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 Turd Blossom In The Mirror

POLITICS APRIL 16, 2009

Turd Blossom In The Mirror

BY JONATHAN CHAIT

The depiction of Barack Obama that has emerged from some quarters of the American right is that of a Bush-like figure. He is irresponsibly running up deficits and covering them up with budgetary gimmickry. Under the guise of healing rhetoric, he ruthlessly pressures fellow partisans in Congress to toe the line. He is “filling White House ranks with former lobbyists,” and his administration is devolving into general incompetence. And he has given unprecedented, Rove-like power to his political Svengali, David Axelrod. Oddly enough, the author of all these particular criticisms is Rove himself.

A similar portrait of Obama has emerged from the pens of Michael Gerson, the former Bush speechwriter, and Peter Wehner, Bush’s former “director of strategic initiatives,” a job that essentially entailed coordinating GOP agitprop. The Bush veterans have systematically discovered that every flaw associated in the public mind with their hero turns out to be a defining trait of Obama. I am not a trained psychologist, but some form of projection seems to be at work.

A couple of weeks ago, a Pew poll found that the partisan gap in President Obama’s approval rating had reached a historic high. Rove leaped to point to this scrap of data (“no president in the past 40 years has done more to polarize America”), as did Gerson and Wehner. The concept of a polarized electorate assumes some rough parity between the two parties and a president hovering around 50 percent approval--as was the case with Bush around the time of his reelection, when the media would routinely describe him as “polarizing.” Obama retains approval ratings around 60 percent, where they have held stable for the last month, with high approval among independents. His low approval rating among Republicans is mostly a function of the fact that the party has shrunk to a pungent, highly conservative core. Pew found that about a quarter of the population identifies as Republican, down from one-third in 2004.

Yet the fine points of public opinion are not what interested the Bush veterans. What mattered was that another of the smears against their great leader had, seemingly, been turned on its head. The Bushies greeted Obama with the expectation that he would realize at last how well the 43rd president served his country. (“The closer you come to the Oval Office,” writes Gerson, “the wiser your predecessors appear.”) Obama’s failure to arrive at this conclusion infuriates them. (Rove: “The new president’s jabs at Mr. Bush have been unceasing, unfair and unhelpful.”)

But, in the present climate of public opinion, direct defenses of Bush have limited appeal, so the Bushies mainly argue by implication. Rove, as one would imagine, goes about his task in the bluntest manner, elevating shamelessness to a kind of performance art. He clucks disapprovingly that “senior White House staff meet for two hours each Wednesday evening to digest their latest polling and focus-group research.” The man who described the liberal reaction to September 11 as “offer therapy and understanding for our attackers” now sadly says that Obama “routinely ascribes to others’ views they don’t espouse.” There’s nothing unusual about political hacks becoming hack pundits, but you didn’t find, say, James Carville on CNN accusing George W. Bush of sexually exploiting White House interns.

Gerson, the former speechwriter, takes a more subtle tack. In his Washington Post column, he has carved out a persona as a hopeful but inevitably disappointed friend of the Obama administration. In Gerson’s rather idiosyncratic telling, the public voted him into office in the hope that he would govern as a status quo caretaker. “Obama,” he wrote, “appealed to a nation weary of large national exertions--a nation longing for a normality beyond the wars, hurricanes, floods, and assorted plagues of the Bush years.” And yet, despite the fact that the public liked everything about the Bush years except the weather, Obama has insisted on changing things. “It is a sad, unnecessary shame,” Gerson laments, “that Barack Obama, the candidate of unity, has so quickly become another source of division.”

One of the lessons the Bush veterans took away from the previous eight years is that governing is hard. Wehner is particularly fond of warning his successors of the task before them. “If Obama and the Democrats do sweep to victory on Tuesday,” he wrote before the election, “they will discover that running a campaign is a lot easier than running a country.” Wehner has made this same governing-is-hard point at least a half-dozen times since. After all, if the challenges of governing could best a giant like George W. Bush, they could best anybody.

In anticipation of his prophesy coming true, his blogging for Commentary has become a gleeful chronicle of Obama’s imagined descent into dysfunction and popular repudiation. A very partial sample:

January 7: So Barack Obama has not yet been sworn in and the 111th Congress has been in power for all of a day, and both are beginning to slip on banana peels . . . .

February 3: The famously smooth running, No-Drama-Obama Team is rapidly becoming an Abbott and Costello routine . . . .

