Some people interpreted my piece on Obama’s supposed naïvety in a way I didn’t intend them to. I also feel like I was a bit unfair to Ed Kilgore. I didn’t mean to single him out or suggest that he’s stupid. I chose Ed’s column rather arbitrarily, and it certainly wasn’t the worst of its type. So, let me be clear about what I didn’t mean in that post.
I did not mean that bloggers should refrain from predicting continued gridlock in a second Obama term, as if we could hide that probability or somehow prevent it from occurring if we were simply to remain silent about it or give a false analysis about the likely future facing our country. Bloggers should tell the truth as they see it, not engage in spin as if we are some adjunct of the Democratic Party. Our job is to educate and entertain our readers, not to be dishonest mirrors of the right’s media empire.
I did not mean that bloggers shouldn’t ever question or criticize the administration’s rhetoric or strategy.
What I meant to say was rather simple. A lot of people on the left, including in the blogosphere, take a very surface level view of what the administration does and why they do it. In this particular case, many people came to the same conclusion. If the president really believes that the Republicans will behave better in 2013 after suffering defeat, he’s naïve. And from that simple conclusion came an outpouring of criticism that varied in type and harshness depending on the particular voice. But I think people should pause when they hear something that makes the Obama administration look naïve and ask themselves why they are sending that particular message. Why would Obama say that he hopes the GOP will behave better when he really ought to know better?
And the answer is that Obama has to have a theory of how he’ll break the gridlock. If he doesn’t have a theory for that, then he’s stuck saying, “Vote for me, and I’ll give you four more years of this dysfunctional bullshit.”
And, when I call people stupid, what I’m saying is that they are acting naïve themselves when they take the president literally here. Sure, I think he (and all of us) hopes that the GOP will be a more willing partner in a second term. But he’s not stupid. He knows that the GOP is unlikely to moderate.
So, what I’m saying is, like so many times before, make your criticism of the president fair and constructive. Don’t beat him up when he’s being smart because that makes you look stupid.
In other words, don’t get suckered into believing what he says.
Not all the time, anyway. I mean, when I listen to what he says, I am listening with different ears. I’m hearing both what he says and why he is saying it.
Take for example the whole debt ceiling fiasco.
You have a party that has historically never cared at all about creating massive federal debt if the trade-off is low taxes. And not all of a sudden they are pretending to care a great deal about the debt and they’ve aroused a pitchfork wielding mob to intimidate lawmakers in townhall meetings. They are really riled up and they’re doing significant political damage to you and your party.
Their demands are so radical that they are completely unreasonable. Their demands go far beyond what they’d ever expect a Republican president to do. So, do you simply ignore them and argue that the debt isn’t a problem? Do you refuse to negotiate with them? Or do you make a generous offer to them knowing that their motive isn’t to strike a deal but to destroy your presidency? Once you know that they don’t want to strike a deal and have no intention of striking a deal, you can sound as reasonable as you want. You can offer them the sweetest deal ever concocted. They won’t accept it.
And how do you wind up looking? You offered a deal that enraged your base. Their presidential candidates said they would take a deal that was 10:1 spending cuts to tax increases.
What you’ve done is take their concerns seriously and exposed them as dishonest and dishonorable brokers.
Well, what if they accepted the deal?
That was never going to happen. But, if they had, Obama would at least been able to boast that he’d broken their opposition and addressed the long-term budget deficit. He’d have a great victory. That it would be a raw deal for everyone else would be a major problem, but we’re going to have to take a haircut at some point and better to do it now under a Democrat than later when the problem is more acute under a Republican. But, again, the GOP was never going to hand the president a giant victory that disrupted their strategy of total unity in opposition and would have taken the “socialist big-spending liberal” thing off the table. Never was going to happen.
So, why did the president say he wanted a deal so badly? Why did he make such a generous offer? Because the politics of it suggested he has almost nothing to lose from doing so. The worst that could happen is that the GOP accept the deal, but that would break the fever and partially offset the costs.
Think strategically, and you can hear the president more accurately.
So, why did the president say he wanted a deal so badly? Why did he make such a generous offer? Because the politics of it suggested he has almost nothing to lose from doing so.
