OK. I'll give you a free pass on the snark for today. (Biting my tongue very hard, but that's ok.)

Now, care to address the particulars?

The White House doesn't decide willy-nilly to publish op-ed essays under the President's signature. There was a lot of thought and effort put into this extraordinary method of getting a message out. It's reasonable to assume that any such message given this "special treatment" was deemed important. This, the White House says, is of such high priority that we are showcasing it in a uniquely attention-grabbing manner.

And just what is the message? Goodman and cmaukonen essentially decry it as dog-whistling for the benefit of the K Street lobbyists. I agree. As Goodman points out, we've seen this kind of pandering from Obama too many times in the past, most recently when he went after reductions in pay rates for federal employees:

Obama opted for short-term political expediency -- look tough on the deficit by blaming fat bureaucrats -- while amplifying the wrong-headed idea that reckless government spending is the problem. 

This Administration has now chosen to speak out in spectacular fashion, lending their voice in sympathy with the Republican Talking Point that government is the source of our problem, either due to its incompetence in applying regulations or - even more reprehensibly - by nature of standing in the way of business with any regulation at all.

It's actually humorous to see you and others falling all over each other to give the President every benefit of the doubt on this in your dismissal of the criticism made by myself and others. You insist that it is irresponsible to not first parse the words in the essay. Perhaps there are valid points being made here on policy. But even then you ultimately point out the mealy-mouthed "vague" one-size-fits-all rhetoric used by Obama in this essay, acknowledging that "no one buys that approach from him anymore."

So we remain uninformed about just what Obama plans to do about regulation. Well, then, just what was the purpose of this extraordinary piece in the WSJ? If it really wasn't about laying out a course of action, then what was the message being delivered?

I think NPR's All Things Considered got it right in their Tuesday evening newscast on the issue:

Obama Reaches Out To Businesses With Rules Review(14)  (1)

January 18, 2011 President Obama has ordered government agencies to review federal regulations and eliminate the ones that don't make sense. It's one more step in the Obama White House's effort to improve its relationship with the business community and stake out positions in the political center.

Read that headline and lede again.

You'll notice it doesn't leave much room for the Republicans who wish to campaign on their issues. It's probably brilliant strategy to win an election, especially if you can get your Democratic base to go along with being ignored because they've got nowhere else to go.

But there's the rub.

In declaring in the WSJ that the main priority of the Obama Presidency electoral campaign is the effort to co-opt and act upon Republican Talking Points, he's lost me and the substantial support I offered to get him elected in the first place. I voted for a Democrat for President in 2008. Given the dire state of our economy and nearly all aspects of governance post-Bush/Cheney, I had an especially long lost of priorities that I expected Democrats to consider (some of which I listed above). "Reaching out to businesses with rules review" wasn't even on the list, let alone considered of such high importance as to warrant such special treatment in the pages of the WSJ.

I don't think I'm alone in my absolute loss of confidence in Obama as a Democrat capable of promoting a Democratic agenda. As he now takes this "one more step," using the extraordinary circumstance of publishing an op-ed piece in support of THIS as his priority, he actually has shown himself to be an obstacle to achieving basic Democratic objectives on behalf of our core constituency. I therefore hope someone steps forward between now and 2012 to stand as a Democrat for President. Who knows? We just might find that there's an appetite for an alternative to the Republican/Big Business agenda among the electorate. But we will never know until we try.

Primary the sonofabitch. In my wildest dreams, I never thought I'd ever say such a thing because I know all the downsides inherent to such an internecine political fight, But Obama offers no other choice. You see, I haven't voted anything but Democrat since 1968. I damn sure ain't gonna switch now, and I ain't going down without a fight.

Stone Soup is what’s cooking, .......Thanks for sharing

It’s a potluck event; everyone brings something to the table. ........It’s a smorgasbord, help yourself to whatever you like.

Stone soups  Moral:  By working together, with everyone contributing what they can, a greater good is achieved.

I found a link to offer in response. I'm not supporting the argument made or suggesting that it's the "truth" or anything. I just googled it and figured it was worth your consideration. The more the better!

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=R9ZeWcXhlRE&feature=related

You're the type that apparently likes to debate for fun...

