SUBSCRIBE NOW WELCOME BACK. Do you want to continue reading where you left off? New Republic subscribers can pick up where they left off no matter which device they were previously using. SUBSCRIBE NOW

Go Home Loose Change

POLITICS DECEMBER 8, 2010

Loose Change

BY NOAM SCHEIBER

Of all the historical analogies urged on Obama following November’s drubbing—Truman in ’48, Reagan after ’82, Clinton after ’94—the one the White House has opted for is easily the most obscure. That would be Patrick in ’10—as in Deval Patrick, the recently re-elected governor of Massachusetts. Months after Patrick signed the state’s first sales-tax hike in 33 years, political chatterers gave him little chance of surviving to a second term. Not only did he face the same foul, anti-incumbent mood that elected Scott Brown, he’d drawn an attractive GOP candidate in businessman Charlie Baker.

Patrick’s handlers recommended that he distance himself from liberals in the state legislature—and, above all, downplay the tax increase. The governor overruled them. His first commercial highlighted the “combination of deep cuts and new revenue” he’d accepted to close the state’s budget shortfall. “He all but said, ‘I raised taxes.’ Jesus Christ,” recalls one still-traumatized adviser. “He thought the way to do it was to be true to what he ran on [in 2006]”—the belief that voters will support someone who levels with them, even if they don’t love every decision. In the end, Patrick and his “politics of conviction” won by a comfortable seven-point margin.

It’s not hard to see the appeal of this narrative in Obamaland, whose principal also fancies himself a teller of hard truths. The way the president’s inner circle sees it, the re-election of Patrick—a longtime Obama pal and former client of his message guru David Axelrod and campaign manager David Plouffe—affirms the president’s bias against desperate reinventions. “[Patrick] may be a model for Obama in 2012,” says one strategist close to the White House. “Let them write you off for dead, say how stupid you are”—while you remind voters why they fell for you in the first place. So far, at least, the pundits are living up to their end of the bargain. The question is whether the president can live up to his.

 

By any measure, the first few weeks after the midterms were hardly encouraging. The president gave a low-energy press conference, then jetted off to Asia for ten days; the advisers he left behind seemed rootless and out of sorts. Still, as November wore on, the White House settled on the contours of a plan: Obama would refocus on reforming government and transcending partisanship—something they felt voters craved. “It was back to the first principles he stood by in the campaign,” says the strategist. This was, among other things, the impetus behind embracing a ban on congressional earmarks and freezing federal pay.

Both initiatives raised hackles among congressional Democrats and liberals, and stirred suspicions that Obama was bent on Dick Morris–style triangulation. But the charge is unfair. Obama has a longstanding appetite for good-government initiatives, dating back to his work on ethics and welfare reform in the Illinois state Senate. As a U.S. senator, he teamed up with Oklahoma conservative Tom Coburn to create an online database for earmarks. “It’s not left-right, it’s inside-outside,” says one administration official. In 2008, Obama was the vehicle for a backlash against Washington dysfunction. In 2010, the Tea Party was. The challenge Obama has set for himself is to reclaim that role.

Of course, the last two years weren’t exactly an advertisement for the tactical benefits of bipartisanship—Republicans had a huge incentive to defect, sowing frustration that hurt the governing party. But the Obama people and even many on the Hill believe the elections have altered this dynamic. “The Republicans for the first time share some responsibility for cleaning up the mess,” says Chris Van Hollen, soon to be the ranking Democrat on the House Budget Committee. It’s one reason, adds the White House–friendly strategist, that “we’re probably in a better position now than if we’d barely held control of the House.”

Nowhere is the continuity motif more evident than the president’s midcourse personnel decisions. So far, the White House has replaced its budget director, national security adviser, and Council of Economic Advisers chair with internal candidates. Legislative Director Phil Schiliro is rumored to be in line for deputy chief of staff and senior aide Stephanie Cutter is likely to shoulder some of the outgoing Axelrod’s responsibilities. Other than Larry Summers’s replacement at the National Economic Council, where the administration has hinted at a fresh face, the only real possibility for a high-profile outsider is chief of staff. Veteran Obama aide Pete Rouse—a beloved figure at the White House—is serving on an interim basis while Valerie Jarrett conducts a formal search.

Last summer, John Podesta, the Clinton ex-chief of staff who runs the influential Center for American Progress, became alarmed at the lack of pushback against the Bush tax cuts. To goad the administration into action, he organized a debate between Treasury Secretary Timothy Geithner and Douglas Holtz-Eakin, a former adviser to John McCain. Podesta’s gambit was only a partial success. Geithner, who’d previously weighed in on the issue, joined the campaign to bury the upper-income cuts when they expire in January. But, except for one forceful speech in September, the president stayed mostly on the sidelines.

The missteps that led to the likely two-year renewal of the Bush tax cuts highlight the danger in the White House’s aversion to course corrections. Obama did extract more concessions (pending congressional approval) than recently thought possible, like a one-year payroll-tax cut and a 13-month extension of unemployment benefits. These will boost the economy and help him politically. But the cost, a hundred-billion-dollar-plus gift to the rich, is tough to accept at a time when the deficit cries out for shearing and when the money would be far better spent on further stimulus.

Within the administration, the split over whether to mount a tax-cut offensive broke down largely along wonk-operative lines. The wonks spent the last year mystified that the White House was ducking the fight when the substantive merits were so one-sided. The operatives brooded that the politics could abruptly turn against them, despite polling showing little public appetite for the upper-income cuts. “They view it through the class warfare stuff—Kerry in 2004, Gore in 2000,” says one administration official. “They worry that they’ll get painted as lefties, tax-raisers.”

At key moments, including one internal discussion this spring, the political team declined to make a concerted push before Election Day. “The political people were like, ‘It’s a mess, let’s not deal with it now,’ ” says another official involved. (In fairness, the wonks were divided on policy details even as they all favored a quick resolution. A White House spokesperson says the congressional math made the discussion academic: “The Senate didn’t have the votes.”) This created the post-election predicament, in which the GOP could filibuster any less-than-complete extension, betting that the public would blame Obama if the rates reset in January. Such was the frustration among the wonks that, when asked to explain their tax-cut strategy, they’d morbidly joke that there was no strategy, just an “approach.”