February 11: Right now President Obama and his team look at times amateurish and somewhat overmatched by events . . . .

February 20: Obama has sent of jolt of energy through the GOP, which is in far stronger shape than anyone could have imagined just a month ago.

March 3: And one can start to feel the country’s perception of Obama beginning to shift, day-by-day, a few degrees at a time. Hope and joy are being replaced by fear and uncertainty.

March 4: It’s amazing how quickly a formidable political figure, in the midst of a crisis he (so far) seems unable to confront, can go tone deaf.

March 9: Right now our President looks to be over-matched by events

March 13: His support, rather than congealing, is weakening

In actual reality, Obama’s approval rating has held steady at around 60 percent for more than a month, and the public trusts Democrats over Republicans by massive margins. Perhaps Obama is benefitting from the contrast with his predecessor. Governing is hard. But governing better than George W. Bush is actually pretty easy.

Jonathan Chait is a senior editor at The New Republic.

SHARE YOUR THOUGHTS

Show all 57 comments

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

57 comments

In standard English, the verb "hate" can be followed immediately by a direct object; it does not require an intermediary preposition such as "on." You may have acquired this tic from the Right Rev. Jeremiah Wright, who also complained about people "hating on Obama."

- Brian

April 16, 2009 at 2:37am

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

Watching Rove, Limbaugh and the GOP argue out of both sides of their mouth has been very amusing and more pleasurable than I ever imagined it would be. These guys are totally devoid of any tangible ideas, they are really in frustration mode, and reduced to constantly arguing the most trivial things. Triviality is essentially their first and middle names. Oh what a load of fun.

- O.S

April 16, 2009 at 6:53am

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

*crack* Chait hits another one out of the park!

- Mizzou

April 16, 2009 at 7:13am

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

You've captured Obama precisely in your opening paragraph except for the nonsense about Rove. The remainder of your article merely denies the obvious. And you're quite right that you're not a trained psychologist, so please leave the armchair analysis to those who know what they're doing...

- Dr Jeffrey Neil Burch

April 16, 2009 at 7:57am

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

This passes for analysis???? Chait doesn't ask two keys questions, (1) is there so much as a whisper of truth to anything Rove and Gerson are saying (2) why was it fine for those on the left to complain about the very things Gerson and Rove are now discussing? Intellectual honesty might be nice. If we can't have that then at least intellctual consistency would do.

- Sean Bannion

April 16, 2009 at 8:53am

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

I am waiting for Rove to complain that attendees were screened at a town hall meeting in Turkey or France or that questions from members of the military were rehearsed and that this is all so despicable. It's a matter of what you know. Kathy Lee Gifford, for example, now has a book out criticizing our media overemphasis on youth and beauty in women.

- Nusholtz

April 16, 2009 at 8:56am

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

To Boy George (and all the Bushy Turd Blossoms): It took 200 years for these United States of America to acquire a $1 trillion debt, and that includes two world wars! In just 12 years of “Reagon/Bush-O-nomics” it Quadrupled! In case you zoned out again, that means Daddy and the Dunderhead drove the debt to $4 TRILLION! Clinton struggled to get that massive debt under control and finally built up three years of SURPLUSSES! (Which you and Smirky and Tom Delay quickly squandered on your corrupt Party-pals.) It only took 8 years for you and the rest of the mental midgets in the West Wing to drive the national debt to $9.7 trillion. “In other words…” it took Daddy and the Dunderhead 12 years to add $3 trillion to the debt. You only took 8 years to heap on another $4 trillion more. To someone with your mental deficits that may look like progress, but, to the rest of us, counting on your children to pay off your credit card just seems worse than irresponsible. Let’s see if we can dumb this down so you and the rest of the trickle-down bed-wetters can grasp it. WHIPPING OUT THE CREDIT CARD IS NOT AN ECONOMIC POLICY!

