JONATHAN CHAIT APRIL 9, 2011
-
Read Later
READ LATERAvailable only to subscribers. SUBSCRIBE TODAY
-
Listen
ARTICLE AUDIO
- Font Size
The policy merits of the budget deal struck between President Obama and the Tea Party – no other group seems to have exerted serious influence – aren’t terribly interesting. If you subscribe to the mainstream tenets of macroeconomic thought, it will have a small, negative effect on unemployment, partially offsetting the benefits of the tax cut deal agreed to last December. If you instead subscribe to the small but politically influential subset of right-wing dissidents who believe that the government should respond to a liquidity trap by decreasing its deficit, then you think it will exert a small positive influence.
What’s more interesting is the politics. I’m not sure I can think of an example of a party that leverage control of one House of Congress into significant policy movement in its direction on a high profile issue. When Democrats took control of the Senate in 2001, there was the sense that they could limit the ambition of President Bush’s domestic agenda, but nobody considered the possibility that they could force Bush to move policy in their direction as a condition for keeping the government open. Even when the Democrats won both Houses of Congress in 2006, they used their leverage merely to veto additional policy changes in Bush’s direction, not to adopt their own policy goals opposed by Bush.
So why didn’t President Obama at least fight the Republicans to a draw? Why, if he had to move in their direction, did he wind up adopting deeper cuts than even John Boehner originally proposed?
A few factors leap out. First, the Democratic coalition is dominated by people who favor a conciliatory political style. Substantive beliefs about policy aside, most Democratic voters want their elected officials to take what seem to be reasoned, compromising positions. The Republican coalition, by contrast, is dominated by voters who want their leaders to take strong, uncompromising stances.
Second, arguing about government spending in the abstract favors Republicans. People do not believe in (or, I would put it, understand) Keynesian economics. So arguing that spending cuts inherently jeopardize the recovery is a losing proposition. When the category is domestic discretionary spending, a catch-all category, it’s difficult to turn the debate into one of specifics, since so many actual programs are affected.
It is worth noting that when the time comes to debate the overall Republican budget, particularly the one crafted by Paul Ryan, the advantage will return to the Democrats. In that case, we’ll no longer be confining the discussion to domestic discretionary spending but debating specific programs, including Medicare and Medicaid. But the terms of this debate inherently favored the GOP. Liberals who implored the White House to take a hard line and demand Keynesian fiscal stimulus seriously overestimate the power of the presidency to influence public opinion.
Third, Republicans were able to credibly threaten a shutdown of the government. That willingness to impose harm on the entire country if they didn’t get a sufficiently friendly outcome proved to be powerful bargaining leverage, moving the goalposts progressively closer to them.
Here is where it really does seem where the House Republicans simply out-maneuvered the Obama administration. The response to that tactic is to expose the willingness to shut down the government. Polls showed that the public would apportion blame equally between the two parties in the case of a shutdown. But they also showed that the vast majority of the public considered a shutdown highly unlikely. If Republicans did shut down the government, public opinion would likely have turned sharply against them, as long as Obama publicly established a willingness to compromise, which he had.
Indeed, conservative pundits have spent the last few weeks desperately warning against a shutdown over the relatively small stakes of the domestic discretionary portion of the federal budget. Indeed, Boehner himsefl was obviously terrified of this outcome, even if he appeared at times helpless to prevent it. The Republicans, like the sheriff in Blazing Saddles, were holding a gun to their own head:
How they managed to use the threat of suicide to extract concessions from Obama, I don’t understand.
50 comments
I do not understand it either ... other than the continuous stream of evidence indicating Obama avoids conflict to a degree that impairs him from doing what is right. I call it cowardice. The public can understand Keynesian economics in the context of job creation. So I disagree that this is a losing proposition. Obama would have to work hard to explaining it from the Bully Pulpit like FDR did. He is unwilling to do this. Again, avoiding conflict. When he said "we have to learn to live within our means", I was so profoundly disappointed. He is not a good president. And now Democrats have to figure out how to move forward with this Albatross around their collective neck: Barack Obama.