The operatives were rightly put off by the cowardice of Senate Democrats. What they didn’t grasp was the structural advantage of a White House in framing a debate. The West Wing’s reluctance to exploit this advantage was a bitter irony given that polls showed Obama to be highly effective on the tax question as a candidate. “Obama thinks there are campaigns and there’s governing, and never the twain shall meet,” laments one Democratic consultant. Indeed, in his statement on the compromise, Obama seemed to relish a return to the issue in 2012.

Team Obama may also be insufficiently attentive to the left, which has erupted over the tax-cut deal. The Friday after the midterms, a senior administration official convened a meeting with representatives of several dozen prominent progressive organizations. When the meeting began at 9 a.m., the official announced the discussion would have to be quick as the White House needed the room by ten o’clock. “The White House is having a meeting with all its important allies, and the initial message is, ‘We couldn’t get a room for more than an hour,’ ” says one participant. “You’ve got to be shitting me.”

Left uncorrected, these failings could unravel Obama’s re-election chances. To be sure, his approval rating is respectable given the economic climate, while the Republican primary will eventually serve up a handy conservative foil. Still, it’s not hard to imagine a scenario in which the president staggers into 2012. The various corporate front groups—like Karl Rove’s Crossroads GPS—spent nearly $100 million on ads in the homestretch of the midterm elections. Campaign finance laws require these groups to devote at least half their money to a “primary purpose” that’s not overtly political. Which means that, by the end of their accounting year—presumably next September—they’ll have to spend an equivalent amount. What will they do with it? “If I were Karl Rove and I had $100 million at my disposal, I’d go up in twenty media markets for an entire year,” says the consultant. “Nothing that mentions Obama. Just pisses on the economy. ... Even if unemployment does get better by a point, point and a half, no one believes it.”

Unfortunately, there’s no similar effort anywhere in sight on the Democratic side. And the people tasked with running the next Obama campaign—Axelrod and deputy chief of staff Jim Messina—have their hands full with John Boehner and Mitch McConnell. If there’s something in the Deval Patrick playbook that offers guidance on this dilemma, now would be a great time to use it.

Noam Scheiber is a senior editor of The New Republic and a Schwartz Fellow at The New America Foundation.

Click here to subscribe to TNR and follow us on Facebook and Twitter.

SHARE YOUR THOUGHTS

Show all 62 comments

You must be a subscriber to post comments. Subscribe today.

62 comments

"Obama would refocus on reforming government and transcending partisanship" The above is the key sentence in Scheiber's report and is also the key to understanding the rolling disaster thar is the Obama presidency. "Reforming government," in this context equals slashing bureaucracy, a central Republican trope and utterly beside the point of the massive difficulties our nation faces. "Transcending partisanship" is an empty fantasy. Politics is, by definition, a competition between different interests, and if, like Obama you adhere to this post-partisan fantasy while your real-world partisan opponents pursue their own, hyperpartisan agenda you will get abused as a patsy and a fool.

- AaronW

December 8, 2010 at 3:34am

You must be a subscriber to post comments. Subscribe today.

What he said! I am appalled about how averse the discussions of the last 24 hours have failed, unlike Noam, to take into account the unwillingness of the White House to acknowledge that there are SOB"s in both parties who see sticking it in the President's eye as the only way to stay in office. When is the last time the U.S. Senate got ahead of its own President and led? 1850? And what did that give us? The MIssouri Compromise. A better model for this President (aspirational, but still a model) is Lyndon Johnson and the Senate in 1964 and 1965. What would this country look like if Obama had been President in 1964 and 1965? He wants to be Eisenhower, get a compliant Congress like Eisenhower had. But he will not even work for that.

- SFergessen

December 8, 2010 at 6:11am

You must be a subscriber to post comments. Subscribe today.

Obama absolutely won the day yesterday, dominated. I cheered his press conference. He played McConnell beautifully - stimulus + wingers demanding the deficit grow again to finance billionaires. Wingers own that part, Obama owns: doing everything he possibly can to help the hurting middle class. Why should Obama risk his entire ouvre as a pragmatist - which he's had from Day 1 of his career and campaign - to please a bunch of whining Democrats who don't even bother to show up to the polls to help him out? Eff them and good for him. Republicans said very clearly to the American people: Deficits don't matter. They have zero credibility to continue their ridiculous ready-for-my-close-up caterwauling about it. Obama is walking a tightrope with this strategy, who knows what will happen. I'm dubious but no matter what, I admire the man. He is incapable of posing and leaping about changing himself for anyone. Maybe it will pay off. It sure did yesterday. I'm not sure Americans apprecaite honest politicians, they need to be lied to and petted. If you want a President who will put his ass on the line for you, then get your ass out there and vote Democrats. Otherwise, get out of the way and let the man get things done. Next stop: START.

- WandreyCer

December 8, 2010 at 7:22am

You must be a subscriber to post comments. Subscribe today.

Uh, Jill, I voted for the man, and I voted Democratic in the most recent election. I suspect that the Democrats, like me, who are "whining" most loudly are, again, like me, those who DID show up to the polls. I don't expect Obama to change. I'd like him to change, but I don't expect it. For a person to change is a devilishly hard thing to pull off. But if Obama's not changing means that he clings to a delusion then am I supposed to admire him for it? I mean, tell me the truth, Jill, can you honestly admire the idea--not the man, but the idea--that transcending partisanship is what the American people most want? What self-serving horse shit! You yourself just described the Republicans as having zero credibility and described their speech as "ridiculous, ready-for-my-close-up caterwauling." Is this your idea of transcending partisanship? The American people don't want to transcend partisanship. The American people want answers to the problems that trouble them most. If those answers can be achieved through inter-party compromise (it can't) then great! If those answers can only be achieved through one party shoving a knife up into the other party's thorax then standing on the prostrate party's neck while it waits for the opposing party to exsanguinate, then the American people would be fine with that too. You want to congratulate Obama for his pragmatism, but pragmatism has its limits. For a shitty baseball player who knows he'll never put wood on a given pitcher's heat it may be pragmatic for him to lean in and take a hit for the walk, but no one will congratulate him for it. The MOST pragmatic thing would have been for Obama to look at the poll numbers, look at the fact that what the American people wanted was an end to the upper-tier Bush tax cuts and an extension of unemployment benefits, stayed home from Asia, called the Democratic Congressional delegation to the Oval Office one or two at a time to give them a Tony Soprano-style talking-to and where necessary shove steel rods up their spines, and then get on tv to make a series of speeches as punchy as his presser today telling the American people he had a plan to bring the people RELIEF--such an important word in times like these--whereas the Republicans had just too words for the people: bend over. But of course for him to do that would mean giving up his postpartisan transcendence. I hope he enjoys it up there above the partisan fray, because down here in the trenches the mud is up to our waists.

