To see why there is such an alternative reality on the right in this country, it helps to pay attention to the bizarre stories they tell each other. Peter Wehner is a former deputy assistant to the president who served as Director of Strategic Initiatives in the Bush Administration from 2002 to 2007. Let’s look at his latest piece in Commentary Magazine. Here’s his opening:
Public opinion polls show Republicans are paying a higher price for the government shutdown than is the president. But Mr. Obama-whose approval rating has dropped to 37 percent in the most recent Associate Press-GfK Survey-is making some damaging errors that are haunting him as well.
What’s wrong with this? Well, he not only chose an outlier for his polling data, but a look at the Real Clear Politics aggregate of polls on the president’s approval rating shows that it is a major outlier. For example, the Republican-friendly Rasmussen poll shows the president with a 50%-48% approval rating, and the Associated Press-GfK poll is the only recent survey that has the president’s approval under 40%. Why cherry-pick your polling data unless your intent is to deceive?
Wehner continues:
There are a couple in particular that are worth highlighting. The first is his decision to elevate to an Inviolate Principle his insistence that he will not, under any circumstances, negotiate with Republicans over the government shutdown and raising the debt ceiling. Dealing with Iran and Russia is one thing; dealing with the evil John Boehner is entirely another.
As should be pretty obvious to most observers, the president’s refusal to negotiate until after the Republicans pay our bills and open the government has been working very well for him. Bringing Iran and Russia into the conversation is a cute talking point, but that’s all it is. That kind of rhetoric is designed to win a three-minute segment on cable television, but it doesn’t do any real work in terms of changing the power dynamics that are playing out in the capital. And, if you really think about it, Wehner is highlighting that it is easier to negotiate with the Iranians and the Russians than it is to negotiate with the Republicans. This isn’t a substantive argument, at all. It’s just red meat.
Two problems: This no-negotiating position is at odds with the record of past presidents; and his insistence that not raising the debt ceiling can only be driven by nihilistic impulses is at odds with Obama himself, who as a U.S. senator voted against raising the debt ceiling. Mr. Obama has simply decided that he wants what he wants when he wants it, and that’s that. My way or the highway.
Again, this paragraph utilizes a decent talking point by pointing out a degree of hypocrisy in the president’s position. When he was a senator, he voted against raising the debt ceiling and now he is saying that taking that position is the height of irresponsibility. Fair enough, as far as it goes. But the debt ceiling did get raised in spite of Senator Obama’s objections, and there was never any possibility that it wouldn’t be raised. Obama was guilty of political grandstanding, but that only confirms that the Republicans are guilty of grandstanding today. Two wrongs don’t make a right, and being wrong yesterday is not a rationale for being wrong today. These kinds of arguments simply don’t accomplish anything.
The vulnerability of this mindset is that the president appears (because he is) obstinate, intransigent, and unyielding. He seems to believe that his uncompromising stance will be viewed by the public as a virtue. In fact, he’s very much on the wrong side of the vast majority of Americans who want the parties involved-and especially the president-to reach a compromise in order to end this governing fiasco.
It’s true that the majority of Americans want some kind of resolution to this stand-off, but that sentiment goes beyond this particular disagreement. In order to truly end this impasse, the habit of governing from one crisis to the next must end, and that is what the president is trying to accomplish. What matters is not what the public thinks right now, but what they will think when Obama has completed his two terms as president. Beyond that, the president is willing to negotiate once the hostage-taking is over.
It doesn’t help matters that Mr. Obama, when he gets in a jam, often seems unable to contain his petulance. He seems to revel in demonstrating mocking disdain of Congress. His small-mindedness is radiating in every direction-and as a result, the president is shrinking before our eyes.
Here we get into the mindset of people who just don’t like the president. What I take for legitimate exasperation, they take for petulance. What I see as a completely reasonable disdain for congressional dysfunction, they take for mocking disdain. What I take for political disagreement, they take for small-mindedness and radiating hostility. I’m drawn to the president’s personality and temperament, but I understand that others find him condescending, foreign, and aloof. My problem is with the tendency to feed these feelings of alienation, as though increasing misunderstanding and ill-feeling is a solution to our differences.