- GaryAndrewS

April 16, 2009 at 8:58am

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

Some believe we are all now on the “Edge of Political Darkness”. They believe that the election of an articulate president will lead to “a little intellectual elite” that “can’t control the economy without controlling the people” [Ronald Reagan]. They fear for us all, and their words may well make some of us think this fear comes from a mistrust of intelligent people. But intelligent people have always led this country, either through intelligent presidents, or through intelligent elites manipulating dumb presidents. And a sharp intellect is like a sharp knife. Each can be used to prepare a meal for someone or to hurt someone - all depends on how these tools are used. The real problem, then, is not intelligence. Personally, I believe the real problem in this world, now as in the 1920’s, is greed. Will a dumb president allow a greedy elite to enrich themselves by conning working families? Or will an intelligent president protect the American people from the economic crises brought on by the very greedy? To me, those are the real questions. And the real answers cannot come from simply trusting in elite beliefs (like, for instance, the blind belief in trickle-down economics). The only real test of any belief system is in the results of that belief system when put into practice. We’ve seen what trickle-down deregulation hath wrought. From trickle-down deregulation came the “Gramm-Leach-Bliley Act” (which gutted the “Glass-Steagall Act”, which had kept the American banking system solvent since the end of the Great Depression). From trickle-down deregulation came Phil Gramm’s “Commodities Futures Modernization Act” (which created the Enron Loophole, deregulating credit default swaps). From trickle-down deregulation came the 2003 “American Dream Downpayment Act” (which pushed banks and Fannie and Freddie to make loans to people they knew could not afford them). From trickle-down deregulation came the 2004 SEC “Rule Change” (deregulating bank-required 12:1 debt-to-capital ratios, allowing banks to risk 30 times what they held in reserve, putting the entire banking system at risk of default). The systematic dismantling of the economic safeguards that have supported the American economy since the New Deal is the result of trickle-down deregulation. To the extent the greedy have controlled enough American voters through talk radio and attack ads, they have controlled our economy these past 8 years. Make no mistake - the very greedy are making out very well these days. While our jobs and our pension plans disappear, they’re buying up America for pennies on the dollar and selling her to China. Former CEO elites, with their hands now on the government till, have hundreds of billions of tax dollars for their partners at Halliburton and Goldman-Sachs and other bastions of greed, but job cuts and broken pension promises for honest working folks. That’s the legacy of trickle-down economics. Jesus said, “Wherefore by their fruits ye shall know them.” [Matt 7:20] The fruits of the greedy elite these last 8 years have become increasingly bitter. Now comes the promise of a new, intelligent president. I believe, with this new president, we may now be stepping back from the edge of political darkness. Whether we move to safety depends upon him, and upon us. We don’t know if he will be strong enough and intelligent enough to outwit and outlast the greedy forces aligned against him. He will certainly need our support, and our prayers. If he fails to do what’s right, and caves to the forces of greed, I will be the first to vote against him, as I did his predecessor. But I will not be among those who would prejudge our new, intelligent president, because I believe as Jesus believed - the proof is in the fruit. Gary AndrewS, author of “No Gods Before Me”

- GaryAndrewS

April 16, 2009 at 9:01am

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

Obama is a far bigger spender than Bush, embarking on a massive social agenda while continuing Bush's wars (though I'll have to give him credit for getting some crooked people to pay their taxes by appointing them to cabinet positions). Obama is far a more divisive figure now than Bush was at this point in his presidency, even with the Florida recount debacle. So when one looks at the big picture, Obama is worse in every way - quite an achievement in less than 100 days.

- Jon Do

April 16, 2009 at 10:23am

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

Jonathan, you're right...you are not a trained psychologist. You're not even a trained political commentator. What garbage. Did you write a similar article years ago about how "Bush-haters" were just hating on themselves?

- FrankD

April 16, 2009 at 10:27am

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

Elegant headline. Congratulations!

- John

April 16, 2009 at 10:33am

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

I don't mean to be hyperbolic, but Karl Rove lies for a living. For about two decades, his profession has been to lie to promote his (and his party's) political interests. Karl Rove's professional lying is similar to an actor's; an actor, personally, may be totally capable of telling the truth, but an actor's professional statements are totally without credibility. It doesn't even make sense to ask whether, for example, Dustin Hoffman was telling the truth when his character gave advice in "Tootsie". Karl Rove's public statements are similarly devoid of any relationship with truth.

- Chris M.

