dagblog - Comments for "In (Partial) Defense of Obama"

The guy who attacks Krugman

Qnonymous — Tue, 09 Aug 2011 23:22:23 +0000

In reply to In (Partial) Defense of Obama

The guy who attacks Krugman for writing from the "comfy confines of an office at Princeton" turns out to have spent 18 years as "GE's Senior Vice President/General Consultant from 1987 to 2003, and then Senior Vice President for Law and Public Affairs in 2004 and 2005."

As Doctor Day would say, "Hahahahahahaha!"

Just the guy to lecture Democrats on hard realities, political naivete, the diversity of our political system, dispersion of power, high principle, political power and the "forces of darkness."

Well, he did get one thing right... "in these situations there is a huge amount of disinformation, phony moves, game-playing on both sides. And that is where hard political analysis is so important."

I was referring specifically

acanuck — Tue, 09 Aug 2011 19:36:11 +0000

In reply to Well, everywhere but here in

I was referring specifically to Heineman, author of the article. But feel free to take it personally.

Well, everywhere but here in

brewmn — Tue, 09 Aug 2011 19:26:43 +0000

In reply to What Dreamer said about the

Well, everywhere but here in the hot house of the lefty blogosphere, I am a liberal. And I certainly have contempt for a certain type of professed liberal. Is that "hackneyed," "unpersuasive," or both?

Dude, any criticism of Obama

brewmn — Tue, 09 Aug 2011 19:17:46 +0000

In reply to Krugman doesn't just

Dude, any criticism of Obama that doesn't criticize intractable Republicans and conservative Democrats in the same breath is just spitting into the wind. And you can offer all of the alternative solutions you want, but until you can offer a plausible means for passing progressive legislation with a filibuster-able majority in the Senate and a House run by the Tea Party, you might as well throw in a wish for a couple of ponies, too.

For example, remember that "too small" stimulus? The biggest in sheer dollar terms in our history? How much bigger does Krugman think it could have been and still kept the three Republicans (it passed the Senate w/61 votes) who voted for it to stay on board?

When Krugman writes about basic economic issues, and when he attacks the economic illiteracy of the Washington establishment generally and the Republicans specifically, he's the best columnist in America. But his thoughts regarding what the Obama administration could or should have done, and his blaming so many problem's solely on a failure of presidential will, is just armchair quarterbacking of the type I can get on any angry lefty blog.

You can sit here and find fault with aspects of the president's legislative or rhetorical strategy all you want. But you can't prove that your way would have succeeded, so to all seems like a big waste of time to me. I'd rather fight the forces that are the true obstacles to a better America. And that doesn't include Barack Obama.

What Dreamer said about the

acanuck — Tue, 09 Aug 2011 18:50:14 +0000

In reply to Thanks for the link, donal. I

What Dreamer said about the article: "hackneyed and unpersuasive."

Why do so many people who obviously are not liberals -- whose very choice of words shows contempt for liberals -- think they are welcome to lecture liberals on what they should or should not do. They aren't.

Krugman has been tough on

AmericanDreamer — Tue, 09 Aug 2011 18:27:27 +0000

In reply to I agree. I have just been

Krugman has been tough on Obama and the Democrats where he thinks they are wrong. For someone with his level of knowledge and stature that is exactly what I think he should be doing. He should be trying to persuade policymakers to make good policy. He's not a partisan hack or a shill for misguided policies just because Democrats are pursuing them. That IMO is what makes him valuable and worthy of respect.

Partisan flacks and hacks are a dime a dozen, although obviously some are good at it and some are not particularly good at it. If you want to have someone tell you what you're supposed to think about some matter because you're a Democrat, you can always read James Carville or watch Democratic party talking heads on the Sunday morning talk shows.

The Carvilles have a role to play, too, which can be helpful to time-challenged, already committed activists looking for tips or talking points for how they might be more effective. He's just not a policy person, not someone anyone trying to think critically or independently should be paying a whole lot of attention to if they are meaning to examine an issue thoughtfully with a view towards making up their own mind. I'm pretty sure he would tell you exactly that himself if you were to ask him.

If you don't think Krugman has been merciless on the Republicans you either haven't been reading him or haven't been paying attention.

Krugman doesn't just

AmericanDreamer — Tue, 09 Aug 2011 18:09:33 +0000

In reply to Please tell me how Krugman

Krugman doesn't just criticize. And he doesn't "ignore political realities". He says what he would do. And he explains why. Do you even read him? Lately?

Part of what Obama is being criticized for here lately on the debt ceiling matter is for *not* pursuing a liberal policy. How do you call an embrace of austerity now a "liberal" policy? In addition to many progressive economists, even Larry Summers and Ben Bernanke, hardly flaming leftists either of them, oppose austerity now. I don't care what the GOP and the RW media say on that--they're wrong.

Obama's record is a mix of liberal policies--which actually have helped the economy from being worse than it is--along with "centrist" and center-right ones, which stand to harm it and retard recovery. The GOP and RW media will call him and his policies "liberal" because they've spent 30 years defining liberal as synonymous with evil, for the purpose of eliminating any need to argue against the actual policies or proposals so described, many of which in fact are popular and argue well.

It's just false to say those who are being critical of Obama's handling of the debt situation and economic policy in general have offered no alternatives. Specific, avoidable mistakes have been made. Options on the table have been rejected. You might not like the alternatives that have been proposed. You might not believe they would have worked any better. But those are separate arguments, different from saying no alternatives have been offered.

I agree. I have just been

brewmn — Tue, 09 Aug 2011 17:02:03 +0000

In reply to I think the problem, as

I agree. I have just been baffled by the nature, the tone, and the volume of criticism leveled at Obama from the left since early 2009.

There was never a lot of "yeah, this isn't my ideal health care reform plan, but he's facing a lot of intractable opposition from Republicans and powerful, entrenched interests, who have co-opted many Democrats as well. Even so, this bill will do a lot of good, and move us a lot closer to universal health care." Instead, it was all "he's a Corporate Sellout!" "He's a Secret Conservative!" "Kill the Bill!"

And Krugman, with one of the prime pieces of real estate in all of media, has veered into this type of criticism far too often, even if he did so while not getting quite as apoplectic as the amateur blogosphere. I can agree with the substance of much of the criticism of Obama's policies; I simply can't agree that focusing so much of your rhetorical energy on tearing him down is going to have any positive effect on liberalism, or for liberals or those Americans whose welfare they claim as their Number One priority.

I think the problem, as

Donal — Tue, 09 Aug 2011 16:36:03 +0000

In reply to Please tell me how Krugman

I think the problem, as stated in various ways, is where you draw the line between expecting more from Obama and expecting Obama to do it all himself.

Please tell me how Krugman

brewmn — Tue, 09 Aug 2011 16:13:48 +0000

In reply to I thought it was by far his

Please tell me how Krugman repeatedly ignoring political realities and constantly criticizing the only relevant liberal in the arena in the most personal terms does liberalism any good at all.