- keepin_on
April 9, 2011 at 1:07pm
It's the strategy Obama has chosen, namely, his own re-election. To borrow from my comment to Galston's post, "Obama has chosen to ride out the storm in hopes of a better day, when a more sane and helpful political and pundit class, and a more sober and informed public, is ready to tackle this very large and complex issue." Of course, with the pundit class, every skirmish stands on its own, but with Obama it's just one episode on a continuum. One may look for lessons with this latest skirmish, but there are none. Sure, it may embolden the radicals on the right (it definitely won't placate them), but even that most likely favors Obama's re-election. Chait likes the Godfather allusion, so I will repeat it: it's the strategy Obama has chosen.
- rayward
April 9, 2011 at 1:09pm
The Blazing Saddles analogy is spot on. We wouldn't have even been in a shutdown showdown if the Republicans hadn't put us there-- and now they've heroically saved us? Ach, to quote another Mel Brooks movie 'Evil will always win because Good is Dumb'
- modelj
April 9, 2011 at 1:16pm
I felt this way over the tax cut extension. It's frustrating in the extreme (to say the least.) It's allowing a sliver of Americans to hold the rest of us hostage. The GOP by no means has a mandate - that certainly applies to the Tea Party, the Libertarians and others on the far Right. Polls simply do not support their positions especially their religious attitudes but this also apparently extends to unions, the safety net, etc. I don't get it.
- Sophia
April 9, 2011 at 1:19pm
Well, we were wrong, Jonathan. We thought there would be a government shutdown. But as you write, Barack Obama caved and that is what prevented one. Still. Here we have another preposterous comment from keepin. I would love to make a pet thought experiment of mine real. Take the big mouths and put them in charge. I bet if keepin were president, he (she?) would be running out the door at the White House before the first afternoon was over. Your line about liberals who overestimate presidential power is tailor-made for dro.
- liberalref
April 9, 2011 at 1:21pm
- Nusholtz
April 9, 2011 at 1:22pm
I don't agree that the president has little sway on the public opinion. Short term, it's true that Obama couldn't turn the tide on these issues over the last few months. But over his entire term, Reagan was very successful at forming public opinion, because he never gave up on it. Obama hasn't even tried. He has made no attempt to stand up for any principle, other than being "reasonable" and compromising. The result is that the GOP keeps asking for more, and he never pushes back. Galston may take comfort in his "riding out the storm", but that assumes that one day, somehow, things will revert to "normal", a state the GOP has no interest in promoting.
- stanalama
April 9, 2011 at 1:31pm
So Lib's prescription is just roll over whenever the GOP pushes you? Great, just want we need. The Democrats may lose in the end but I just don't see anything from this president that will at least blame on the GOP directly. Congressional Dems at least try. Obama decided he's the head of state and never head of the party. Bill Clinton had his issues and downsides but he did act as head of the party quite often. Clinton would nail the GOP leadership in public, as he did in the mid 90s shutdowns. Obama blames both sides or just stays above the fray. That is what drives some of us crazy. The bully pulpit may not win the day but you'll never know if you don't even try it some time.
- tmmats
April 9, 2011 at 1:31pm
If you replace "suicide" with "kamikaze," I think you hit at the underlying dynamic better.
- Weebot
April 9, 2011 at 1:58pm
Let me offer a defense of Obama. Wise leadership in part rests on picking your battles, and I don't think this was the right battle for Obama to use for a shutdown. Rather, the 2012 budget will be much better for a shutdown battle. If there is a government shutdown because Obama doesn't want to accept the Ryan 2012 budget, which is basically a huge tax cut for corporations which is funded on the backs of the middle class and poor, then I think he'll have the full-throated support of much of the country. That is the battle where he Obama can even goad republicans into shutting down the government, because it will be so beneficial to democrats. Now allowing the government to be shutdown because you don't want to 'cave' and give 6 billion more in cuts, is not too sensible....
