I think it is fair to say that the tenor of discussion on BMG with respect to Obama’s recent tax proposal is negative (read the dozens of comments in the posts below). Isolated examples of support highlight the degree to which the president has distanced himself from his base on this blog — the #2 fundraising blog in the country for Obama for America in 2008, let us not forget, and the #1 on a dollars raised/readers ratio (DailyKos was #1 overall, but is much larger). In fairness to our Chief Executive, let’s take his central argument at face value:
Now, I could have enjoyed the battle with Republicans over the next month or two, because as I said, the American people are on our side. This is not a situation in which I have failed to persuade the American people of the rightness of our position. I know the polls. The polls are on our side on this. We weren’t operating from a position of political weakness with respect to public opinion. The problem is that Republicans feel that this is the single most important thing that they have to fight for as a party. And in light of that, it was going to be a protracted battle and they would have a stronger position next year than they do currently.
So I guess another way of thinking about it is that if — certainly if we had made a determination that the deal was a permanent tax break for high-income individuals in exchange for these short-term things that people need right now, that would have been unacceptable. And the reason is, is because you would be looking at $700 billion that would be added to the deficit with very little on the short term that would help to offset that.
Obama’s argument is that it shows leadership to go against the wishes of the whole country, most particularly his supporters, in favor of a measure that will help the economy even a little bit: it is better than nothing. Similar thinking appears to have been behind his decision to accept Republican cuts to his stimulus package; health care reform with an individual mandate but without any meaningful competition for the insurance market; and a whole host of other compromises.
Progressives need to challenge this premise to make their criticisms bite. First, a leader needs to lead: if “the American people are on our side” then Obama should go to the mat for them: accept the Republican position and make them impose a tax increase on most voters, while continuing to advocate for middle class tax cuts; campaign to end the filibuster; impose powerful mandates on insurance companies as well as individuals, and so on. Second, nothing was not the only alternative. Third, Scott Brown’s victory and the 2010 election showed, among other things, the unpopularity of this approach, which blurs the ideological argument for the administration, deflates supporters, and has not, in two years, delivered enough on the ground.
Obama at Age Two: profile in courage, or the “incredible shrinking president?”
hubspoke says
Obama sucks at political leadership and we need political leadership. Opportunities wasted again and again. The Republicans know how to take the offensive. That last “incredible shrinking president” link doesn’t seem to work.
hubspoke says
lynne says
Like a goddamned Senator rather than a chief executive. FOR GOD’S SAKE MAN YOU ARE THE PRESIDENT.
<
p>Now stop acting like you’re one asshole among 100 assholes. YOU are the CHIEF ASSHOLE. Man up.
sabutai says
So far, this guy is the best president the Republicans have ever had.
lynne says
Now we’re not allowed to use colorful language to make a point?
<
p>Language police much?
lynne says
The Senate IS full of a bunch of assholes and he IS acting like a Senator so therefore, what about my post merited a 3?
christopher says
You disagree and that’s your right, but I have no patience for this kind of language, especially directed at elected officials and more especially the President of the United States. I rated other comments of yours with similar message minus the language a 6, but yes profanity against the President gets an automatic 3 regardless of other merit.
kirth says
of your fondness for royalty? Cheney was an elected official (and a dick), but he is the very definition of ‘asshole.’ If you were to draw the Venn diagram of politicians and assholes, there would be a huge amount of overlap.
somervilletom says
I share the sentiment being expressed here, and in private conversation I use the same term (and agree heartily with both Lynne and Kirth’s assessment of the Senate and of Mr. Cheney). I have no fondness for “royalty”.
<
p>This blog is read by schoolchildren and teachers at school. It is read by many of us (including yours truly) at work, in libraries, and in countless government offices. We want that. In many workplaces, in every school, and in most government offices, Lynne’s word is verboten. That might be silly, but it is still true.
<
p>I think Lynne’s message (and Kirth’s regarding Mr. Cheney) can be effectively conveyed using different language, and I hate to see that important message be blocked because of offensive language that is ultimately gratuitous.
kirth says
was in response to Christopher’s “this kind of language, especially directed at elected officials” bit. I see where you and he are put off by rude language, and it is actually unusual for me to be arguing on the other side of the issue, but I do believe there are times and individuals that warrant such language. I may disagree with specific applications of it, but it’s pretty delicate of you to want all use of such words here erased.