For fun? Not necessarily so. But I do believe it is important to participate in a "marketplace of ideas" as the currency of democracy. It's a time-honored tradition founded upon the Socratic Method and advanced by the likes of Thomas Jefferson, Thomas Paine, John Stuart Mills, and Oliver Wendell Holmes, among many other avid participants.

Holmes described this "marketplace" as fundamental to our governance when he explained that people "may come to believe even more than they believe the very foundations of their own conduct that the ultimate good desired is better reached by free trade in ideas...that the best test of truth is the power of the thought to get itself accepted in the competition of the market, and that truth is the only ground upon which their wishes safely can be carried out. That at any rate is the theory of our Constitution."

...because you have your mind all made up, everything all figured out, and are not going to change it

I arrive at my opinions through due diligence. This includes using The Google (Yes, even us commoners have access to outside resources, even many that exist outside of the reading list provided by our resident librarian without comment or "AGENDA." ;O) If I present a link to an article, it is offered in support of the argument I am presenting. And I am willing to defend and discuss its relevance.

My opinions are therefore quite firmly held, but they are not immutable. I can show many instances - even here at dagblog - where previously held convictions were at least modified as a function of participating in this contest of ideas.

As one example, I would show the way in which I was firmly committed to the Obama candidacy in 2008 - even during the primary. I think it's quite obvious that my opinion has shifted greatly in this regard. Yet, I can read the advocacy I wrote on his behalf back in the day and follow a quite logical progression of the changes in my opinion that cause me to arrive at my present despair that we have suffered the election of simply one more in a line of "DLC-Style 'Progressives'" who sell us out when the chips are down.

As another example, I point to my present position (stated above) that we need to "primary the sonofabitch." It's not an opinion I arrive at lightly. In fact, it is one which I cringe upon making, knowing all the negative ramifications of such a course of action. Yet, it is my reasoned opinion that little is left to us by way of actually gaining a voice in Washington who effectively speaks for the Dem constituency in opposition to the oligarchs. I write such an opinion as a "jumping-off point," with a sincere desire that someone can apply reason and logic in opposition to my opinion and successfully talk me away from such a desperate conclusion.

To me, THAT'S what a marketplace of ideas is all about.

 I post articles to share what they might add to topic, that is all. I just don't have the same kind of ideological agenda like you do, and I find that kind of debate a waste of time I could spend educating myself more on topic which I also enjoy much more.

{snip}

As far as I'm concerned, no one text is "the truth," the more reading the better.

Ok, so you post articles. And then what? Where does all this reading and enlightenment lead to if not the creation of an opinion, or a personal grasp of the "truth?"

You sniff derisively at those who construct and promote an "ideological agenda." Yet, what is the point otherwise? In committing all the reading while purposefully avoiding  any conclusions, are you not like the gourmet chef who assembles and prepares all the ingredients for a magnificent feast who then withholds the results from the assembled diners? What is the purpose of such a supposed pursuit of "truth" if the exercise is predicated by an insistence that an "ideological agenda" is out-of-bounds in civil society?

I would agree that no one text is the "truth." I further agree that the more reading, the better. I will even stipulate that no one person can ever have an exclusive hold on "the truth," and that only the fool or the demagogue will not remain vigilant for opportunities to alter his or her worldview in response to new ideas and perspectives.

But it seems obvious to me that you cannot change a perspective or alter an idea if you don't first stake a position that is reasonably considered and defended. You are otherwise adrift at sea without compass or sextant. It is the due diligence that is undertaken in the creation of an "ideological agenda" that allows us to participate in the marketplace of ideas in the first place. And it is in the sincerity and the passion with which participants genuinely seek "the truth" that we can ensure the success of the effort. Democracy depends upon it.

And so, ultimately, I welcome the opportunity to debate with you and all others who take the time to become educated on the issues. And I will stipulate that I will always be quite forceful in promoting my version of "the truth." But I will further state that there is no real joy in being deemed "right," nor is it the objective of the exercise to beat others into submission. Instead, the real pleasure of the exercise arises from those times when you can see perspectives and ideas shifting into a new version of perceived reality, regardless of whether they are those held by others or those you have so closely held yourself as "the truth."

I welcome your participation in the marketplace of ideas, artappraiser. Come on in! The water's fine!