April 16, 2009 at 10:41am

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

Jon: I understand opinion journalism. But as I have learned, your disposition leans toward the vindictive. And the nonsensical. And son, that’s no way to go through life. Yes, Rove, et al have accused President Obama of the inefficiencies their former boss displayed in abundance. However, what you don’t touch, because it destroys the veracity of your initial point, is that much of what they say is true. If I tell you that you should not molest the help, and then I molest the help, it doesn’t make my initial admonition incorrect. And then if you molest the help, it isn’t inaccurate to say, “I told you not to molest the help.” It makes me a hypocrite, but my point is no less valid….."The closer you come to the Oval Office," writes Gerson, "the wiser your predecessors appear." How about all that happy but unrealistic talk about transparency? I’m sure the Code Pinkers are just overjoyed at his changed positions on “illegal” wire tapping and “illegal” interrogation tactics; but common sense tells us the man sat at the desk, saw the reports, considered some of the consequences of changing GWB’s policies, and made a prudent decision. But he DID change his position……….and "If Obama and the Democrats do sweep to victory on Tuesday," he wrote before the election, "they will discover that running a campaign is a lot easier than running a country." But isn’t that statement true? If he says it 100 times, it makes him boring, but not inaccurate. I’m sure that sentiment has been considered by thoughtful politicos since Athens. And those eight comments from Wehner: this is what opposition “hack” writers do when they are out of power. Podesta, Carville, Begala, Blumenthal: honest partisans who never spoke a mistruth after they left power? Always truth to power for those guys, right? Never a cheap shot? Never an unprincipled / ad hominem attack?......Come on, Jon. This is a two sentence story and obvious. 1)Out of power politicos are hypocrites and partisan hacks. Just because (A) is true doesn’t mean some, or all, of what they say is false.

- malwords

April 16, 2009 at 11:01am

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

Jon, you're not half the writer John Judis is. At least he knows enough to quote Marx, chumming up some great mouth-breathers in the process. Yours are, well, banal. You need to work on stirring up the dumber of your respondents.

- Merkin Muffley

April 16, 2009 at 11:07am

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

@FrankD I'm regularly astounded by the implication that political commentators need to have written exactly the same piece about the other side of the spectrum in order to achieve fairness and impartiality. By your logic, did YOU write a similar response to commentators on the right, about whether or not they were as critical of Republicans in power as they are now of Democrats? Also, "trained political commentator" -- huh? Did we just fall back 20 years here? Punditry is a sport any and all can and do engage in now, with even bloggers regularly getting picked up as relevant experts in MSM. If by "training" you mean being taught that shouting louder is a great way to win debates, and that ad hominem attacks make deconstructing your opponent's actual arguments a thing of the past, well, then I guess we *are* TOL with regards to Chait.

- MLClark

April 16, 2009 at 11:10am

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

So I guess we should never oppose any President's policies which with we disagree because, after all, then we would be prejudging our President. Or, we shouldn't prejudge THIS president because YOU agree with HIS policies?

- malwords

April 16, 2009 at 11:12am

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

I just get tired of the polarization. Democracy never intended to have one political party -- so why the demonization of anything not Democrat? Don't bash conservatives -- we do have something to offer a democracy.

- SKR

April 16, 2009 at 11:24am

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

Jon Do- You have no ability to look at any big picture, your brain is too marinated in bias. Considering Obama's approval rating on the economy is over 70%, that 2/3 of the American public approve of him personally and with the job he is doing, you are mainfestly delusional. Obama no doubt has better things to do that have to mop up the destruction brought on by ideological morons who nuked the economy - and what pisses you off the most is that he's doing just that. Oh the tryanny of Clinton level tax rates for rich people! Oh the trauma of job creation for people eating dirt! Oh the oppression of saving the jobs of 25,000 teachers, oh the drama of the biggest tax cut in history. For your own sake, please do attempt to admit why you morons lost and then get a life. "Dr."Burch - since when do trained psychologists know their ass from their elbow? That field, which I am in as well, is as objective as economics which is to say not at all. You are particularly embarassing with your bragging assumption of superiority because you have those initials, if you really do. No respectable doctor of anything would be so vulgar.

- WandreyCer1

April 16, 2009 at 11:46am

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

BTW Chait - the projection you write about is overt, hilarious and embarassing, I keep trying to figure out if these two are stupid or liars or both. I hope they are cheerfully shameless liars, I would respect them more.

- WandreyCer1

April 16, 2009 at 11:49am

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

Oh and Frank D, that would have been a rather broad topic considering that most of America hated Bush, right left and center. His approval rating was the lowest in history for years. He is particularly loathed and disrespected on the right, but that probably isn't convenient to your whining right wing vicitimology shtick. Stop complaining, you people are the biggest effing whiners in history, man up and grow up.

