Welcome to the Dark Side, Mark Thoma
Here I thought I was fed up with the Empty Suit in the White House:
What it says to me is all that matters is Obama’s reelection (see, for example, the pivot to deficit reduction) — when the timing’s right for that, things will happen — but don’t keep your fingers crossed otherwise. If you are unemployed and struggling, the president will try to help if it also helps him get reelected, but helping because it’s the right thing to do? Not likely.
The late, not-quite-great Kenneth Koch—from whom Barry may well have taken a class—may be rolling over in his grave, having discovered that his 1960 play about Richard Nixon, “The Election,” has become all the more relevant about the sitting Democratic President.
Empty suit”
Quoting Obama: “I have signed this bill despite having serious reservations with certain provisions that regulate the detention, interrogation, and prosecution of suspected terrorists.”
See, he signed it because he’s a nice guy. And anyway, what’s a president to do?
wait till the next president comes in with an enemies list…how many bears you figure will be among the disappeared?
A new reason to spend $700B on the military, protest the US from dissidents, err terrists!
The income inequality now brought out forcefully by OWS was there all along. I remember articles on income inequality from before the last election. Though otherwise deeply flawed, Edwards talked about “the two Americas.” I would argue that this President is just doing what he needs to do to get re-elected. I have no complaint about that because every President does it. But, I would point out that health care reform should always have taken second place to unemployment.
Put it this way–O has a deep preoccupation with his vision of a new way to run the government. No more fighting guys! After all, we all get our money from the same billionaire banksters. insurance lobbies and oil company executives. So quit fighting and we’ll make our backers happy by “reducing the deficit”.
Hey, we all know it doesn’t really matter. But, our careers depend on those campaign contributions! I propose we “reform” health care first. Give the insurance industry a new lease on life and billions in new subsidies. They’ll love us for it! Then, we’ll make the bankers happy by whacking the stuffing out of govt spending for the domestic economy. We can cut wages by another 5 or 10% easy and make a job something so rare people talk about the good old days when they worked 80 hours a week for minimum wage in three jobs. And, then….
So, I can’t really say much good about this President from a domestic perspective. I don’t think he’ll do much even if he’s re-elected except go back to austerity. So, Ken, next time you want to have someone agree with your negative perception of this administration, drop me a line. NancyO
I have been on this anti Obama bandwagon for over a year now and I am happy to see others climbing aboard. The real problem I see is the damage he has done to the Democratic brand. The real issue of course is what do we do in November. I am absolutely committed to not voting for Obama, but what if the GOP nominee is not Romney, but Santorum ,Paul or one of the other whack jobs?
terry
you are misreading history. those whack jobs were put there to make Romney look good. Romney and Obama are the same guy.
this is not a problem you will fix by voting.
btw, the whack jobs help the rulers know what they can get away with and what “sells.”
I agree entirely with your analysis which is why I will not feel any lack of responsibility in not voting for Obama in November. On the other hand I do not know if the whack jobs know their role and Palin was the vp candidate in 2008. If there was any chance one of them would win, I might have to reexamine my vote. Right now it is a write in for Bernie Sanders
We are already seeing the usual pundits praise Obama’s sudden interest in supporting liberal causes. After the election everyone will be astonished that Obama goes back to disappointing them.
Amen, Suster Susan. NancyO
Do you truly believe that Romney would nominate the same kind of Supreme Court justices that Obama would? Would Romney maintain the new consumer protection agency? I didn’t buy the “It makes no difference.” routine when Nader made it and the same is true now.
The Supreme Court thought is one of several at this website where authors offer their thoughts on a GOP president in 2013–overall not an encouraging set of predictions: http://www.washingtonmonthly.com/magazine/january_february_2012/features/what_if_he_loses034501.php#
coberly: “Romney and Obama are the same guy.
“this is not a problem you will fix by voting.”
But you gotta clear the Reps out of Congress. And Obama and Romney will make different appointments to the Supreme Court.
I can think of only one subtle difference between Obama, or any likely alternative like H. Clinton, and the less rabid of the Republican field. That is in how the various government agencies are allowed to function, especially those that are involved in regulation. Make no mistake regarding Democratic Party ideology. Since Clinton I the DLC, now vanguished for public relations considerations, has been the new guise of the Democratic Party. Call it neo-liberalism or more acurately moderate Republicanism. The only advantage that Bush provided to the working class is that he was unable to slip the demise of Social Security past the public. Obama is working a more stealthish approach. Look at Obamacare as the example. A legislative hocus pocus so complex that one can hardly tell the good from the bad. What’s actually been implemented that has actually advantaged the working class?
Is it time to ressurect Jacobins United For a Better America?
I will certainly be supporting Tammy Baldwin in trying to hold onto Herb Kohl’s Senate seat and may give a few bucks to Democrats running in contested House Districts who I think are at least center/center, but I will not get tricked into supporting a candidate who is far to the right of me merely because he is not as far right as his opponent and may have an opportunity to appoint a better Supreme Court justice.
jack
yes.
but it’s only “moderate” republican compared to “Australian economics.” See, our guy can read.
But there is nothing moderate about gutting the Bill of Rights, or gutting Social Security.
Min
I feel your pain. But some things is scarier than others. I would prefer that all the women of America take up a collection to buy a plane ticket and an abortion for any woman who needs one…. than to have the American people think it’s okay to arrest “terrorists” and imprison them on the say-so of the Secretary of Defense.
terry
you’ll have to forgive me. i keep thinking the powers give us a choice between whack jobs and Obama so we will vote for our own destruction.
maybe there is a more rational explanation, but i can’t think of one right now.
and this is why all this anti-Obama stuff is sheer BS IMV.
Obama’s game was to play the centrist, to marginalize the Republicans and get inside their game.
See Clinton for the basic pattern.
The bottom line is that as Obama lacks FDR’s and LBJ’s massive legislative majorities, the conservatives in government hold the whip hand WRT desired policy getting into law.
Obama chose not to rail against this reality, and if I were he I’d do the same damn thing.
The problem isn’t him, it’s us.
LOL. Your problem is with the American people, not Obama.
Obama has to lead the country he has, not the country he wants.
The defense authorization pearl-clutching is really something, I might add.
Grow the f up.