- sokol8
April 9, 2011 at 2:29pm
Sokol8 I don't buy your argument for a few reasons: - Obama won't pick a fight with the GOP. He shuns public confrontation unlike Reagan or Clinton or Bush II. - The GOP will be emboldened to move the goal posts further to the right, way further to the right since they don't pay a price for it. - The commitariat is already lauding Ryan's budget as "brave" and such other kudos. I don't see much if any pushback from Congressional Democrats and the White House to lay the foundations showing how cruel a budget it is. A bit of populist rhetoric about corporate tax breaks would do wonders (just bring up bank tax breaks and GE's "plight" alone would really make some headway). The mantra is always "next time" or wait for the "bigger fight". I don't see a next time being any different. Many of us are now saying "if not now, when? never?". "Never" seems to be the answer.
- tmmats
April 9, 2011 at 2:45pm
tmmats - there won't be any populist rhetoric from the White House now; it's been less than a week since the President tasked his fundraisers with raising $350K each. Wouldn't want to upset the donors.
- Usrname
April 9, 2011 at 3:38pm
"Substantive beliefs about policy aside, most Democratic voters want their elected officials to take what seem to be reasoned, compromising positions." But that's the point. You can't put substantive beliefs about policy aside. Polling on abstract terms like "compromise" is worthless.
- henderstock
April 9, 2011 at 3:44pm
I have been holding back for a long time in concluding that Obama is just to averse to confrontation to be an effective leader. His cave on the current budget deal has come close to pushing me over the edge. I don't see how his capitulation is consistent with a strategy or re-election. As others have said, it will not placate the right, much less bring it to his side. And it will profoundly disappoint if not infuriate the left. If you can't make political hay out of the GOP shutting down the government for the sake of cutting off support to plannted parenthood, then perhaps you don't deserve to be President.
- NR143296
April 9, 2011 at 3:44pm
Huh? I understand that the cuts were deeper than we wanted, but we always (especially those of us who "know" Obama is deep down a Randian plant) knew that there would be deep cuts. And there was no capitulation on the line item nonsense like planned parenthood and the EPA. So, yeah, there was a deep cut that we all knew was going to happen and not the elimination of funding for some of the programs that many of us feared would happen. And, if any one was paying attention, even at the surface level, they see the GOP holding things hostage (in general) and over their unpopular or at least divisive social issues (in particular). Not a great policy outcome, but about what one would have expected. And politically it's not so bad.
- miceelf
April 9, 2011 at 3:53pm
You are being silly with this column as was Ezra on the WaPo. This battle means nothing. The big ones coming up are extending the debt ceiling and the FY 2012 budget which is supposed to include the Ryan Road Map ideas. These are the battles to be fought and won. This small skirmish this past week is like the Battle of Bull Run, interesting but not in any way conclusive.
- agoldhammer@yahoo.com-old
April 9, 2011 at 4:16pm
Well, I have to acknowledge that I was misinformed. I had heard somewhere that the Dems agreed to larger cuts than the original $61 billion proposed by the Repubs. That was confirmed by Chait's questions: "So why didn’t President Obama at least fight the Republicans to a draw? Why, if he had to move in their direction, did he wind up adopting deeper cuts than even John Boehner originally proposed?" As it turns out, the Dems were at $33 billion, and moved up to $38 billion, with the Repubs backing off on Title X and the EPA. One might argue that Obama should have held the line at $33 billion, calling the Repubs' bluff, and possibly letting them take the blame for a shutdown driven by ideology. Indeed, that might have been the better re-election strategy. But I think going from $33 billioin to $38 billion to was probably the more responsible course. Dhurtado
- NR143296
April 9, 2011 at 4:37pm
From Ezra: "Obama bragged about “making the largest annual spending cut in our history.”" Boy Obama has an ugly ugly style with this trying to not look too liberal and to look post-partisan-fairy-land. I mean it can really make you sick to your stomach. I know he figures this lying is worth it to avoid complete disaster for the country by a Republican president in 2012, but I'm not sure it's worth going this far, or that it's the best strategy in general for reelection. One of the greatest things – or most harmful – a President can do does not necessarily involve passing something, it's teaching. Reagan caused profound harm and decline to this country over a generation by teaching a toxic narrative, and Obama just regularly reinforces it. Did it help him to pass his huge leap forward, the universal health care bill? Does it increase his odds of reelection, and enough to merit the insidious harm it does (perhaps he's counting on the short memories and attention span of Americans, a problem we have to admit and work on)? I'm not sure, but one thing I do know, it's painfully ugly.
