November 5th, 2010

Obama, in some ways, is admirable, but in other ways, you just want to punch the guy out. I mean, seriously–after all the times he gave Republicans what they wanted and then began to compromise, and as many times as others criticized him and even told him to his face that this was not the way to deal with obstinacy, and here he is, doing it yet again–telling Republicans that he’s OK with giving in on the Bush tax cuts before the negotiations even start. I mean, a facepalm doesn’t even begin to cover it. Maybe the massive facepalm from Naked Gun 3.33 would be a good start. Contrast this with Bush in 2006, after having lost both houses of the Congress, interpreting the results as an indication that the voters wanted more of the same from him. Obama is going a bit too far in the opposite direction.

And here’s another little tidbit from 4 years ago:

As part of their campaigning, Republicans warned America that if Democrats won the election, they would use their control of the Congress to investigate the Bush administration, and even try to impeach him. They painted this as an unacceptable outcome.

Crooks & Liars reminds us that twelve years ago, Newt Gingrich promised that if Republicans took control of Congress, that is exactly what they would do: investigate Clinton to death. And that is one promise he kept, right up to the impeachment.

As we all know, the Democrats completely laid off the Bush administration in 2006 and 2008, and did not prosecute him or Cheney even though there were several highly legitimate and even demanding reasons to do so.

And here we are again, with Republicans taking over the House, and they can’t wait to start subpoenaing again.

The more things change, it seems, the more they stay the same.

  1. Troy
    November 5th, 2010 at 11:48 | #1

    The hope is being honorable will work over the longer term.

    Only 40% of the electorate bothered to vote this cycle.

    When people aren’t paying attention and propaganda is the coin of the realm and corporations enjoy disproportionate political influence the temptation is to triangulate like Clinton and work the middle, shave off the moderate vote.

    I think the politics of the situation are just about as tough as can be. The opposition to ACA is a good example.

    People are just too easily bamboozled by propaganda and in this 40%-40% environment you’ve got to win more than half of the muddled middle to win.

    Elections should have consequences. The people voted to give the House to the Republicans, and this institution is of equal rank (if not superior) to the Presidency.

    If it’s their funeral, that’s the way it is. They won’t learn from it, but, again, that’s the way it is.

  2. Troy
    November 5th, 2010 at 15:31 | #2
  3. Roger
    November 6th, 2010 at 00:29 | #3

    Honor is lost on those who are simply out to exploit you. “If you want a vision of the future, imagine a boot stamping on a human face – forever. ” The Republican/Tea Party leadership is the boot. You will never appeal to the better nature of the boot.

    Perhaps the hope is to appeal to the better nature of the American public who is theoretically witness to all this… But so long as Republicans, through mechanisms such as the Citizens United case and attacks on Net Neutrality, gain more and more control of information, then what hope is there of reaching the public and them waking up to punish the entrenched partisan Republicans? Time may ultimately be on our side… but only if the Republicans and the corporate interest behind them do not gain full control of the flow of information.

  4. Ken sensei
    November 6th, 2010 at 00:57 | #4

    Yeah, here in the SF Bay Area, even liberal talk shows are asking, “when is Obama going to show some backbone?”.

    While I understand that he is not prone to following in other presidents’ footsteps, there are lessons to be learned from observing others. Reagan is a prime example of a president with “backbone”. Although perhaps not the brightest pres we ever had, Reagan commanded respect thru sticking to his principles.

    I suppose some points could be won by negotiating on one issue to promote another (e.g., I’ll compromise on Tax cuts if GOP backs off from attacking health care reform).

  5. Troy
    November 6th, 2010 at 03:36 | #5

    Perhaps the hope is to appeal to the better nature of the American public

    yeah my point addresses both of the above. I think Obama has been trying to take the best policy position available within the limits of ‘optics’, ie what the stupidest 20% of the electorate — the “independents” — thinks about everything.

    He knows he has to take PA, IL, OH, FL, and VA again to get a second term. These are the populations his policies have to win over, not Berkeley people.

    If a person is “independent” at this point in time they’re either lying about being a Republican or aren’t paying attention.

    Reagan was popular because he played to the Christianists and was a good actor who could lie or at least fake sincerity about everything. And eventually people got tired of his BS:

    Much of Obama’s policy has been to play the 4 year view, not try to fix everything in 1.

    Unfortunately the economy is monumentally screwed over by the bubble bust and people don’t have 4 years.

  6. Troy
  7. November 19th, 2010 at 07:26 | #7

    Due to economic crisis and soaring debt and the deficit, the United States has already lost its status as the superpower of the global financial system. To add more bad news, the soaring cost of health, social security nearing bankruptcy, high unemployment add more bad news to current economic woes of the American society. Bad decisions, bad policy combined with flawed decision-making process have practically killed/destroyed the foundations of Capitalism in America. But even considering all of the economic data & factors, we’re somehow still addicted to spending and some political “heavyweights” advocate even more borrowing & spending by the government. We’ve got to stop and realize that at some point we need to pay the debt, the younger generation of Americans will need to pay the debt, probably next generations as well… So what we are really doing now is taking liability and spreading slowly over next generations, so that they can deal at a later time? How about actually cutting/freezing all spending, conducting audits of all government spending & programs and start slowly and painstakingly cutting to save and to be a bit more fiscally realistic (and responsible?).

Comments are closed.