- AaronW

December 8, 2010 at 8:23am

You must be a subscriber to post comments. Subscribe today.

I think Obama has to frame the debate as follows. "The Republicans believe that if we lower taxes on the rich, the economy will grow and the deficit will shrink. I believe the economy will grow based on expenditures that improve consumer demand and that the economy will improve, but not enough to offset the revenue lost from tax cuts." And then see what happens. If the economy improves and the debt goes up, Obama was right. If the economy does not improve, then both he and the Republicans were wrong and Obama should spend his time complaining about the debt.

- Nusholtz

December 8, 2010 at 8:24am

You must be a subscriber to post comments. Subscribe today.

I wrote this in an email to my aunt today, the speech on unemployment benefits Obama could have made but chose not to: "The Republicans in the Senate are blocking needed relief for millions of Americans who can't find work because of the recession. I support this relief. The Democrats in Congress support it. Polls indicate that a large majority of the American people support it. Leading economists say that unemployment benefits provide a sorely needed economic stimulus because the recipients of such benefits go out and spend that moneyquickly. Economists say that every dollar spend on unemployment benefits is worth 5 dollars to the economy. So why do the Republicans oppose it? They say we can't afford it. But these are the same people who say we can afford a tax cut that benefits no one but the rich that will cost the government many times over what the unemployment extension will cost. So what's the real reason? I'll tell you why the Republicans are opposing unemployment benefits: it's called blackmail. They are so focussed on securing a tax cut for their wealthy backers--a tax cut that only a small minority of the American people believe should be continued--that they are willing to hold millions of American families for ransom, threatening to cut off their benefits unless we in the government give them and their rich backers what they demand. One thing I've learned in my life is that if you knuckle under to bullying and blackmail, you guarantee yourself nothing but more of the same. I'm not going to do it, and neither should you. The only thing standing in the way of relief for millions of unemployed Americans is the Senate Republican delegation. Write to your Republican Senators, email them and phone them to tell them how you feel, tell them you want them to do the right thing, the Christian thing, not the stingey, mean-spirited thing. They know what is right, and with a little nudge from you, they will do it."

- AaronW

December 8, 2010 at 8:45am

You must be a subscriber to post comments. Subscribe today.

In 2012 I will not vote for Obama for the same reason I never voted for him or his supporters. Unlike 80% of US Jews I will never vote for someone who either belonged to a club not accepting Black people or a Black man belonging to an anti-Semitic church. Everybody knew who Obama was before the elections and still they voted for him. Obama made his infamous speech on race, a perfect Straw Man. Republicans could not be seen as racist and Democrats where caught in the head light like deer's with a racist nominee. As a result none raised their voice except poor little me. I remain a voter who do not vote for any known racist, ever!

- Poupic

December 8, 2010 at 9:25am

You must be a subscriber to post comments. Subscribe today.

Poupic - please take your irrelevant lies about Obama to the Spine where you'll fit in and make some sort of sense. Aaron - I love ya honey, but you're driving me nuts with this self righteous stuff. I'm glad all four of us who bothered to vote in 2010 are proud of it, but the vast majority of Democrats chose to let Obama twist in the wind alone in tis last cycle while he got his ass kicked doing the countries business - rebuilding the agencies, ending the Iraq War, saving Detroit and the economy, saving millions of jobs, passing health care, re-inventing public education. I do not blame him for his giving them the finger, in Obama-ese of course. What you are not seeing for some reason is that Obama absolutely *schooled* the Republicans and retook the narrative of his Presidency (so naturally its time for Democrats to form their circular firing squad and destroy each other). in one step, he ceased being the Muslim Socialist that Republicans would only seek to destroy, screw the hurting people of this country, to to being the President of America who is fundamentally helping hurting people in a concrete way BTW - winning back Indepedents, who went Republican whether you like it or not, in the process. Obama, as he has made clear, takes the world as it is - bless him. Pick your poison Aaron - do you give a shit about the deficit right now? Me neither and neither does anyone else. Do you think this economy needs a stimulus or not? Do you think that middle class people need help right this effing instant or not? If yes, do you want Jesus Christ to come down and hand us another multi-billion dollar stimulus package in this political environment? Because that's what it would take! Or can you accept, through your rose colored glasses, another multi-billion dollar stimulus - one that Republicans designed and enforced, one that destroys THEIR entire narrative moviing forward? WHILE doing what Obama said from Day 1 is his number 1 goal: helping the middle class? One that helps desperate people right NOW? It is unfair that the rich get richer and sacrifice nothing? You bet. Dismantling income inequality is something Obama may have to do next year. People are starving right now and he needs to do something about it. Oh, and nuetralize the Republicans while he's at it. Unfortunately, I also look forward to Obama's dismal political shop blowing the PR on this of course. Unless we're named Clinton and sometimes Obama, we Democrats are missing a political chromosome. We're mutants.

- WandreyCer

December 8, 2010 at 9:55am

You must be a subscriber to post comments. Subscribe today.

pardon my spelling disaster, I am trying to type and huff while doing ten things, please do excuse, I know how much some of you loathe that (which I admire).

- WandreyCer

December 8, 2010 at 10:18am

You must be a subscriber to post comments. Subscribe today.

Thank you Wandrey, you are a convincing advocate and I only wish the White House hired you as Obama's spokesperson!

- Idefix

December 8, 2010 at 10:21am

You must be a subscriber to post comments. Subscribe today.

Truman's "drubbing" was in 1946, not 1948.

