dagblog - Comments for "Big Brother Obama"

Okay, I don't really disagree

Peter Schwartz — Mon, 06 Jun 2011 00:10:30 +0000

In reply to No offense, but I think this

Okay, I don't really disagree with this.

• On point one, I don't really have time to discuss and maybe it's a matter of the way it's framed. I agree with your conclusion, but would say the greater burdens imposed lower down were disguised--and thus hard for people to detect as such--in apparent tax breaks for all.

• So at the end of the day, the Republicans look like they're letting you keep more of your money by taking away taxes, even though some folks find the economic burden heavier and others find it much easier.

So it's not that they're doing nothing at all; it's that they want government to do very little except keep up defense and funnel money to their favorites. But these are relatively easy to do and hard for most people to detect (apart from the wars). They aren't big, costly, public events like, say, revamping the health care system.

• On point two, hard to argue about matters of degree. This cutting away of moderates has been going on since Reagan and has now reached its terminal phase (I think). But when you think about it, what other bedrock principles do they have other than small government, fewer regs, and lower taxes, and a hefty defense? This has always been pretty much it, but with greater moderation in earlier years.

• On the foothold question, we'll have to agree to disagree. On the backloading, it was an attempt to make the plan look less expensive, I think, and give the states time to set up plans, etc. On the political side, I think it's complicated. Most people have insurance and were scared of losing what they had. So it wasn't as though the majority didn't have coverage and would lobby to get some.

I think Obama's big mistake--but which was his original appeal to a lot of people--is that he thought he had a "partner for peace" in his opponents. But all he's done (I think) is piss off the most vocal parts of the right and the left.

Nice ta see ya back in town,

we are stardust — Sun, 05 Jun 2011 20:42:03 +0000

In reply to I've watched the

Nice ta see ya back in town, Stranger.

I've watched the

acanuck — Sun, 05 Jun 2011 20:22:56 +0000

In reply to Fair enough. How so ack?

I've watched the evolution/transformation/deterioration of the media from pretty close for decades, Bruce. Your examples are from the era of Cronkite and Bradlee, whose journalistic standards were set by pioneers like Murrow. Today, we've got the likes of Beck, Ailes and Murdoch, and the lightweight wannabes of the rest of the infotainment industry. Their bread and butter is politicians' lies about tweeting "junk shots" or fathering kids out of wedlock, not inflated body counts, presidential overreach or failed military strategies.

Yes, there is the occasional flashback -- as when the same papers that broke the Pentagon Papers also published some of the Wikileaks revelations (though the New York Times did so with apparent reluctance). And yes, "people who are inspired to learn about things" have greater resources than ever. But that's not how mass opinion is formed.

Most people get what little information they do from television, where strings of rapid-fire sound bites have driven out what in-depth reporting there was. Where anchors hired for their looks and voices cut off knowledgable, intelligent interviewees in mid-sentence to go to "breaking news" about some puppy blown away in a hurricane miraculously making its way back home or Lindsay Lohan showing up for a sentencing hearing. A far cry from Murrow skewering McCarthy or Cronkite ending the Vietnam War with a single sentence.

It's that absence of rigor, principle and seriousness that has fueled the political rise of Palin, Bachmann and Trump. Even the current batch of make-believe journalists can see these people are incompetent, ignorant jokes. But they still go through the he said/she said charade, because hey, these boobs bring in the eyeballs. Today's media have concluded the American public is stupid, and they play to and reinforce that fact. Cynical, cowardly and anti-democratic.

That's the only point I was making.

Which promises were those?

Bwakkie — Sun, 05 Jun 2011 18:33:29 +0000

In reply to What would be strange, or

Which promises were those? Like Bruce, I never saw Obama as anything but to the right of Hillary Clinton on most matters. Not a lot to the right, but to the right.

I think I also observed that I had no doubt that people me and others who got called out for our less than ecstatic support of whomever the Dem nominee was going to be would, no doubt, be defending Obama when he didn't get you all magic rainbow ponies, immediately.