- RHSerlin
April 9, 2011 at 5:10pm
"People do not believe in (or, I would put it, understand) Keynesian economics. So arguing that spending cuts inherently jeopardize the recovery is a losing proposition." Maybe in the very short run, but relentlessly, Reagan-style, over years, NO. It is not that hard to understand. People already understand the idea that spending stimulates the economy (although they don't understand some of the nuances, like at full (NAIRU) unemployment it can't stimulate much further and becomes inflationary, and that long run growth depends on investment spending, especially public investment, not consumption spending). To go further and explain that includes any kind of spending, including government, is not that hard. Certainly if Obama did this relentlessly from the start of a second term, especially if the economy was recovering at the same time, he'd have a very good chance of succeeding over his term, and that kind of learning, of change of attitude, could do profound long term good, just like Reagan's change of the narrative did profound long term harm.
- RHSerlin
April 9, 2011 at 5:56pm
I find myself persuaded by the sokol8 thesis, even though as a Canadian I have no oxen ploughing this field. tnmats's answer has the flaw in it of being necessarily untested. We'll have to see what happens when the debt celing and 2012 budget issues come up. Then pudding's proof will be in the eating.
- basman
April 9, 2011 at 8:27pm
OMG, tn. It is obvious that you are not the brightest bulb in the chandelier but c'mon. As I often write here, hermeneutic skills are in short supply. I used the verb "caved." You might infer from that that I would think that Barack Obama should have gotten a better deal, and that is precisely what I think. Merely because I wrote that presidential power is not unlimited, apparently you thought I meant that Obama should be supine.
- liberalref
April 9, 2011 at 8:30pm
Good lord, after the ACA, gays in the military, a few trillion in stimulus spending people are bitching about 38 billion?? Exactly what are Republicans going to run on next year? Repeal of Medicare and Social Security? They pushed as far as they can go and came up with cuts that equal about 1% of the total US budget, this after we are borrowing 33% of the budget against the future. I think Obama and the Democrats have the Republicans just where we want them. They have no one credible to run up against Obama, Republicans screaming shut down the EPA, no more FDA, next year is going to be positively horrific for the Republicans since Obama has shown he is perfectly willing to reasonably compromise. Republicans won the last election, Obama has shown he can acknowledge that and work with them. By the way to state that Republicans leveraged this into a push in their direction is crazy, even if Democrats had somehow held onto the house budget cuts would have been the perfect political play now. We can't raise taxes, we can't add more stimulus, not sure there is much more room for QE, a few token cutbacks look right and will doubtless make the markets happy. Expect to see the DOW climb on Monday.
- blackton
April 9, 2011 at 8:32pm
libref: This is my theory of negotiating when the issues are gray and loss not worth the candle: once I get in the reasonable range I'll make the deal even if pressing for a few more dollars or whatever gets foregone. My recently late partner, may he rest in peace-I loved him as my best friend-always tested the winds of contingency for those few more dollars or whatever. I thought him reckless, playing chicken for its own sake. These budget issues are not, to be sure, like settlement negotiations in litigation, but there do seem to me to be some extrapolations possible. Obama, I am persuaded, as I said, by Sokol18, struck a reasonable deal in the circumstances, and is carefully picking his battles. He'll be as tough as he has to be, when he calculates he has to be that tough.
- basman
April 9, 2011 at 8:56pm
"Republicans Bluffed Obama And Won" It's up to Democrats to point out that the republican were/are risking the economic recovery by thretaening a shut down. They need to explain that a faltering recovery will be as bad or worse for the long term economic health of the country than the deficit. It's up to Obama to fight back. The political jousting match isn't over.
