The New Republic

As much fun as it is to point out that Krauthammer is an idiot hack (for the millionth time), I'm not sure what the purpose of pointing this out is. Unless you think there are Democrat's who don't believe in their own agenda and need reassurance. Otherwise it would be a good idea for them to just focus on addressing unemployment, before November if they can be bothered.

- acria multa

January 15, 2010 at 11:23am

That is the stupidest football analogy I've ever heard. The game "is fought between the 40-yard lines," and pushing toward the 30-yard line is a bad thing? Has the Kraut ever seen a game of football? Pushing the ball across midfield and past the 40 is the whole point of the game. Metaphors Kraut originally considered: In a country where politics is fought between the pitcher and catcher, Obama has insisted on trying to hit the ball out of the park. In a country where politics is fought between the blue lines, Obama has insisted on skating hard for the net. In a country where politics is fought at midfield, Obama has insisted on taking a shot on goal. In a country where politics is fought on the railroads, Obama has insisted on building hotels on Park Place and Boardwalk. In a country where politics is fought between pairs and treys, Obama has insisted on raising with a straight flush. In a country where politics is fought between gutter balls, Obama has insisted on pushing hard to pick up spares. In a country where politics is fought idly drinking beer on the boat, Obama has insisted on reeling hard to land his fish.

- rhubarbs

January 15, 2010 at 11:52am

I was about to suggest that the Kraut, being a native of Canada, is more familiar with the CFL and its 110-yard long fields, but that probably makes his comment even more nonsensical than it is already.

- wildboy

January 15, 2010 at 12:16pm

These Wehner posts, and the Noemie Emery faux apology, have set me to thinking. (Chorus: "williamyard, thinking? OMG--to the lifeboats!") See, Obama's poll numbers have been, um, flaccid. Now, I'm sticking with the guy, mainly because when I donated to and voted for him I was under no illusion that he had a magic wand to make the Taliban, the turd economy, insurance company dickhead lobbyists et al. go away. I still think he won't be re-elected, which is too bad because I think he would be better than whoever defeats him. Who also won't be re-elected because, as with Obama, America has the attention span and fortitude of a kitten, and so we have begun a few decades of Zero Tolerance for Prez. Anyway, I'm wondering where these declining poll numbers come from. Are they liberals who feel deserted? Are they independent centrists like me who liked Obama better than the other guy but feel somehow underwhelmed? A little of both? It seems that liberals would have been more likely to have projected their own dreams on Obama, whereas we centrists would have been the more pragmatic--hence our centrism. And if we're pragmatic we see the utility of the bailouts, we judge impending health care as a decent first step given the need for 60 Senators to okay it, we're concerned with the risk of a hasty retreat in Afghanistan, etc. Which leaves liberals. Are so many of them that callow, to cut and run on their guy in such a short time, particularly after enduring GOP administrations in five of the last seven? Or am I missing something about my fellow centrists?

- williamyard

January 15, 2010 at 1:24pm

Follow-up question to my previous comment: are liberals being laid off in greater numbers than independents? Or what? Should Pelosi be using pork--er, "stimulus"-- to goose employment numbers among independents or liberals in swing districts? Assuming the employment/approvals correlation holds, then, what does this say about the ideology of the voter? There isn't any? I'm beginning to think this Machiavelli guy was on to something.

- williamyard

January 15, 2010 at 1:34pm

The reason OBAMA is sunK: the only employment gains are happening in public sector, which is already like 90% Obamas independents are far more likely to be in private sector and the prospects are bleak. Obama's policies have little chance of improving private sector employment --- he is sunk Again, the public sector/union member parasite coalition will always be intact as they live off bigger Gov. Rest of US going other way

- mr_rationale

January 15, 2010 at 1:40pm

yard, I think it's the indies and the soft Rs who took a flier and voted for Obama that are deserting him in droves. Obama won, IMHO, because we had had it with GWB, and after 8 years, we tend to give the other party a chance. Never mind he never ran so much as a lemonade stand, and had no firm f-p views. McCain was old, the economy went completely in the dumper conveniently 2 months before election day, and Sarah Palin turned off as many as she entranced. This guy gets 53% and proceeds to explicitly try to change health care, energy and education. Right outta the gate. Never mind f-p. Indies didn't sign up for those kinds of changes, and my R friends (whom I sewer at every opportunity) are aghast. 45% ain't so bad - it'll go lower soon.