- sfillbrand

December 8, 2010 at 10:22am

You must be a subscriber to post comments. Subscribe today.

Listen Up, President Obama. Martha Stewart Has Good Advice for You. http://www.newdeal20.org/2010/12/07/listen-up-president-obama-martha-stewart-has-good-advice-for-you-29031/

- hkaye

December 8, 2010 at 11:04am

You must be a subscriber to post comments. Subscribe today.

Thanks Wandrey. I listened to the news conference thinking “that’s the guy I admire so.” And pragmatism has been this guys modus operandi since his community organizing days in Chicago. He’s written two books telling that to the world, yet it seems to always surprise folks when they see who that plays out sometimes. I do have an issue how this all was presented. Maybe too nuanced, but it should have been framed as “additional” tax breaks for those making more than $250K, as they still would have received a break on income up to that amount if Obama and the Dems had their way.

- josephf

December 8, 2010 at 11:24am

You must be a subscriber to post comments. Subscribe today.

Thanks! How about, for once, we Democrats stand up for our magnificently accomplished (aloof, sometimes hard to understand, annoyingly sometimes irrelevantly poised) President for once in our lives? How about, for once, we stop complaining about what isn't and notice what is in large legislation - even if, yes Obama can't manage to find a staff or a way to help convey his successes convincingly, and yes, he kisses ass to hateful morons out to destroy him and the country. Yes. How about if, for once, we support our - yes our - Democratic President in his signiture jujistu ways and stop projecting on to him what we need him to be (she says, the one who yelled at him loudest through the Gulf oil spill - remember that event?). He'll only ever be him and I for one am more than OK with that. Thank you President Obama, for all you have done for this country in your short time in office.

- WandreyCer

December 8, 2010 at 11:37am

You must be a subscriber to post comments. Subscribe today.

BTW idefix - I'm available ;) and I promise to spellcheck and edit.

- WandreyCer

December 8, 2010 at 11:43am

You must be a subscriber to post comments. Subscribe today.

Yeah, the magnificent accomplishment of caving in to the Republicans for things he could have had anyway if he weren't afraid of a fight. A fight followed by a settlement compromise is one thing. Surrender in advance is quite another, no matter how it is spun. Once again, the ratio of stimulus to useless tax breaks is too low to get the job done. Obama has left himself with nothing for 2012. Does he think he is going to have any credibility campaigning on "ending tax cuts for the rich" at the end of 2012? If we have a robust recovery by then, it doesn't matter what he does. I haven't read any respected economist, or anyone for that matter, who thinks that is going to happen. If we still have high unemployment, how is he going to convince anyone that he has been working to right the economy? Meanwhile, the Republicans will be scourging him for the deficits that they created in the first place and are doing everything possible to make worse. Thank you Nancy Pelosi for all you have done as Speaker of the House. Including pulling Obama's chestnuts out of the fire more than once.

- roidubouloi

December 8, 2010 at 11:49am

You must be a subscriber to post comments. Subscribe today.

Absolutely won the day in the press conference. It was a crap deal, but better than either of the alternatives (completely caving, i.e., giving the tax cuts permanence or getting nothing in return; or standing on principle and having tax cuts expire for middle class along with unemployment and stimulus). people who want to lay this on Obama's door need to remember that he pushed for a vote on this much earlier. The dems in congress not getting their crap together necessitated it. Obama did the best he could given that he was dealing with the Nelsons and Feingold's and Bauci in the senate. Not sure what magical thing Roid would have liked him to have done about the senate dems. And, AaronW, I don't think he actually believes that crap. I think he said it to get elected, and he is making gestures in that direction to get re-elected. (so says someone who cannot vote, but hopes to be able to eventually vote for Chelsea Clinton)

- miceelf

December 8, 2010 at 12:23pm

You must be a subscriber to post comments. Subscribe today.

Wandrey - You're presenting an extremely eloquent and extremely wrongheaded case. Like Aaron, I'm one of the Democrats who went out and voted in 2010. My Congressman, who got elected just last cycle, is the first Democrat elected to represent me in my adult life; we just barely managed to keep him in office (by 900 votes). It isn't just that he told us to fuck off with that press conference-he told the people who didn't show up and made that so goddamn difficult that they needn't bother coming back. "I belong to no organized political party, I'm a Democrat," he might as well have said. How in the hell do you expect him to draw voters to his side while disparaging his own supporters? That you think that Obama "schooled" anyone with this bullshit is more sad than anything else. He said, clearly and distinctly, "the Republicans are too tough for me, even when Democrats run both houses, and when threatened, I'll cave." Aaron's right. He used the bully pulpit for a we'll-get-'em-next-time speech instead of spending the last two years using it as a pedestal from which to bludgeon the living hell out of the Republicans. It's the same as the healthcare debate-he gave a couple of speeches, made the Republicans look bad for about twenty minutes, and then entrusted it to goddamn spineless pansy Harry Reid to get it done. He did not stop being the Muslim Socialist; I'll say it's no more than five weeks before we're back to that bullshit. The only reason we aren't hearing it now is that most of the crazies either already have their minds on Christmas with their families or haven't been sworn in yet. The "narrative of his presidency" is still entirely in the Republican hands, and will be even moreso in January. The Republicans will continue talking about "uncertainty" with only this two-year extension and will slam him even harder for running up the national debt; it won't matter that the additional debt is the cost of their tax cuts. I don't want to be lied to and petted, Wandrey. I want my President to point out that the Republicans lie all the goddamn time, and I want him to do it before he loses everything. I want him to loudly proclaim what he believes in every single day, not twice a year-and that he will fight to the death defending them. I want him make clear that his opponents hate poor people, the middle class, gays, minorities, civil liberties, and above all, America. Soaring rhetoric, when used to explain why you just sold out your principles, your supporters, and your future, is a waste. And as an aside, one cares about deficits? The Independents you acknowledge have gone Republican care about deficits. Did you not see the rise of the Tea Party over the last two years? They're nonsensical, ridiculous and batshit crazy, but they do care about deficits. The Tea Party's willing to dissolve the union in pursuit of ending deficit spending, and their movement didn't just fade away after the election. Obama needs to wean the independents off the crazy if he has any hope of winning a second term.