- arnon
April 9, 2011 at 10:06pm
...My recently late partner,... Just to clarify: My recently late *law* partner, though there's nothing wrong with what the first fromulation may imply. It's just not me.
- basman
April 9, 2011 at 10:39pm
So it was all completetely legal between you two. I'm relieved at that!
- ironyroad
April 9, 2011 at 11:16pm
I agree with basman, sokol, and (I think) libref. This was about as good as it was going to get, and Obama now has the advantage going into the coming, much more important negotiations leading up to the election. I'm still holding out hope that he can resurrect Simpson/Bowles and do something on taxes.
- Robert Powell
April 9, 2011 at 11:40pm
Of course there is the most important point that increased deficit spending focused on jobs, research, and infrastructure will decrease the deficit over the long run since the investment will yield growth. Lack of investment will shrink it. Our workforce is underutilized. Private investment is insufficient. The Republicans understand this. They lie that they do not. I am not sure what the Democrats understand. When will someone lead?
- keepin_on
April 10, 2011 at 12:28am
In this "compromise" Obama and the Dems won nothing, because they demanded nothing and so had nothing to win. All they -- i.e., a president with veto power and a Democratic controlled Senate -- did was block House Republicans (1/3 of the three centers of power) from reducing government programs (heavily for the disadvantaged and education) as much as they wanted. The Repubs took a little leverage and made it go a long way. The only way to even attempt to win that type of negotiation is to make counter demands, force the other side (here, the Repubs) to give on something. What Obama et al. should have demanded was tax increases on the very high earners (say marginal rates above $1 million) and cuts in favored deals for corporations, big oil, and hedge fund managers. Those could have made a substantial dent in the cutbacks to programs that Democrats favor, and the tax increases on the reach and powerful would with even the slightest advocacy been gladly supported by the public. Both Obama and the Dem leadership are doing a terrible job of defending their principles, if indeed they are their principles. They simply don't know how to, or at least don't want to, wheel and deal.
- PeteBeck
April 10, 2011 at 12:07pm
error correction: tax cuts on the "rich and powerful"
- PeteBeck
April 10, 2011 at 12:15pm
OK, maybe this will clear things up? WASHINGTON -- President Obama will lay out new plans this week to reduce the federal deficit in part by seeking cuts to government programs for seniors and the poor, a top political adviser said Sunday, adding that Americans expect both sides to work together. "You're going to have to look at Medicare and Medicaid and see what kind of savings you can get," Obama adviser David Plouffe said on NBC's "Meet the Press." snip http://www.aolnews.com/2011/04/10/obama-to-lay-out-new-spending-plan-to-cut-deficit/?icid=maing-grid7|main5|dl1|sec1_lnk2|55229 Does anybody see a word in there about increasing revenues? What about the gigantic amount of money we spend on "defense?" including of course 3 hot wars?
- Sophia
April 10, 2011 at 1:03pm
Personally, I am disgusted.
- Sophia
April 10, 2011 at 1:03pm
Sophia, I'm with you.
- PeteBeck
April 10, 2011 at 1:12pm
I saw Plouffe interviewed this morning and he made a specific point of "the revenue side" of things . Big, true test and issue for Obama. I'll be surprised if he ducks that issue and lets marginal rates on wealthy stay the same. We'll soon see. I wouldn't reason from the recent compromise to the proposition that he necessarily will let that status quo be. Plenty of time to feel disgusted later.
- basman
April 10, 2011 at 2:02pm
Obama increasingly looks like he will win the war, even if he 'lost' this battle. Obama's next move is a deficit proposal, to be presented on Wednesday. The beauty is: Obama's plan will likely reduce the deficit MORE than Ryan's, even while cutting spending less, because Obama's plan isn't weighed down by the trillions in corporate tax giveaways of the Ryan plan. Republicans will have to explain why they'd rather have higher deficits with tax breaks for the rich, than lower deficits with fewer cuts. Game, set match. (The answer: republicans actually believe in tax cuts more than deficit reduction). That's a fight where Obama can call the republican bluff on shutting down the government. It is at this point that Obama can stare down the republicans and say, "do you want to shut down the government to keep corporate tax breaks, even as you slash Medicare? Make my day". This is the battle worth winning. And if the cost of winning this multi-trillion dollar bill argument is that he "lost" and "caved" on a 6 billion dollar negotiation with Boehner on 4/8/11, well I'd say it was a great bargain. They say that he who laughs last laughs hardest. I think the last laugh will be on Boehner. But we'll see. It's hard to predict the future, especially when it hasn't happened yet.