Next, we move into the arena of pure dishonesty.
The other mistake by Mr. Obama is his transparent effort to inflict maximum pain on Americans in the hope that he can convince the public that the GOP is the offending party. Just one example: The effort to erect barricades to keep wheelchair-bound World War II veterans away from the World War II Memorial-an open-air public monument that has always been open 24 hours a day-was vindictive and mean. For the Obama administration to pull this kind of a stunt-which is so transparently partisan, unnecessary, ungenerous, and unappreciative of our veterans-surprises me a bit. Not because I didn’t think Mr. Obama was capable of such things. (We learned long ago that Mr. Obama will say or do just about anything to advance what he believes is in his political interests.) It’s that he was arrogant enough to think he could get away with it.
Mr. Wehner has here resorted to bad conspiracy theories. The president doesn’t make decisions about what monuments to shutter or how they should be guarded. He did nothing to disrespect World War Two veterans, among whom was his grandfather. There was no stunt, partisan or otherwise. And to argue that the president will say or do anything is to suggest that he is dishonest and unscrupulous, which the record does not support. This kind of argumentation just poisons the well.
Which leads me to a final point. The president, always a distant, somewhat withdrawn, and imperious figure, now seems encased in a world all his own. One senses that Mr. Obama has surrounded himself with courtiers whose jobs are to affirm his greatness and his glory. He and they live in a bubble. The president is acting as if America is comprised solely of people who host, appear on, or watch MSNBC. Disagree with Republicans?
Don’t engage with them and by all means don’t negotiate with them. Instead drop rhetorical acid on their heads. Describe them as jihadists, terrorists, anarchists, arsonists, gun-to-the-head hostage takers, and (to quote White House aide Dan Pfeiffer) “people with a bomb strapped to their chest.” And all of America will cheer.
Again, I understand that some people feel that the president is imperious and aloof, but it doesn’t do any work to insult the president and then turn around and complain about being insulted in return. No one, including the president, thinks that the entire country agrees with him or that everyone watches MSNBC. At the same time, no one thinks that the Republicans got more votes in the 2012 elections. Obviously, a lot of people don’t agree with them, either.
It is the Republican Party that has threatened to blow up the economy and that has shut down the government, and the public clearly is not impressed. The Republicans seem surprised by this outcome, but that is largely a result of the fact that they are continuously reading rhetoric produced by people like Peter Wehner. And Peter Wehner is not making a good faith effort to win the argument. He’s just keeping the right’s bubble inflated so that they cannot see anything clearly on the outside. Score petty talking points, pander to people’s prejudices and insecurities, feed their paranoia with conspiracy theories, and stoke their hate.
We’ve had enough of this. It has led to this impasse, and it hasn’t done any favors for the Republican Party or the nation.
True. But, in the end, aren’t all republican commentators and pundits just political operatives? In the end, aren’t they all wankers?
The maddening thing about the stupid WW II memorial kerfluffle is that it only makes sense as a paranoid conspiracy theory if we were to concede that every single WW II vet is a Republican. Since that’s false, Wehner and his flailing cohorts’ claims that the closure was “partisan” are completely invalid.
The kerfluffle did give us the lovely images of a Republican House member screaming at a Park Ranger that she should be ashamed of herself, only to have her respond quietly and with dignity, “I’m not ashamed.” So there’s that.
It also only makes sense if you think that a public property open and unattended 24/7 never needs cleaning or maintenance. Do these privileged asshats think that parks (or, for that matter, the buildings they work in) clean themselves? Apparently, they do, and that’s really depressing.
This many column inches for an analysis of an argument that basically comes down to:
Barack wHoooosayin Obama is an angry and upty Knee-Grow.
There really is no there there, even with Obama’s posturing over the debt ceiling in 2007; no more than what the GOP had been doing since 1995. What’s different is the GOP isn’t playing the game; they’re playing for keeps.