Because the drunk and the rest of the GOP are so blind they let ideology blind them to a deal that could have sunk the Democrats for ages.
That’s your first clue that you’ve been thinking about this all wrong. Because the GOP wasn’t thinking about how the deal would undermine the Dems grip on core constituencies. They weren’t looking for a deal at all. They are trying to win the White House. They don’t give a shit about Congress. They probably think Congress should be abolished and the states can legislate while their king takes on whatever Evil Empire exists at the moment.
They are trying to win the White House.
No shit, Sherlock!! And they could have if they had made the deal. How, you ask? Easy. Run at Democrats from the left on the issue. After all, lying is par for the course. And it’s not like GOPers in the Senate would have had to vote for it. How many GOPers would have had to vote for it? 30ish? And then they could run and blame it all on Obama and the Democrats. I guess you forget 2010 so soon. Where the GOP ran on the claim that Democrats were trying to destroy Medicare. Yes, it was lies but that didn’t stop them, did it? And it was fairly effective to boot. BTW, you should read Rick Perlstein’s latest.
And more .. since you think the President is such a political genius:
http://digbysblog.blogspot.com/2012/06/changing-narrative-by-davidoatkins.html
and given the past week or so, we know what happens when the fault isn’t placed at the doorstop of those really at fault.
The Republican base seems to have no problem with overt promises to obstruct everything. From their point of view, “do-nothing” is better than “do the wrong thing”. But the Democratic base does seem have a problem with voting for gridlock, hence the Obama campaign’s problem.
Argh, that should be “…seem to have a problem…”
Drumroll, please.
I hate ser/estar crap like this. “I don’t think you’re stupid, I…think you’re being stupid.” Just man up, call them the fucking idiots they are and own it. And don’t sugarcoat it.
The idiots took offense when you offended them by calling them idiots. The end. Nothing will be learned from the situation. It never is.
OK, I’ll bite and call you an idiot for believing smart people don’t say stupid things sometimes.
Who exactly are these “smart” people who keep bitching at the administration for its fake bipartisan entreaties? Make a list.
How “smart” can they really be to ignore all empirical evidence to the contrary?
But he’s not stupid. He knows that the GOP is unlikely to moderate.
Oh?!? Does he realize that the GOP is probably going to double down again on their BS? And what is his plan for that?
To win, you simpleton.
To win. To be reelected and hold the senate and compete damn hard for the house. And then to leap into the great Mexican standoff this winter with whole heart and unyielding purpose and make the Republicans blink again, just like they fucking blinked in 2011.
All in the service of getting us back to where we were in the long, long ago of…ten years ago.
Yeah, they blinked. So you consider austerity to be winning? No, it’s not Greek-type austerity, but it’s austerity still.
All spending bills must emerge from the House. Which is not controlled by the President’s party.
The arrogance of your stupidity is breathtaking.
The arrogance of your stupidity is breathtaking.
Whatever gets you through the day, Chief. But don’t say I didn’t warn you if the economy doesn’t get any better and Mittens wins because people are pissed off that the Democrats aren’t doing anything to noticeably improve their lives. Just because spending bills have to emerge from the House doesn’t mean crap as relates to austerity. Who was the one who wanted to have a “grand bargain” over raising the debt ceiling? How stupid was that? And if you are President, why agree to austerity that is meant to derail your Presidency and lead to your possible defeat? The only people who give a damn about biparistan BS are clowns like you and the corporate controlled media in Versailles. 98% of the time, bipartisan bills are bad for the country. But keep living in denial all you want and blame all us agitators on the left for making your life hell.
So you consider austerity to be winning?
What austerity?
Quick, tell me what was in the debt ceiling deal.
I don’t get why “breaking the gridlock” it all on Obama.
Where’s the democratic deadbeats in Congress? Summer vacation?
Where’s the democratic deadbeats in Congress?
You mean “Mad” Max Baucus and the Blue Dogs that the establishment Democrats keep supporting?
Or at least the appearance of a theory for the benefit of the vast herd. Shorter BooMan: He has to appear to be an optimist.
yes, and w/o being delusional, I would prefer that he be an optimist.
Spin it eleven ways to Sunday and it still looks like Obama is engaged in playing defense. Will work as long as Mitt continues to fumble.