- sokol8
April 10, 2011 at 3:00pm
Great arguments, all - but Blackton, Sokol, Basman, RP make the stronger case. I have a hard time getting that worked up over 38 billion and setting the Republicans up to take a satisfying fall (if the stars align. We'll see). The next two steps matter much more anyway. Wait until people notice that wingers are trying to ax Wall Street reform in the next go around. First of all, markets will dive at the first whiff of that, foreign money will noticably dry up. This point alone *will* matter. And that's just one point. From where I sit, the stupid wingers are royally effed in the next two rounds. Averting a shutdown isn't a bad thing either - Obama could have let that happen easily and "won" hands down on the politics, no Republican would have hesitated to let so many Americans suffer so they could "win" a playground level political point so easily and play in to the win/lose news cycle cha-cha. But Obama's just not like that. I can see the point, but I'm just not sold on being disgusted (with anyone except Republican voters - the majority who bothered to get off their rumps and vote last go around and put these lying sacks of horse manure back in power).
- WandreyCer
April 10, 2011 at 3:23pm
Our dear Libref, always quick with the insult. For your information enlightened one, I have enough intelligence to recognize a blowhard who's full of himself and just parrots whatever Jon Chait writes, with of course quite a bit of flair, whether right or wrong.
- tmmats
April 10, 2011 at 4:11pm
- Whiners claim our team won't show in '12 and some may vote against Obama because he let House & Senate slash $38 billion instead of $32 billion? But since more was worse, it would have been better holding out and shutting down for $6 billion less ($25 billion?) as that would have produced fewer no-shows and fewer votes for the other side next year? Sorry, I'm sticking with President Obama. Neither party in either chamber and no name in GOP Primary Inc. has numbers close to President Obama. Two and a half wars, a frail economy and he's pushing 50%? Further, I'll wager 30%+ of likely votes was sick of the theatrics, can't name the opening-closing bids and will cut Democrats more slack in the next two fights: They gave the riders a boot and keeping the doors open was a win, sensible and the TP and Ryan only have more crazy and worse threats in the chute. Remember, over half the other side needs to see a birth certificate, will repeal an amendment or two and favors social policy that Ike would reject. Hey, The Tan Man finished his day three times, satisfied with Reid and Obama's deal, and found he was missing 50-60 votes. He lost face with both sides and Senate Republicans see the House using their capital (no pun) with this bullshit? They lost seats last year because nuts did poorly and Mitch knows Obama loves that match-up. Once he saw Barack was posted up he knew what was coming. Mitch didn't even foul...
- michaelg
April 10, 2011 at 4:28pm
04/10/2011 - 3:00pm EDT | sokol8 Good analysis.
- basman
April 10, 2011 at 5:12pm
Why does Obama always play defense, and why does he almost always yield on issues, often well before he has to? I don't think its because he's a coward or lacks a spine. I think he really never established a firm foundation of his own political beliefs before taking office, and now events are too fast, and the political opposition too fierce, for him to stake out strong positions. He is not inherently a weak person, but his lack of an intellectual and philosophical foundation forged from experience makes him effectively weak. Without such a foundation, his open-mindedness is just a opening for him to get rolled.
- ldeblinger
April 10, 2011 at 5:15pm
...04/10/2011 - 5:15pm EDT | ldeblinge... Health care?