- janus

December 8, 2010 at 12:45pm

You must be a subscriber to post comments. Subscribe today.

Roid: Dammit, you beat me to the punch and got that in while I was writing. Miceelf: So far as the Senate goes, he could have unambigiously told Reid that he has to make the Republicans actually filibuster things, in person, on the floor, constantly, to actually block things. As it is, a Republican says "I'd filibuster that," and Reid throws up his hands. If Reid had refused, he should have worked to make sure he lost (which he should have).

- janus

December 8, 2010 at 12:56pm

You must be a subscriber to post comments. Subscribe today.

OK OK, I never said my case was perfect - it isn't. And I totally agree with you about Pelosi, Roi. She's got spine, saved us many times. But I think this will pay off in 2012, financially and politically. I'm ready to have my head handed to me cheerfully on that though. Janus, you're expecting a fantasy person to get up there and make you feel satisfied about something. I'm glad Obama doesn't chase that mirage around. As far as losing "everything?" He's gotten almost everything he really wanted at some level (all I can think of that matters that he didn't get was closing Guantanomo, but I suspect he was always malleable on that - he's a Scrowcroft pragmatist with great pride) except owning the political narrative, momentum - which is admittedly deadly. Obama loudly proclaims what he believes all the time, he's just not what you want him to be and he does not owe you that. (And no, the Tea Party does not care about deficits in the least, please. I see no evidence that any Republican has ever cared at all about spending, quite the opposite. It's a handy cudgel. They care that a fancy pants black man can't explain to them why they feel so powerless in the modern age, can't explain to them why their privledge was taken away from them when they aren't even sure what that privledge was, can't buy them a pony and make the world understandable and safe. Do I need ot even ask where the hell these people were when the debt was actually being run up? No, I don't). ALso Roi, I don't agree that he could have gotten everything - and by everything, I always include START, or that he surrendered prematurely. By taking the damn class warfare snore off the table right *now* he freed up energy to get people help before Christmas, nuetralize Republican narratives and turn the political tide *now.* Yes, he was in a political emergency and it needed to be addressed. Where is the evidence that a fight over this was politically advantageous at all? Does anyone look at the polls around here? Americans support tax cuts for the rich, period. Get over it!

- WandreyCer

December 8, 2010 at 2:32pm

You must be a subscriber to post comments. Subscribe today.

Really, a thread needs to be started entitled "What are the principles of a pragmatist?" Obama has NEVER been anything else, nor has he ever claimed to be.

- WandreyCer

December 8, 2010 at 2:35pm

You must be a subscriber to post comments. Subscribe today.

Well I'm another one of the four people who voted (Democrat) in 2010 and I'm disgusted with President Obama on a whole lot of levels. a) Where's he been? We got rolled at the polls because the base didn't go out and vote against the bigoted, nasty, OTT right wing. Why not? Because leadership didn't inspire them to go out and vote. b) On a number of issues - environment is a very important one - I don't see any change from Bush. Look at Ken Salazar, BP and other extraction industries and the situation of endangered species. How is Obama different from the Republicans? c) Where's all this new infrastructure? Green energy? d) Oh. Instead of ending the wars we're sending more troops to Afghanistan. Meanwhile, DADT? Yeah right...meanwhile our top general doesn't even know for sure if we can win the war. Swell. Well, we could have projected from the Soviet/Afghan war and saved a lot of lives and a lot of money but noooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooo. e) Deficits. Sock it to the people, especially workers, old, poor, disabled.... f) Taxes. Guess whose taxes will actually GO UP in this wonderful "new deal." THE POOR. Working poor people may well pay MORE because credits worth a few hundred bucks have expired. If you're an independent contractor, artist, entrepreneur, ie you don't have a nice boss taking out your payroll taxes, wham. Right in the kisser. And guess what. This class of workers is pretty big. I don't know exact numbers but the trend is to hire "part time" workers, ie workers who are not on anybody's payroll, hence get no benefits, no security and have to pay ALL the taxes due on incomes that are often terribly low. Note, poor people also pay disproportionately more for EVERYTHING. This includes people on fixed incomes, seniors and disabled people living on SS who haven't seen an increase in two years - yet - the cost of everything IS going up regardless of what we're told. So the poor really are more poor. g) Help for people being foreclosed upon. OK where is it? I'm beginning to like this squatter idea. h) More support for the arts. RIIIIIGGGGGHHHHTTTT. One could go on and on. I agree that it was a good press conference. We needed press conferences like that BEFORE THE ELECTION DAMMIT. Not when it's too damn late. The more I see of the sleazy Republican leadership the more it baffles me that we're even having this discussion.

- Sophia

December 8, 2010 at 2:36pm

You must be a subscriber to post comments. Subscribe today.

One more thing - I'm having flashbacks to when Clinton changed the welfare laws to have five year limits. I was similiary situated - defending it (as a front line social worker!!) while the majority of my friends, centrists on over to leftists - hissed and booed me.

- WandreyCer

December 8, 2010 at 2:43pm

You must be a subscriber to post comments. Subscribe today.

Sophia - I like your arguments, especially on the environment and taxes (f). I don't agree that a President needs to inspire people to vote though.

- WandreyCer

December 8, 2010 at 2:45pm

You must be a subscriber to post comments. Subscribe today.

While keeping the tax rates in the current "deal" intact, unemployment at 9-11%, the Afghan war going on its winning ways, and contant attacks on Progressives, BHO Will get kudos from Galston and most bloggers above while losing support from Progressives, Independents-- and gaining no Repub support. This should enable BHO by 9/11 to stabilize his voter support in the 30's-- equal to that of Palin and a Progressive challenger.

- drofnats1

December 8, 2010 at 4:00pm

You must be a subscriber to post comments. Subscribe today.

Wandrey, how do you get "self-righteous" from anything I've written? I mean, obviously I think I'm "right"--as in "correct"--but "righteous"? I suppose your read on me is that I see myself as taking a moral stand against Obama's pragmatism. But that's not how I see it. I'm taking a pragmatic stand against Obama's political incompetence. It is incompetent to give major concessions in exchange for items you could have gotten while conceding nothing.

- AaronW

December 8, 2010 at 4:10pm

You must be a subscriber to post comments. Subscribe today.