- WandreyCer1

April 16, 2009 at 11:55am

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

Let's see - most of this could be summarized as "GOP operatives continue to accuse their opponents of their own motives and actions". This is news? GOP SOP, Mr. Chait. Can the leopard change his spots or the GOP his [thin] skin? Mr Rove, like Mr. Norquist, Mr. Bush, Mr. Cheney and Mr. Addington, or Mr. Atwood, Mr. Ehrlichman, Mr. Haldeman, Mr. Colson and Mr. Liddy before them, is a thoroughly loathsome human being who deserves neither pity nor attention. The fact that he gets so much media play now says a great deal about the state of the media in this country.

- JohnR

April 16, 2009 at 12:07pm

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

Hmmm, so what about those of us who were anti-Bushies and are hating on Obama as a irresponsible, reckless, overspending left-wing Bush-like hack? Where do you we fit in to your analysis, Jonathan -- or would you rather go on pretending fiscally responsible moderate Democrats don't exist?

- DK Jamal

April 16, 2009 at 12:14pm

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

Much as I agree with the sentiments expressed in this piece, I really object to the sophomoric scatalogocal language in the title. Rather stooping to Limbaugh's level. Not exactly what I expect of TNR.

- hmseil01

April 16, 2009 at 12:19pm

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

Let's see if we can dumb this down so all the Neo-cons who dumped $7,000,000,000,000 in debt on us since 1980 can grasp it: You drove the car into a ditch. It costs money to have Obama's garage pull it out and fix it, but it would cost much more to just leave it in the ditch. Get It Now!!

- Gary AndrewS

April 16, 2009 at 12:27pm

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

Your comments about the hypocricy of many comments from the talking heads on the right is very accurate. The issue remains, however, that Bush was largely hated for doing on the right side of politics what Obama is now doing on the left side. Same tactics, different side. I fear that if it doesn't stop, the country will soon ascribe Pres. Bush's fate to Pres. Obama. NO AMERICAN wants to see that in another POTUS!!

- Chris C

April 16, 2009 at 12:40pm

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

First of all, since Clinton used some creative accounting measures that took then surplusses from Medicare and Social Security to make it look like he had eliminated the national debt. To say he eliminated debt is false. I agree, since Bush our National Debt has spun out of control. Which would lead one to believe the "next guy" would want to bring that under control. Instead, the next guy, that being Obama, has a plan to drive our National Debt into unsustainable depths and take the rest of us along with him. Wake up people! Quit being so partisan, stop believing what the politicians say and instead look at what they are doing!!!! While I am a moderate American, I have to say after reading a lot of posts on real clear politics that the Liberals are quite vitriole. Grow up and get a real argument.

- Mustang Sally

April 16, 2009 at 1:00pm

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

WOW. looks like all of you bush symphathizers had a few too many beers with the ol "The economy got drunk, now its got a hang over" guy. WAKE UP

- Nickw

April 16, 2009 at 1:01pm

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

You're right. Obama is Bush 2.0

- Bob Jones

April 16, 2009 at 1:24pm

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

Funny then. The corollary to "If you hate Obama, you hate Bush" then is that "When you love Obama, you're loving Bush. " Boy, journalists really don't need to take any math, science, and logic courses these days do they? Journalism Final exam question: How do you "feel" about the world today? Does it make you "happy" or "sad"?

- jwl2672

April 16, 2009 at 1:31pm

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

Since when did "turd" become an acceptable word for journalists, or writers, or any other "professionals?" And no, I don't be hating on Mr. Chait.

- Buck Turgidson

April 16, 2009 at 1:45pm

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

Whys=Whys... Yet, No?Know (always)!

- Phala

April 16, 2009 at 2:00pm

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

FrankD, "Did you write a similar article years ago about how "Bush-haters" were just hating on themselves?"

Answer: Probably not. What would those "Bush-haters" hate about themselves? Do you think Iraq war protesters were secretly pocketing billion dollar no bid contracts? Or maybe those who critiqued the escalation of pork under Bush were all secret liberal lobbyists! I know! Critics of Bush's rollback of basic human rights and citizen's rights under his "war on terror" -- they're all secret Stalinists longing for the good old days! Why is it that any critique of Obama is justified but any critique of Bush is "Bush-bashing." Only a Bush-worshiping ideologue would think Bush's dismal 8 years in office was beyond critique. His track record is why I'm an ex-Republican. Deal w/ it. Because the "Bush-haters" weren't spewing forth the same level of vitriol.