Wow. You’re far more patient with this nonsense than it deserves, but it is a useful analysis.
I think maybe more important than this bizarre image Wehner has of Obama is that he doesn’t quite grasp that not everyone sees Obama the way he does. Or at a minimum, he shows that he has no interest in engaging with anybody who doesn’t see Barack Obama as imperious, aloof, petulant, etc. etc. He states his distorted perceptions as if they were commonly accepted facts.
Well, at least he’s smart enough to recognize that somebody is living in a bubble.
The point of Sen. Obama’s earlier posturing on debt ceiling is that he had the luxury of exercising that choice because he knew the votes were there to raise the debt ceiling. It wasn’t filibustered and passed handily something like 52-47.
It was just posturing and everyone knew it. Everyone knew it because nearly everyone used it – in both parties.
However Republicans have chosen to resort to extremist tactics to make the debt ceiling into a true extortion tool. This is a very dangerous precedent, but don’t expect Tea Partiers to notice the difference. Bachmann for just one is celebrating the fact that the government is shutdown and so close to default.
Not one Senate Repub voted for cloture to let the debt ceiling bill yesterday get to a vote (ome may have insisted on a shorter term, instead of end of 2014). Boehner refuses to allow a up/down vote on a clean bill.
“…don’t expect Tea Partiers to notice the difference.”
To paraphrase Upton Sinclair, “”It is difficult to get a man to understand something, when his worldview depends on his not understanding it.”
No matter how ridiculous it may appear, Republicans have to blame Democrats for the harm the shutdown is doing. Otherwise, they’d have to admit it was the fault of Republicans, and that is obviously unacceptable. If they force the country into default, then undoubtedly they will do the same thing, claiming the administration has authority to prioritize payments and that if anything important goes unpaid for, it’s entirely the result of Obama maliciously hurting the country to make Republicans look bad. Indeed, some Republicans have already been planting the seeds of these talking points
Of course the obvious question is that if Obama is the monster they claim, if he’d be glad only too happy to see the country go to hell if it hurts Republicans, then why are they threatening to wring concessions from him by threatening something he doesn’t care about? Or why do they expect him to responsibly use the power they give him by allowing him to pick and choose what to pay for and what not?
What Kentucky’s Obamacare Success Might Mean in 2014
By John Tozzi October 08, 2013
If you want to see how the success or failure of the Affordable Care Act might shape the nation’s future electoral battles, watch Kentucky.
The state’s health-insurance exchange, Kynect, stood out for having worked smoothly in the week after most other marketplaces opened around the country with glitches and delays. The Bluegrass State happens to be home to two Republicans who serve as some of Obamacare’s biggest foes in the U.S. Senate: Mitch McConnell, the minority leader up for reelection next year, and Rand Paul, the libertarian Tea Party ally eying a run for the White House.
Behind Kentucky’s exchange is Governor Steve Beshear, a second-term Democrat who decided to build the exchange over the objections of state Republicans. Beshear argued in a New York Times op-ed last month that Kentucky’s “horrendous” health status meant the state urgently needed the Affordable Care Act to help expand insurance coverage to 600,000 people. He also took a jab at “naysayers” who “pour time, money and energy into overturning or defunding the Affordable Care Act.” McConnell and Paul hit back last week, writing in their own op-ed, “Obamacare might sell in New York, but Kentuckians aren’t buying it.”
The problem for the Republicans, though, is that Kentuckians are buying it–in fact, the Kentucky exchange has, so far, enrolled more patients than any other. By Monday afternoon, 6,946 families had enrolled in plans through Kynect and the website had handled 3.1 million page views, according to the governor’s office. Soon after the launch, Beshear was talking to CNN’s Sanjay Gupta and MSNBC’s Chris Matthews, making the red-state governor a visible public face of Obamacare.