It is also incompetence--some might even call it madness--to cling to the notion that transcending partisanship is desirable or even possible.

- AaronW

December 8, 2010 at 4:22pm

You must be a subscriber to post comments. Subscribe today.

Ok Aaron, you're right. You were just calling it as you saw it. It's a good case.

- WandreyCer

December 8, 2010 at 4:34pm

You must be a subscriber to post comments. Subscribe today.

Wandrey, I don't want a fantasy figure to make me feel satisfied. I want a President who makes me feel proud to be an American. If you think that's a fantasy...I'd have to say that's just kind of sad. The Tea Party most certainly does care about deficits. You are right to say that elected Republicans don't-they guffaw at the very idea, but they have managed to stir up a big ol' pot of crazy among the electorate that now thinks that public debt somehow costs us jobs. It is ridiculous, nonsensical, and a position that you can now only dismiss outright if you don't care about getting elected. Voter education is desperately needed. As for your last bit, that Americans support tax cuts for the rich-Wandrey, you're typically intelligent, insightful, and funny. In this regard, you are mind-bogglingly, staggeringly, embarassingly wrong. Americans do not, under any circumstances, in any income bracket, racial subset, or state, support tax cuts for the rich. If you've been following this closely and think that, I can't imagine how. In September, 53-57% of Americans wanted the tax cuts for the rich gone, depending on whether you believe CBS News or Gallup. In December, it's now 60%. Democrats oppose them. Republicans oppose them. The poor oppose them. The RICH oppose them. Congressional Republicans serve a tiny, tiny constituency of selfish bastards who are fine with burning the future to enrich themselves-and now Obama does, too. http://www.gallup.com/poll/142940/americans-allowing-tax-cuts-wealthy-expire.aspx http://www.cbsnews.com/8301-503544_162-20016602-503544.html http://www.politico.com/news/stories/1210/46125.html

- janus

December 8, 2010 at 4:47pm

You must be a subscriber to post comments. Subscribe today.

If you think there's any thing behind Obama telling Reid 'you have to...." anything, then we live in different worlds. Reid doesn't "have to" do anything, at all, let alone anything that Obama in particular wants. The notion that Obama has any power over Reid, when no president has power over senate members, is really silly. It's really cold here in Chicago today. Obama could have told the sun it really had to shine harder here. Why isn't he doing that/

- miceelf

December 8, 2010 at 4:48pm

You must be a subscriber to post comments. Subscribe today.

AaronW, it strikes me as somewhat naive to assume Obama genuinely is clinging to the notion that transcending partisanship is possible. It really seems to me that he adopted that as a rhetorical device to get elected and is using it to portray the other side as unreasonable. Our problem is not that Obama isn't partisan enough, but that senate Dems aren't (or weren't when they had no reason not to be).

- miceelf

December 8, 2010 at 4:51pm

You must be a subscriber to post comments. Subscribe today.

There is a certain political urban legend out there to the effect that "Democrats can never win on taxes." It's wrong (or exaggerated) and worse, it's disabling, because it leads to both political and policy menus being trimmed and bent before they need to be, like a team that goes out on the field with the sense that they are beaten already. That said, it seems to me that Obama has played what he saw was a limited game rather well. It's not my favorite solution (it's short term, for one thing) but in a way the whole tax issue has been defanged overnight and the Republicans have now done exactly what the teabaggers went to the polls a month ago to stop -- a deal with the Obama White House. The GOP now own this agreement too. Wandrey (nice to see you back in fighting form, Wandrey!) may have put her finger on it, that Obama cares about what he thinks will be the trophies on the mantelpiece for his administration -- and START is a big one. You can't rate chalk against cheese, however. There is no sensible equation that can show how a treaty that will reduce and control nuclear arms and will potentially help Russia to help us on a couple of knotty problems can be measured against the U.S. unemployment rate. Obama was the guy who told McCain that a president has to work on a few things at the same time. Will the Republicans now continue to block START? And on top of that I still see problems that have to do with a fight on principle, and not an empty symbolic one either: some things are genuinely worse if you have a bad version of them rather than none at all. Health care is NOT one of these, but the financial products Consumer Protection Agency is. A stupid or badly organized agency will give the impression of regulation but will not do the job. And it's a winner, in terms of public opinion. Either you have a proper tool of government or it's just a shell job.

- ironyroad

December 8, 2010 at 5:18pm

You must be a subscriber to post comments. Subscribe today.

miceelf, the available evidence suggests that Obama takes his post-partisan shtick all to seriously. When BHO recently invited the House GOP caucus for a meeting he--not they--HE apologized for not having made enough of an effort to "reach out" to them!?! Okay, so you could argue that such statements indicate a negotiating tactic not a core principle, but if so they're a horrible negotiating tactic. You can't lead from down on the carpet. So, take your pick, Obama is either in thrall to a shallow, undergraduate-level (and fairly narcissistic) conception of the nature of politics and his role in it or else he's a schlemiel.

- AaronW

December 8, 2010 at 7:31pm

You must be a subscriber to post comments. Subscribe today.

I'm just going to remark, again, that Dems can't force Republicans to 'stand up and filibuster.' The senate rules don't work that way, anymore--haven't since the 1970s. Denying a quorum of 60 is now sufficient to prevent the ending of debate.

- Curran1

December 8, 2010 at 7:38pm

You must be a subscriber to post comments. Subscribe today.

As for your assessment of the Senate Dems, you may well be right. But that doesn't let O off the hook. At every turn, whether he's dealing with the Repubs or his own party's congressional caucus, he asks what the minimum concessions the other party to the deal is willing to make then asks for that and no more. You might be surprises at how much more vigorously partisan the Senate Dems would be if the had any assurance that their president wasn't going to sell them out with a backdoor deal with the Republicans and a speech castigating both parties for all the "bickering" thereby making them, the Senate Dems, look like chumps and significantly increasing the electoral problems for any Senator who had the misfortune to get out ahead of the prez.

- AaronW

December 8, 2010 at 7:53pm

You must be a subscriber to post comments. Subscribe today.