- butchie b

January 15, 2010 at 4:48pm

That's skewer, although sewer ain't bad.

- butchie b

January 15, 2010 at 4:49pm

butchie, if you're right -- and you may be -- then "indies and soft Rs" are exceptionally stupid people. The guy gets the largest majority in a quarter century, with votes from the second-largest percentage of the citizenry in American history, and "right outta the gate" begins to act on the very issues he promised to act on if elected? And this alienates people who voted for him? Again, I'm not saying your theory isn't true, but if it is true, it reveals less about the audacity of the president and more about the mind-boggling stupidity of certain voters. Though actually I think you probably are on to something. We're talking about many of the same people who voted for George W. Bush -- twice! -- and who later turned against Bush precisely because he attempted to do as president exactly what he spent two years promising to do if elected. From blowing the budget to immigrant amnesty to federalizing public education to expanding welfare, the man promised explicitly to do it during the 2000 campaign. You have to go back to James K. Polk to find a president whose domestic agenda more closely matched his campaign platform, and yet independents and soft Republicans turned on Bush precisely because he attempted to do what he promised to do if elected. These are clearly not the brightest bulbs in the voting booth. Apparently, they voted for Bush and Obama in the expectation that, once elected, each would pursue agendas opposite to the policies he promised to act on if elected. Maybe we need a massive citizen-education effort, with public-service ads in which Tom Selleck and George Clooney join together with the message, "If you disapprove of what a candidate says he wants to do, vote for the other guy." Or billboards that read, "If a candidate says he wants to do something, then if he wins, he'll probably try to do it."

- rhubarbs

January 15, 2010 at 6:17pm

rhubarbs: Obama ran as left of center. While I didn't vote for him, I wasn't especially dissapointed when he was elected I remember one of his speeches where he said we don't need a bigger Gov. He didn't run as a liberal, but a moderate what a great actor and speechifier. Fooled us all

- mr_rationale

January 16, 2010 at 12:29am

".... If you want to learn more about the Wehner fallacy -- attempts to explain the Democrats' declining popularity as a function of their agenda, without any allowance for economic conditions -- and why it's so deeply hackish..." After two days of this, I'm starting to wonder how long before Chait's Republican analog comes up with a Chait Award for attempts to explain the Democrats' declining popularity as a function of unemployment without any allowance for their agenda -- and why it's so deeply hackish... According to CBS, "...Just 41 percent now approve of his handling of the economy, which Americans say is the nation's most pressing issue. Forty-seven percent disapprove. The president's marks on handling health care, with reforms still under debate in Congress, are even lower – just 36 percent approve, while 54 percent disapprove. Both of these approval ratings are the lowest of Mr. Obama's presidency. " http://www.cbsnews.com/blogs/2010/01/11/politics/politicalhotsheet/entry6084818.shtml

- malahat

January 16, 2010 at 12:44pm

IMHO, anyone who feels "fooled" by Obama wasn't paying attention. All of his major initiatives (other than those directed at the economy) are things that he talked about during the campagn: health care reform, addressing climate-change, addressing nuclear proliferation, escalating or at least staying the course in Afghanistan, and trying to change the tone of international dialogue. As to the economy, I think Obama's initiatives -- i.e., the stimulus and the bail-out (which was in fact initiated by Bush) -- are probably close to what any centrist president would have done. He resisted the demands to nationalize the banks, and so far has not done much in the way of regulating the banks. So what's your complaint?

- dhurtado

January 16, 2010 at 8:18pm