MURDER, POLITICS, AND THE END OF THE JAZZ AGE
by Michael Wolraich
Order today at Barnes & Noble / Amazon / Books-A-Million / Bookshop
MURDER, POLITICS, AND THE END OF THE JAZZ AGE by Michael Wolraich Order today at Barnes & Noble / Amazon / Books-A-Million / Bookshop |
[Time] The right calls him a socialist, the left says he sucks up to Wall Street, and independents think he's a wimp. Andrew Sullivan on how the president may just end up outsmarting them all.
[Andrew Sullivan] You hear it everywhere. Democrats are disappointed in the president. Independents have soured even more. Republicans have worked themselves up into an apocalyptic fervor. And, yes, this is not exactly unusual.
A president in the last year of his first term will always get attacked mercilessly by his partisan opponents, and also, often, by the feistier members of his base. And when unemployment is at remarkably high levels, and with the national debt setting records, the criticism will—and should be—even fiercer. But this time, with this president, something different has happened. It’s not that I don’t understand the critiques of Barack Obama from the enraged right and the demoralized left. It’s that I don’t even recognize their description of Obama’s first term in any way. The attacks from both the right and the left on the man and his policies aren’t out of bounds. They’re simply—empirically—wrong.
A caveat: I write this as an unabashed supporter of Obama from early 2007 on. I did so not as a liberal, but as a conservative-minded independent appalled by the Bush administration’s record of war, debt, spending, and torture. I did not expect, or want, a messiah. I have one already, thank you very much. And there have been many times when I have disagreed with decisions Obama has made—to drop the Bowles-Simpson debt commission, to ignore the war crimes of the recent past, and to launch a war in Libya without Congress’s sanction, to cite three. But given the enormity of what he inherited, and given what he explicitly promised, it remains simply a fact that Obama has delivered in a way that the unhinged right and purist left have yet to understand or absorb. Their short-term outbursts have missed Obama’s long game—and why his reelection remains, in my view, as essential for this country’s future as his original election in 2008.
Comments
I've got the popcorn!
by Verified Atheist on Tue, 01/17/2012 - 3:33pm
I wish to cheer on my team.
But I ignore the pleas of Greenwald or even Taibbi at my own peril, or at least the perils of America.
It may seem lame but looking at what Barry faced and faces and see the true colors of many dems in power when they were in control; I give my President some credit.
The Pelosi Agenda was so crisp and clear and pure. And she was demoted with over 400 pieces of legislation languishing on the floor of the Senate.
I can only judge from afar without having read the file to really go on the attack against Summers or Bernanke. I have not the expertise.
But I do know one thing.
We ignore to our peril almost all of the messages coming from the repubs on the State and Federal levels.
by Richard Day on Tue, 01/17/2012 - 6:11pm
Sullivan is defending his Time cover article, including a live chat:
[Regime change? No wonder they want nuclear weapons.]
[The right is deranged, but is Ron Paul much better?]
[From what I've seen in the GOP race so far, candidates are being held accountable for what their Super PAC supporters assert. Hopefully that will carry over with Independents in the general election.]
by Donal on Wed, 01/18/2012 - 8:08am
Oh yes, Andrew - no one noticed Obama was black last time, but this time, a billion dollars in advertising can make sure it's not missed.
Re: Citizens United "enabling propaganda", almost all of our political discussion these days is funded propaganda. TPM and HuffPost are corporations pushing an agenda, with video enabled on their site - presumably their Hillary hatred could easily include an anti-Hillary documentary similar to "Hillary: The Movie", and certainly the FEC will not prohibit them from linking Youtube videos to all their readers.
Is there a specific Constitutional benefit to allowing the corporate-sponsored media like Fox and the Kaplan/WarrenBuffett/Washington Post, and the candidates themselves to paste together hit jobs up to election, but not a pooled fund from private citizens - say a PAC? Do we want FireDogLake to be limited in their support of specific issues near election time? Wouldn't an Occupy Wall Street channel have a strong interest in upsetting the status quo apple cart, and shouldn't we encourage that?
In some ways, guerrilla advertising has an advantage over large, monied advertising anyway, and this shift will become more noticeable. "Tebowie" may not have gotten as many hits as TeBow and the SuperBowl ads, but once it went viral, it certainly found its way to a particular demographic. But a slap down of Citizens' United would make sure that all the funding for ads were either private or from the big campaign advocates themselves - no room for the smaller players.
by PeraclesPlease (not verified) on Wed, 01/18/2012 - 8:50am