<
p>How old are these theoretical schoolchildren who are reading BMG? Why do the site’s guidelines not forbid this kind of language, if it’s so inappropriate? The place is not going to suddenly turn into a cesspool just because a naughty word or two shows up.
christopher says
…and it’s not like I’m advocating bowing, scraping, and never disagreeing. However, I absolutely believe in showing the utmost respect for the office of the Presidency and any person who holds it. You’ll note that I’ve been quite critical of Obama’s handling of this deal, without resorting to language. My feeling is that such language is disrespectful in the extreme, but anything rude in general is especially rude to the President in particular.
<
p>I’m reminded of an incident I read about when Clinton was President and he was speaking to a group of veterans. Some of the veterans booed him because of his history of avoiding the Vietnam draft. One veteran objected to this behavior saying, “You can boo an umpire, but you don’t boo the President of the United States!” You can substitute “boo” for “swear at” or “call names” and this sums up my sentiment quite nicely.
<
p>So yes, I stand by my rating. If I were running a blog I would insist on civility from everyone and would delete any comment with such language.
lynne says
when he starts showing me some. Sorry, the guy is a total idiot and I’m going to say so, in as colorful a language as I feel like it.
<
p>BTW, the word “ass” is said all the time on Comedy Central’s the Daily Show, and I can bet you a million bucks more school children are watching that than reading this site.
somervilletom says
I grant that we’re really down in the tiny nits here, but the shorter word is significantly less offensive then that longer word.
<
p>After all, wouldn’t it have been just as effective to say “Now stop acting like you’re one anal orifice among 100 anal orifices”?
<
p>:-)
lynne says
is pretty controversial itself.
<
p>How about douchebag then? Can I use that??
kirth says
‘asshat’?
<
p>Douchebag has been decried as sexist, since only one gender supposedly ever uses that device.
somervilletom says
Hey, come on — “anal” and “anal orifice” are a clinical terms.
<
p>I don’t know about “douchebag” or “asshat”. I’m pretty sure “asshole” doesn’t work, though.
seascraper says
The House would just extend the tax cuts in February, the Senate would pass it along with a divided Democratic Party, and the liberals would demand that Obama veto it.
mark-bail says
in the House just shot across the the President’s bow.
I hope that Obama learns something.
<
p>
lynne says
for cutting Dems out of the stupid deal. Idiot. When you make a deal, doncha think you outta look at what ALL PARTIES bring to the debate???
christopher says
He bent over backwards to appease opponents of reform, but never once as far as I know parleyed with single-payer advocates.
christopher says
…has also said she would not bring it for a vote in its current form. What those who say we wouldn’t have gotten benefits for the unemployed or tax cuts for the middle class need to remember is that the House Democrats DID bring these things to a vote separately. GOP DID have the opportunity to vote for these things absent a deal, and Boehner even once said he would vote for middle class only tax cuts if that were the choice he was presented with.
sabutai says
mollypat says
That’s right — the GOP has had an opportunity to vote for unemployment benefits and the benefits did not materialize. I want the victims of the Great Recession to get those benefits, not just have the GOP vote against them and say “Oh, look how terrible those Republicans are.”
mark-bail says
Something’s happening here/What it is ain’t exactly clear.
<
p>Maybe it starts with a dope slap to a politically recalcitrant last best hope.
<
p>Let’s hope.
hubspoke says
I think you’re right. I can attest that something happened in me as a result of the Tax Surrender.
marc-davidson says
The President is like the kid who’s having his lunch money stolen every day by the bully. So being a smart person he negotiates a deal whereby he brings in twice as much money from home, hands over 3/4 of that to the bully and gets to keep 1/4 of it. Everybody wins and everybody’s happy. End of story.
johnd says
Story
<
p>
mizjones says
I need to adopt some major harmful Republican policies because if I don’t, the Rs will successfully blame me for not helping working people.
<
p>Obama apologists: We need to show support for Obama when he does as he is told by Republicans, else the electorate will get mad at him for doing so (and support the real Republicans).