There was a lot of myth built up around the President, but it always occured to me that peope didn't read what he actually said. He said he was aganst stupid wars, but made clear he wasn't against all wars. He said Iraq was stupid, and he got us out. What did he say about Afghanistan? Healthcare? Really? If it was that important to you, why did't you back Edwards, like I did, or Hillary, like Bruce did? Both to the left of Obama on healthcare. Firmly.

So please, tell me what it is you are SOOOoooooo disappointed about, because frankly, he's done pretty much what some of us figured he would, and some of you folks are acting totally as was predicted, as well, which is amusing and disappointing.

No offense, but I think this

quinn esq — Sun, 05 Jun 2011 17:48:15 +0000

In reply to I didn't weigh in on the

No offense, but I think this is wrong, pretty much top to bottom. It is, perhaps, somehow soothing to Obama's supporters, but I don't think it works as a storyline.

1. If there's one thing the Republican Party has not been these past 30+ years, it's "doing nothing." They have radically changed income-related policies and the tax code, just as a starter. In fact, I think it very likely that they have been the most powerful political force in the world for changing the very terms of the debate. Which is why the rest of the world gives a shit when the Democrats take another step to the right, BTW - because the whole world then has to follow.

2. The Republican unity line is way overblown. They have had a decades-long process going on of "cutting away" their moderate and liberal wing, with the Maine Senators being just the latest to find themselves on the ledge.

3. On health care, the WH amplified the power of each individual member of Congress by the way they played it. In behind the scenes, when they did take a stance, I find it hard to see how one can argue they weren't pulling it rightward. And apologies to all who wish to have hope that the new thing is somehow a foothold, but outside of a couple of clauses, it really doesn't seem that way to me. It seems to me that it provided very little for most Americans in the pre-2012 window, and as such, is a walking shit-magnet. I am seriously blown away that it wasn't designed to front-end load as large a set of benefits as was possible. Not only does this tend to help you win that next election, but it creates a set of constituents who stand to benefit, and thus, will lobby the politicians to vote for the damn thing. The idea that a supposedly major step toward "universal health care" in the US should have generated so LITTLE in the way of people whose themselves as gaining, is a staggering political failure. Thank God the Republicans have Paul Ryan is all I can say.

Thanks.

Peter Schwartz — Sun, 05 Jun 2011 16:37:52 +0000

In reply to You can also highlight in and

Thanks.

You can also highlight in and

we are stardust — Sun, 05 Jun 2011 13:36:10 +0000

In reply to Ok, so that's another

You can also highlight in and select another color form the A menu. Or select and italicize. ;oP No boxes that way...)

Ummm. It was a stolen

we are stardust — Sun, 05 Jun 2011 13:29:01 +0000

In reply to Okay, I agree with you--on

Ummm. It was a stolen election, and Gore failed to push it. The two teams are pretty similar in Oligarchical policies; some social stuff around the edges, SCOTUS appts. If there decent Senators, they are Dems and a Socialist.

Don't want to keep debating it, but your 'why people stayed home' at the midterms just doesn't track for me.

Ok, so that's another

Peter Schwartz — Sun, 05 Jun 2011 13:11:04 +0000

In reply to Clinton started off liberal,

Ok, so that's another presidential politician since the time of LBJ who campaigned as a liberal and won the office. I'm surprised you haven't started to grasp my problem with folks making blanket assertions this has not happened.

Yes, but then he got hammered in 1994. That's why he moved to the right, not because he was lying about what he had intended to do. Right out of the gate, he focused on gays in the military, as I recall. He spilled a lot of capital on health care...

I don't have time for the rest of your comment now. You make some interesting points on the labor movement. The causes for that morphing should give you pause about the ulterior motives of "centrist Democrats." If labor is selling itself out, well...

Bruce might have some interesting perspective on that as he's a labor lawyer.

Thanks for the help on quoting; makes a big difference.