Obama's new tax deal with the Republicans is a jobs bill. It's stimulus 2.0 for the new reality of divided government. http://www.examiner.com/progressive-in-los-angeles/it-s-about-jobs-stupid

- rallyn

December 8, 2010 at 7:59pm

You must be a subscriber to post comments. Subscribe today.

I don't think that is correct, Curran. It is a practice instituted by Robert Byrd I believe, not a rule as far as I know, to defer matters on which there is no cloture rather than continue the debate in actuality. This is supposed to make the Senate more efficient by allowing it to do business rather than get bogged down with a filibuster. But, as we have seen, it has had the practical effect of requiring 60 votes on anything of significance when the minority is dedicated to obstruction. Quite so, Aaron.

- roidubouloi

December 8, 2010 at 8:24pm

You must be a subscriber to post comments. Subscribe today.

I am with Wandrey on this, when George HW Bush worked with Democrats and enacted his tax hikes in spite of his whole "read my lips" speech at the convention, how many people here said he was a sell out, how he betrayed America, etc. and how many applauded him for doing what he thought to be the best thing given his circumstances? When Republicans work with Democrats they are statesmen, when Democrats work with Republicans they are betrayers of the common man and should be defeated (according to Democrats here), so fine, vote for Palin, that will show Obama. And if Obama passes Start, DADT repeal, and the Dream act, this will be one of the greatest lame duck sessions ever and all the price was was a 2 year tax rate extension in the midst of a sluggish economy.

- blackton

December 8, 2010 at 8:25pm

You must be a subscriber to post comments. Subscribe today.

The Republicans said HW was a sellout and their disenchantment was how he ended up a one-term president. What could possibly be the point you are making, blackton? You expect the victors in such a battle to exult that the president from the other party is a sell-out? Oh wait. That is exactly what the Republicans are now doing.

- roidubouloi

December 8, 2010 at 9:00pm

You must be a subscriber to post comments. Subscribe today.

Curran: The current interpretation of the filibuster exists at the whim of the Majority Leader. It is not a voted-upon rule; Harry Reid could have changed it any morning in the last two years, but didn't, which is why the media now regularly reports that 60 votes are necessary for anything to pass the Senate. Blackton: The difference between this and George I is that George I was convinced of the necessity to sacrifice his political future for the good of the country, while Obama is convinced that tax cuts for the rich are morally wrong and fiscally unwise, but caved anyway. He followed up that impressive performance by publicly stating that he was giving concessions to hostage-takers, thus completely undercutting his own credibility as a negotiator. And if he gets this monstrosity, START, DADT repeal and the Dream Act all passed in this lame duck session, I'll eat my own spleen.

- janus

December 8, 2010 at 9:07pm

You must be a subscriber to post comments. Subscribe today.

This THREAD makes me proud to be American. Micelf, dude its a pleasure to be in the trenches with you again, you're amazing as always. Aaron, right on Obama's obsequiousness at times, it makes lots of us out here want to vomit. Enough already, he does it too much - almost as some sort of tick. Where is the guy with the five word killers (you have to be able to do more than one thing at a time, so YOU send troops - to the Aussie PM during the campaign who called Obama a wuss, remember him?). I hate that part of him. Janus, you killed me man :) What I read today supported my contention, but I was wrong. Polls do seem all over the place on this. I know you want to be proud, I want to be too, Thank you for your kind words. Obama DOES make me proud though - angry, frustrated and very confused too, but very often proud too. Blackton kills it efficiently in my view. I think Roi, that HW ultimately lost because of the economy, Perot and that charmer from Arkansas who was impossible to resist. I think the tax thing is overhyped for poor old HW.

- WandreyCer

December 8, 2010 at 9:20pm

You must be a subscriber to post comments. Subscribe today.

Thank you janus. Your point about Bush, and the difference between his actions and Obama's, flitted briefly through my mind but I couldn't articulate it.

- roidubouloi

December 8, 2010 at 9:26pm

You must be a subscriber to post comments. Subscribe today.

There is never one cause, Wandrey, but his base didn't turn out.

- roidubouloi

December 8, 2010 at 9:28pm

You must be a subscriber to post comments. Subscribe today.

Clinton was hardly irresistible at the time. He was regarded with deep skepticism by nearly everyone.

- roidubouloi

December 8, 2010 at 9:29pm

You must be a subscriber to post comments. Subscribe today.

Indeed he was. A fact which may qualify your own current arguments somewhat, roid.

- ironyroad

December 8, 2010 at 10:27pm

You must be a subscriber to post comments. Subscribe today.

And no, he didn't just say he was giving concessions to hostage-takers. He said that everyone thinks it's good to refuse to negotiate with hostage-takers, unless the hostage gets hurt, and then everyone thinks it was a bad idea. Obama did a good job yesterday painting the GOP as hostage-takers looking out for the rich, and I hope he can keep that going.

- ironyroad

December 8, 2010 at 10:32pm

You must be a subscriber to post comments. Subscribe today.

Did anyone else see Olbermann? http://www.truth-out.org/keith-olbermann-special-comment-obama-turned-his-back-his-base65756 All I can say to that is, Wow!

- AaronW

December 9, 2010 at 12:35am

You must be a subscriber to post comments. Subscribe today.

"...unless the hostage gets hurt..." But the hostage wasn't going to get hurt. The snipers had the hostage-takers in the crosshairs. All they had to do was take the shot. But the SWAT team leader lost his nerve. He threw the kidnappers a suitcase full of 100s and gave them a ride to the airport. Now they're drinking Cuba Libres on a beach in Brazil laughing about what a sucker that SWAT captain was.

- AaronW

December 9, 2010 at 12:45am

You must be a subscriber to post comments. Subscribe today.

Wow indeed. What a reaming. Olbermann makes every obvious and every unobvious point about Obama's premature capitulation, and he even gets the economics right: Giving money to the rich in a recession is totally ass backwards.

- roidubouloi

December 9, 2010 at 2:51am

You must be a subscriber to post comments. Subscribe today.

Some will label Olbermann's speech a "rant," but it is far from being anything so unhinged as that. Comprehensive, is the word, a comprehensive dismantling of the president. I doubt K.O. will be getting an invite to the White House anytime soon. One wishes there were a politician or two who could find such language: forceful, impassioned, eloquent and at the same time clear, rational and deadly realistic.