Kentuckians aren’t particularly ideological, says Stephen Voss, an associate professor of political science at the University of Kentucky. Despite Rand Paul’s Tea Party ties, Voss says, the conservative movement hasn’t been strong in the state, and most voters are practical. “Moderate, technocratic Democrats have done very well here, and will continue to do so,” he says. Registered Democrats actually outnumber Republicans in the state, but Kentucky has gone red in every presidential race since 2000.
http://www.businessweek.com/articles/2013-10-08/what-kentuckys-obamacare-success-might-mean-in-2014#
r=pol-ls
It’s why red states have sabotage their exchanges and Medicaid extension and dumped additional unexpected load on the federal exchange at the last minute.
By November 2014, folks will have practical experience not only with enrolling (still a mess on the federal exchange thanks to Xerox) but also with payment to providers. There will be comparison before Obamacare but there will also be rising dissatisfaction with the complicated exchange system with its annual enrollment nonsense. The pressure will be toward better government-run coverage. And the comparison will be with Medicare.
Kentuckians aren’t particularly ideological, says Stephen Voss, an associate professor of political science at the University of Kentucky. Despite Rand Paul’s Tea Party ties, Voss says, the conservative movement hasn’t been strong in the state, and most voters are practical. “Moderate, technocratic Democrats have done very well here, and will continue to do so,” he says.
I wonder whose payroll Voss is on. Most voters are practical? Is that why they voted for a lunatic jackass over the state’s Attorney General?
Speaking of that poll showing Obama’s approval at 37%, it really is BS. Huffpost Pollster (last updated 2 days ago), which is a pretty decent poll aggregator, has Obama approval at 45.7%, which I think is very conservative, because it is pulled down by that AP-GfK result, which seems abnormally low (the fact that they were inaugurating a new internet-based response methodology may have something to do with it).
You mentioned the Rasmussen, which is the high outlier. However, the favorables/ unfavorables from the most recent polls (past two weeks), are pretty consistent:
GQR (D) 10/7 – 10/10 801 RV 47 41 – Favorable +6
NBC/WSJ 10/7 – 10/9 800 A 47 41 1 Favorable +6
Democracy Corps (D-WVWV) 10/6 – 10/8 950 A 47 44 – Favorable +3
YouGov/Economist 10/5 – 10/7 1,000 A 47 45 9 Favorable +2
AP-GfK (Web) 10/3 – 10/7 1,227 A 44 46 8 Unfavorable +2
Gallup 10/3 – 10/6 1,028 A 48 49 2 Tied
FOX 10/1 – 10/2 952 RV 47 50 3 Unfavorable +3
YouGov/Economist 9/28 – 9/30 1,000 A 47 46 7 Favorable +1
Quinnipiac 9/23 – 9/29 1,497 RV 48 49 Unfavorable +1
http://elections.huffingtonpost.com/pollster/obama-favorable-rating
Can we nominate Wankers for Infinity? If so how about Cruz, Lee, and Da Grifter Palin.
As someone said, standing near a Black family’s lawn holding a Confederate flag can be construed as a threat…just saying.
“D.C. protestors wave Confederate flag, tell Obama to “put the Quran down”
http://www.salon.com/2013/10/13/d_c_protestors_wave_confederate_flag_tell_obama_to_put_the_quran_dow
n/
It’s almost like you need two divisions, one for political wankers and one for media wankers. The possibilities for naming the culminating annual wank-off are endless. And a huge new industry for the speculation – wanking about wanking – during the season. (“With Richard Cohen’s shocking lucid moment last week, and Limbaugh missing the next several weeks due to his suspending for again violating the league’s performance-enhancing drug policy, Tom Friedman has surged back into the lead in this hot, crowded field – but can any of them stay in the same stall with Ted Cruz come January?”
ZzzzzZZZZZzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzz….
clownservatives are stretching the truth/LYING again?
why is this is a surprise?
It’s easier to negotiate with Iran or Russia because neither of them is trying to overthrow the duly elected government of the United States.
Also, Booman, when you note that “I understand that others find [Obama] condescending, foreign, and aloof,” I’m sure you realize that one of those words is a lot more germane than the other two.