I didn't weigh in on the

Peter Schwartz — Sun, 05 Jun 2011 13:04:54 +0000

In reply to You apparently have no idea

I didn't weigh in on the common-yet-absurd centrist assertion that a party holding the presidency and both houses of legislature is some how hobbled from implementing an agenda ... immediately on the heels of the Bush years no less. This also requires throwing a fact-based look at history out the window and replacing it with a demonstratively false random assertion of impotence. But that isn't a case Peter decided to make ... which makes sense as we're kind of talking about what people support and vote for, not why Democrats apparently can't deliver once they secure the votes by promising what people support.

I think if you look back in history--which you sometimes do and sometimes make fun of--you'll see that the Democratic party has almost always been a chaotic web of uneasy alliances. FDR had to leave race and Jim Crow alone to get his New Deal passed.

So, it's pretty clear to me at least that there is very little in common between a Heath Shuler or a Ben Nelson and a Russ Feingold or a Nancy Pelosi. So this "control" you talk of is a Republican talking point and is, in fact, illusory, except on certain issues. If you think it would have easier to get an HCR with a PO passed than what did pass, given these realities, I think you're mistaken. Republicans and conservative Democrats didn't put up resistance because the HCR wasn't LIBERAL enough. Teabagger Nation didn't arise because the HCR wasn't liberal enough.

The Republicans, certainly since Reagan, have been much more disciplined and one-pointed. My pet theory is this: Republicans basically stand for doing nothing, except perhaps, doing less. This is basically what Buckley meant when he stood athwart history and shouted "No!" The only thing they LIKE to do is build up the military.

This gives them an inherent advantage. Inertia is a powerful force and it's always on their side. People prefer inertia in their personal lives. It's almost always easier to do nothing. Democrats are always about doing SOMETHING. This necessarily costs money and brings uncertainty, because you never know how things are going to turn out. But once you've done something, then inertia works for you because it takes effort and often costs money to undo it.

This is why almost ANY HCR would have been good. It puts inertia on the side of reform. It's a start. It's a beach head that can be expanded and improved. History shows this has often happened. Undoing it will be a bit harder for Republicans than if they'd been able to block it in the first place. Then we'd have nothing and this nothing would have been easier for them to maintain and defend. Inertia would have been on their side.

Newt made a revealing comment the other week when a reporter pointed out to him that he himself had been in favor of a mandate back in the 1990s and rolled the tape to prove it. Newt said, in essence, he had only taken that position to thwart HillaryCare. At bottom, he didn't want to do anything about health care except, maybe, tort reform and cross-state compeititon.

I assume your agreement that there is a large difference between what people voted for and what was actually promoted and passed in Washington means you agree that as far as the voters go, when casting a ballot in '08 they had every reason to believe they were voting for a president who would aggressively promote the Obama/Biden health plan? (which contains many features Peter et. al. assert could never attract voters on a national scale)

A vote is a blunt instrument. You vote for one person, but there are many issues, many events that occur. Your image of the Burger Flipper In Chief is silly.

Personally, I don't think it matters. Obama is going to win the election and come out of the presidency a very, very wealthy man. That's the whole point of centrist politics. It's rest of the Democrats that will be decimated ... again. There is an outside chance the electorate will snap and give us Bachmann/Palin; but they are making sure GOP side will require a move just that crazy to get rid of Obama's ass. Medicare and Social Security are fully on the table; no Republican president could ever neutralize the Democratic party to pull that off. He's fucking golden. Maybe you consider that winning - but America loses.

Not necessarily; not if the economy doesn't start getting better. I don't think they'd have to be too crazy to vote for Pawlenty or Romney. Who are "the rest of the Democrats"? The Pelosi wing tends to come from safe districts and they weathered 2010 fine. Progressives like Feingold, who come from mixed states, didn't do so well. And of course the conservative Democrats, who can't shake the D no matter what they do, are gone. But passing an HCR with a PO would NOT have saved them. IMO.