- AaronW

December 9, 2010 at 7:05am

You must be a subscriber to post comments. Subscribe today.

If only he didn't have to speak so quickly.

- roidubouloi

December 9, 2010 at 7:30am

You must be a subscriber to post comments. Subscribe today.

Right Roi and Irony about Clinton, I'd forgotten. Anyone else see the polls this morning? They are all over the place: http://www.npr.org/blogs/itsallpolitics/2010/12/08/131905341/tax-cut-polls-still-give-obama-conflicting-results I do think Roi, Aaron and Sophia's points stand though. Obama could have made the case, polls often just reflect a case well made to the American people. I hear you all loud and clear. But I'm still on board for Obama's bill, gruesome as it is in some ways.

- WandreyCer

December 9, 2010 at 10:21am

You must be a subscriber to post comments. Subscribe today.

Oh and I do stand by the fact that this is a political ticking timebomb for the Republicans - the best part of it for me.

- WandreyCer

December 9, 2010 at 10:22am

You must be a subscriber to post comments. Subscribe today.

An interesting link on Andrew this morning - what if the rebellion succeeds? Then what? http://www.thedemocraticstrategist.org/strategist/2010/12/lets_say_tax_deal_rebellion_su.php

- WandreyCer

December 9, 2010 at 10:29am

You must be a subscriber to post comments. Subscribe today.

Sorry, but if the "rebellion" succeeds and the Democrats in the Senate put forward a bill for a middle class tax cut, the Republicans will fold. For sure. Time is not on the Republicans side, contra this article. It matters not at all that the Republicans will have greater numbers in the Senate any more than it mattered when the Democrats had 59. Then, if the Democrats bring forward a bill to extend unemployment, the Republicans will fold again. Especially if Reid actually makes them debate. Then they can bring forward a bill to lift the debt ceiling and the Republicans will fold again. Why? Because obstructing any one of these three measures would be political suicide. Then the Democrats can use the next two years to debate nothing but New START and yak about how the Republicans are even willing to play politics with national security. Then the Fed can really get into the quantitative easing business to the point where the Republicans start to worry about economic recovery and, whoa nellie! The whole point is that the Democrats have an excellent hand of cards to play. But you have to play them. If you fold before the betting begins, especially when being bluffed, you are going to lose, and lose, and lose until you have lost everything. Shirt, pants, socks. The works. Obama does not want to be politician-in-chief. He wants to be wonk-in-chief. That is simply not how the American political system works. Pulling a Houdini is no substitute for doing the hard political work day in, day out. Time for the president to accept his responsibilities.

- roidubouloi

December 9, 2010 at 1:11pm

You must be a subscriber to post comments. Subscribe today.

Ok Roi - I'm in. The House just voted it down, if the Dems suddenly decide they want to play ball - well good for them, it's all pretty good either way for Dems. For them to fight is such a new concept for me to witness, I'll pop some popcorn.

- WandreyCer

December 9, 2010 at 1:17pm

You must be a subscriber to post comments. Subscribe today.

I was in class and missed that, but I am not astonished. One of the things that Obama has clearly not been doing is coordinating political, messaging, and legislative strategy with his Congressional leadership. The arguments that break out here from time to time about making Harry Reid do this or that are just plain silly. They are all on the same team. Congressional leaders sweated and worked to see a Democrat elected president. They WANT to work with a president who exercises leadership as long as they are treated with respect for their own station. The should all be coordinating their moves so that they are mutually reinforcing all of the time. In that light, it was silly for Obama to agree to something with the Republicans without the Congress on board. We shall see.

- roidubouloi

December 9, 2010 at 4:59pm

You must be a subscriber to post comments. Subscribe today.

Did anyone listen to BO's interview on NPR this morning? Steve Inskeep gave BO a few chances to allow him to vent about the GOP "hostage" meme. He let the GOP off the hook. This is what drives me crazy with the guy. It was a perfect display of what makes many Democrats say, right or wrong, that he has no fight in him. What happened to the great orator we saw in January 2008?

- tnmats

December 10, 2010 at 4:02pm

You must be a subscriber to post comments. Subscribe today.

Yeah, now he's dragging Bill Clinton into the fray. Rock on Bernie Sanders.

- Sophia

December 10, 2010 at 6:42pm

You must be a subscriber to post comments. Subscribe today.

tnmats, I didn't hear the NPR interview, but in light of his recent statements or, really, in light of everything he has done since he took office, I wouldn't have expected Obama to do anything other than let the GOP off the hook.  He genuinely believes his transcending partisanship b.s.  I listened to all that nonsense during the 2008 campaign, and let it pass thinking it was just a campaign tactic and an effective one at that.  In '08 being "post-partisan" allowed Obama to come off as the bigger man.  The country was pissed off at Bush, and McCain was throwing all kinds of slime at BHO, and by staying above all that negativity Obama quite effectively made himself the more mature of the two major party candidates.  I assumed incorrectly that when conditions changed and above the fray was no longer an advantageous place to sit that Obama would be able to adjust.  He hasn't and he can't.  Staying above the partisan fray is for Obama not a tactic, one play among many in his playbook.  It is not a means to an end, it is an end in itself.  This is why he showed more anger toward liberal Democrats than toward the GOP. In agreeing to a deal--nevermind how shitty a deal it happens to be--the Republicans fulfilled Obama's transcendent ideal, while skeptical Dems, no matter how well-founded their concerns, only act to stand in the way of Obama's postpartisan feel-good show.

- AaronW

December 11, 2010 at 12:05am

You must be a subscriber to post comments. Subscribe today.

One could also call it a principle. One doesn't have to like it.

- ironyroad

December 12, 2010 at 1:52am

You must be a subscriber to post comments. Subscribe today.

I'd be quite happy to, irony. That diminishes my criticism not one whit. A sincere adherent to a foolish principle may be more sincere in his foolishness, but he is no less a fool.

- AaronW

December 12, 2010 at 5:38pm

You must be a subscriber to post comments. Subscribe today.

SHARE HIGHLIGHT

0 CHARACTERS SELECTED

TWEET THIS

POST TO TUMBLR

SHARE ON FACEBOOK

Close