- basman
April 10, 2011 at 5:30pm
I think experience is extremely important. However, who could have predicted just exactly how bad the Republicans were going to get? They are way past anything I can remember - Goldwater used to be considered a scary far right winger. Now - omg. There's Ryan, the TP, the Ayn Rand crowd, the would-be 19th century robber barons, the totally selfish corporations, Wall Street; and today on CNN you have Donald Trump pushing the birther agenda and declaring that 55% of Republicans don't think Obama was born in Hawaii. Help. PS I hope Sokol8 et.al. are correct. I don't want to see us get rolled and I think it's dead wrong morally, politically and ultimately economically to penalize those with the least power and resources for the stupidity and/or misdeeds of the wealthiest and most powerful. I just wish somebody would make that case more clearly and Obama hasn't been. Deep down I fear he identifies more with the privileged, I've been worried about this since he made that crack about people being bitter and clinging to religion etc - it was an elitist comment and it made a lot of people nervous.
- Sophia
April 10, 2011 at 5:32pm
Sophia, from your aol news link: "The president, Plouffe said, would address ways to reduce the deficit and the long-term, $14 trillion debt. He gave few specifics, but he said the president believes taxes should go up on higher-income Americans and that cuts to Medicare and Medicaid will be necessary." so they are talking about the revenue side of things a bit. And, yeah, as to Goldwater. In today's environment, he'd be facing a primary from the right. Someone said here that there's a lag between the GOP going so nuts and people facing up to the fact. I hope there's some truth to that.
- miceelf
April 10, 2011 at 5:59pm
Sophia stated what many of us think and did it quite eloquently. It's not a single incident that bothers us with Obama, it's an overall pattern. He doesn't try to move the needle, he plays the GOP's game. Reagan had to play the Democrat's game while slowly moving the country to his views. If Obama admires Reagan so much why not pull a few tricks from his playbook? Many on these same boards that criticized Obama for his Libya/Egypt/Tunisia inaction or his positions are now defending him for inaction/positions when dealing with the GOP on domestic issues (many TNR editors included). Who are the dim bulbs again?
- tmmats
April 10, 2011 at 6:25pm
...Many on these same boards that criticized Obama for his Libya/Egypt/Tunisia inaction or his positions are now defending him for inaction/positions when dealing with the GOP on domestic issues (many TNR editors included). Who are the dim bulbs again?... This is inapt. There is no inconsistency between being critical of Obama on being slow to react to Libya, if that's one what felt--I did--where he did finally act of course, and not sweating his recent compromise. Two different cases calling for specifically calibrated responses to the uniqueness of each one. No dim bulbs by virtue of holding any of these positions--dim bulbs are dim bulbs regardess--bright bulbs can disagree on all these issues.
- basman
April 10, 2011 at 7:23pm
Tnmats, to carry your foreign policy metaphor to its logical conclusion, your criticisms of Obama on domestic policy sound almost exactly like Rove's criticisms of his foreign policy.
- miceelf
April 10, 2011 at 7:38pm
I think you should retitle this. "Republicans Bluffed the Democrats. Obama Won." A President is not quite a full member of his (or, hopefully, someday, her) party anymore. Look at the record - even George W Bush, who was too stupid to get too far from his party, proposed and passed a prescription drug care package that the Republicans would have shouted down had it come from the left. Let alone Nixon - going to China, wage/price controls, and all those environmental laws. And so on. I know you wish Obama was a progressive Democrat. He's not. He's a slightly center-left President, and has to be judged against other Presidents, not your or my wish list.
- floydsm8
April 11, 2011 at 4:54pm
- 6 of 10 Americans favor the budget deal, including majorities of Dems and independents - Half of Americans credit the Democrats with averting a government shutdown - Most Republicans don't like the deal and half think the GOP gave up too much http://tpmdc.talkingpointsmemo.com/2011/04/poll-americans-strongly-support-budget-deal-and-credit-dems-for-averting-shutdown.php?ref=fpa Still, though, I sure wish OBAMA KNEW WHAT THE HELL HE WAS DOING! /snicker
- W_Bombay
April 11, 2011 at 4:54pm
Yeah? Tell it to the wolves. And the women of DC.
- Sophia
April 11, 2011 at 11:51pm
Obama: Paid To Fail!
- sf4200
April 15, 2011 at 8:45am