Consider the threats he contends with now from Limbaugh and Beck whipping up the right. If he grandstands, he could send them over the edge.
That is why it is so important that Republicans lose this election and lose big. I think an important strategy would be to see Chuck Grassley, John Boehner, Michele Bachmann, Virginia Foxx, and Joe Wilson defeated. (We’ve missed our chance on Louis Goehmert and Jim DeMint). If these folks are soundly defeated, and Democrats gain seats, the crazy might be tamped down a bit. It would also force a change in the media narrative.