- Joe S

April 16, 2009 at 2:12pm

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

Gary Andrews says: "To someone with your mental deficits that may look like progress, but, to the rest of us, counting on your children to pay off your credit card just seems worse than irresponsible. Let's see if we can dumb this down so you and the rest of the trickle-down bed-wetters can grasp it. WHIPPING OUT THE CREDIT CARD IS NOT AN ECONOMIC POLICY." I agree, so why are you also not furious that Obama is doubling down and making the bush years look relatively benign fiscally?

-

April 16, 2009 at 2:36pm

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

Funny how the left keeps crowing about W and spending while ignoring the spending of biblical proportions the Sainted One has embarked on. With projections right now he has tripled down on the debt in a 100 days. He thinks if he just keeps putting out the numbers we will all just become numb to the totality of the debt. He is making W look like a spend thrift and that is not easy.

- kabookey

April 16, 2009 at 2:37pm

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

Great article. Rove: "The new president's jabs at Mr. Bush have been unceasing, unfair and unhelpful." Me: Rove's jabs at Mr. Obama have been unceasing, unfair and unhelpful. Anybody with even a whit of self-confidence can see that some major projection is going on with Rove. I'd be more apt to believe even a single word he says if the shortcomings of the Bush administration were at least tacitly acknowledged. Of course, maybe Rove doesn't believe there *were* any shortcomings, but this would be even worse . . . MZ

- MZatot

April 16, 2009 at 3:30pm

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

"To Boy George (and all the Bushy Turd Blossoms): It took 200 years for these United States of America to acquire a $1 trillion debt, and that includes two world wars! In just 12 years of "Reagon/Bush-O-nomics" it Quadrupled!" And Obama has a good start on doing the same in 4 or less years. I left the Dems in about 2000, and more-or-less identified with the Repubs (though never joined) from around 2002-2004. It was about then that I realized that economically speaking, there isn't a dimes' worth of difference. In the last 2 years, I've gone through all the stages of grief, lamenting the Big Drop that was coming. Now we've seen a little of it, but by no means all. You people have to step back from the partisan mickey-mouse point-scoring and look at what's happening. Forget even about Iran, North Korea, Europe or any other foreign policy stuff. Forget about gay marriage, school prayer, and all the other penny-ante time-wasters. If we don't fix the budget and fix it fast, none of those other things will even matter. It may already be too late, by the looks of things. We need to slash SS benefits, slash a lot of military programs, slash AT LEAST 50% of the stupid social engineering projects they've got going on, repeal Medicare part D, disband departments like education and send their functions to the states (if they have a function), cut the cabinet by 50%, and do a 10% across-the-board cut to all departments that aren't affected by the above. We should not raise taxes except maybe the corporate tax to be competitive with the rest of the world, but we should not lower them either until we can do it while running at least a small surplus. And when we lower it, it should be as part of a broader effort to phase out the income tax. Lots of people would look at these suggestions and call me nuts. Maybe I am. But doing nothing but print money while watching our entire way of life go down the drain is more nuts. We don't any good ways out of this, so we'll have to settle for the least crappy way. We can do this stuff now or later, but it will happen with or without our approval. Arguing about whether Obama's dick is bigger than Bush's is rearranging the Titanic's deck chairs. BTW, THAT is what the tea parties are about, not simply that taxes are too high.

- Agoraphobic Plumber

April 16, 2009 at 4:12pm

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

"But governing better than George W. Bush is actually pretty easy." Considering it would be impossible to govern any worse, it's even hard to give Obama any credit for that. It would be like giving him credit for falling off a bicycle. Thankfully, America tuned out these assclowns a long time ago. They're reduced to talking to the far right echo chamber.

- Lisa K.

April 16, 2009 at 5:38pm

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

Jonathan, you're not even a trained monkey. This entire rag is so filled to the rafters with young, liberal, childishly stupid "columnists" that it almost brings my lunch up to and out of my throat. I don't know who edits this rag, or gives guys like you jobs, but this all pretty much sucks, pretty much all the time. How's that for some hatin', dawg?......

- sub

April 16, 2009 at 5:38pm

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

Nehneh nehneh neh neh! nehneh nehneh neh neh! You point a finger at me Karl, three are pointing back at you Karl! Nehneh nehneh neh neh! Time to retire the infantile cadences and the playground jibes johnny! Didn't you take Barry-boy's "we must put away childish things" to heart?

- elixelx

April 16, 2009 at 5:59pm

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

As Krugman said, the Republicans have nothing to say, as indicated in these pathetic Republican comments. Only Democrats are having the serious debate.

- Gloria

April 16, 2009 at 6:32pm

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

That's right Gloria. All the serious debate is on the left. From an article with "turd" in the title. I lean conservative but I'm an independent. Listen up people--they're politicians; as the President hires Larry Summers and Democrats like Bob Rubin and Bill Clinton cash in post presidency, to claim this is all a one way hypocrisy street is amazing. Honestly, will the President of either party, or the politicians in either party, suffer or sacrifice? Partisan Dems should enjoy their time in power. The worm always turns. And man is a notoriously vindictive creature--as Chait so ably demonstrates. One other thing: you can hear the crickets chirp in here when someone mentions the President's policy shifts: CIA, wiretaps, campaign finance, budget deficits, etc.

- malwords

April 16, 2009 at 7:35pm

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

Lets dumb this down so even a Neo-con can grasp it: You drove the car into a ditch. It takes money for Obama's garage to pull it out and fix it, but that's less expensive than leaving the car in the ditch. Get it now!

- Gary AndrewS

April 16, 2009 at 9:32pm

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

Chait says the obvious truth and people go berserk... what a comment on America. Seriously Chait, take some karate lessons or carry mase, the freaks seem to have their eyes on you.

- Northern Observer

April 16, 2009 at 9:37pm

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

warn, "WHIPPING OUT THE CREDIT CARD IS NOT AN ECONOMIC POLICY." I agree, it must soon stop. But there is a place for responsible credit card use, and right now the car needs to get fixed so we can move forward. Hoover waited too long. Two years from now, I'll be just as pissed if O doesn't keep his vow to cut the debt. As I say,"If he fails to do what's right, and caves to the forces of greed, I will be the first to vote against him, as I did his predecessor. But I will not be among those who would prejudge our new, intelligent president, because I believe as Jesus believed - the proof is in the fruit. Gary AndrewS, author of "No Gods Before Me" The fruit ripens in two years.

- Gary AndrewS

April 16, 2009 at 10:00pm

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

I had always wondered who voted for Obama since I have yet met a person who will admit they voted for him. Then I read an article that stated that 43% of the people who should be paying taxes do not pay taxes yet the majority of them recieve goverment handouts. It then occured to me that this 43% is a sure vote for the Democrats who run for office. Obama will be president forever as long he promises free stuff to the 43% who do not pay taxes but are eligible to vote. If only taxpayers who actually pay taxes were eligible to vote, Obama would not be president today. He was elected by the leaches of our nation.

- MrDuffin

April 16, 2009 at 10:37pm

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

Mr. Standard English, please refrain from the pedantry. "To hate on so./sthg." is a colloquial phrase that implies a more temporary emotional state, which is also why it's almost always used in the present perfect tense. By contrast, "to hate so./sthg." suggests a more permanent state. "I hate milk" is more permanent than "I'm hating on Obama." As for the actual article, it's dead-on, of course. But do these looney right-wing nuts really deserve so much attention? They need to seriously consider crawling back into the dank hole whence they came imo.

- bxt

April 16, 2009 at 10:41pm

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

. Yes, I agree with you. For America, we must unite behind Pres. Obama committedly but critically, i.e., keeping our wits with us all the time, not because we distrust him but because doing so enables us to be better able to provide such assistance as he may need to solve the horrendous problems confronting him--us. "Interpretations or opinions and remarks" are so much exposed inanities of those who sire the malevolent problems plaguing us are best ignored. These pretentious nitwits now belong to the dustbin of history. .

- AJdlReyes CA

April 17, 2009 at 3:54am

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

Thanks to all for your comments back at me. You proved my point, that hate goes both ways. I threw in the comment "Did you write a similiar article about Bush-haters....", to get a reaction, and you didn't disappoint me. Back comes hate filled rhetoric, some even with the rationalization that hate against Bush is justified, and a wonderful lecture from MLClark about political punditry. You all assume I am a Bush loving Republican nut-case and you react with anger, hate and lectures. And this is what Gloria calls "serious debade" by Democrats.

- FrankD

April 17, 2009 at 10:57am

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

Gary AndrewS -----I’m sorry, I don’t get it. You are going to have to dumb it down even further. Let’s say the car is an old 1957 Buick. Then it would probably be cheaper to leave it in the ditch, wouldn’t it? Now I can understand the Obama garage pulling it out and fixing it if it is, say, a new Porsche or Mercedes, but if it is just any old Ford or Chevy, what’s the point? I say leave it in the ditch. And how much money do you spend if you do pull it out and try to fix it? What if you spend $10 trillion but it still doesn’t run right after being in that ditch? Do you spend another trillion or so, and then if you max out you credit card on one lousy car, do you borrow some more from China? Oh, and by “you” (as in “you drove it in the ditch”) I assume you mean Barney Frank? As I said, I don’t get it so dumb it down some more. After all you obviously know dumb very well.

- Car Mechanic

April 17, 2009 at 11:31am

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

everyone claims that the typical Rove attack strategy is to go after your opponent's strength. Attack what is their best traits. This is not actually what he does though. The thing that he does so successfully is attack the opponent with his own candidate's weaknesses. For example, Bush wasn't in the military so he attacked Kerry's military record. it is a nuanced thing, it looks like he is attacking his opponent's strength, but he is just eliminating the opponent's ability to attack his own guys weakness. Kerry could not attack Bush's military record because everyone was already arguing about Kerry's record. his response would look weak and childish. It would be no more than "i know you are but what am i". It seems like he is doing a similar thing here. He is not attacking Obama on his strength but attacking with Bush's weakness to make it harder to continue to attack Bush for the same thing everyone is arguing over about Obama now.

-

April 17, 2009 at 1:38pm

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

In response to hmseil01 saying "Much as I agree with the sentiments expressed in this piece, I really object to the sophomoric scatalogocal language in the title. Rather stooping to Limbaugh's level. Not exactly what I expect of TNR." You do know that "turdblossom" was the nickname Bush gave to that bloated gasbag right? The headline can hardly be blamed for the repulsive terms of endearment these SOBs give each other.

- kuzbuite

April 17, 2009 at 3:24pm

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

In response to hmseil01 saying "Much as I agree with the sentiments expressed in this piece, I really object to the sophomoric scatalogocal language in the title. Rather stooping to Limbaugh's level. Not exactly what I expect of TNR." You do know that "turdblossom" was the nickname Bush gave to that bloated gasbag right? The headline can hardly be blamed for the repulsive terms of endearment these SOBs give each other.

- kuzbuite

April 17, 2009 at 3:27pm

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

Car Mech, It doesn't matter what you think of Car America. It's the best the world has seen, and the only one we have. The Looney Left and the Rabid Right have no vehicles to replace it. Just nutty notions on the drawing board.

- Gary AndrewS

April 17, 2009 at 11:02pm

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

GOP and Bush & Co. look through a glass darkly and see only negativity and produce only negative results for the masses of the people. Team Obama and most Dems look to see the good in others and how to produce good, especially after the dark hand they have been dealt by the Part of No, the party of darkness.

- angellight

April 19, 2009 at 5:49am

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

Yes, Brian, clearly Rev. Wright is responsible for the phrase "hate on [object]" being in the American lexicon... The absurdity of that idea shows how vapid your attempt at discrediting Chait through free association is.

- bellis

April 28, 2009 at 9:49am

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

Gee Dr. Jeff, where were you when President Gump was doing the same things? Maybe if we'd had a better president the past 8 years (Gore, Kerry, a trained chimp), Obama wouldn't have to take the actions described in the first paragraph. It was your party's massive failures in both policy design and execution that put all of us in this predicament. Don't get all preachy now that something has to be done to correct the past 8 years. Actually, the last sentence captures it best: "Governing may be hard, but governing better than George W. Bush is pretty easy."

- bellis

April 28, 2009 at 9:57am

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

@SKR--the hypocrisy of your plea is astounding to me. Conservatives (and I'm assuming you're one) have conducted a concerted, coordinated campaign to demonize the word "liberal" since the early 90's--messages originating with the wife-cheating Speaker of the House (Gingrich), and carried to the ignorant masses though drug-addled talk radio personalities (Limbaugh), media outlets (Faux News, Washington Times, Pittsburgh Post-Gazette, etc.) funded by archconservative miltubillionaires (Richard Mellon Scaife, Rupert Murdoch), and sucked up as pabulum by these masses hungry for righteous indignation regardless of the invalidity of the core assertions. For you to now say "Hey, take it easy on us" is ridiculous, absurd, and hypocritical. You made your bed, now you have to lie in it (and lying is what conservatives do best).

- bellis

April 28, 2009 at 10:15am

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

SHARE HIGHLIGHT

0 CHARACTERS SELECTED

TWEET THIS

POST TO TUMBLR

SHARE ON FACEBOOK

Close