Click here to join Noam Scheiber and Richard Just at 3 p.m. EST today for a livestream discussion about Obama's divided White House.
Of all the historical analogies urged on Obama following November’s drubbing—Truman in ’48, Reagan after ’82, Clinton after ’94—the one the White House has opted for is easily the most obscure. That would be Patrick in ’10—as in Deval Patrick, the recently re-elected governor of Massachusetts. Months after Patrick signed the state’s first sales-tax hike in 33 years, political chatterers gave him little chance of surviving to a second term. Not only did he face the same foul, anti-incumbent mood that elected Scott Brown, he’d drawn an attractive GOP candidate in businessman Charlie Baker.
Patrick’s handlers recommended that he distance himself from liberals in the state legislature—and, above all, downplay the tax increase. The governor overruled them. His first commercial highlighted the “combination of deep cuts and new revenue” he’d accepted to close the state’s budget shortfall. “He all but said, ‘I raised taxes.’ Jesus Christ,” recalls one still-traumatized adviser. “He thought the way to do it was to be true to what he ran on [in 2006]”—the belief that voters will support someone who levels with them, even if they don’t love every decision. In the end, Patrick and his “politics of conviction” won by a comfortable seven-point margin.
It’s not hard to see the appeal of this narrative in Obamaland, whose principal also fancies himself a teller of hard truths. The way the president’s inner circle sees it, the re-election of Patrick—a longtime Obama pal and former client of his message guru David Axelrod and campaign manager David Plouffe—affirms the president’s bias against desperate reinventions. “[Patrick] may be a model for Obama in 2012,” says one strategist close to the White House. “Let them write you off for dead, say how stupid you are”—while you remind voters why they fell for you in the first place. So far, at least, the pundits are living up to their end of the bargain. The question is whether the president can live up to his.
By any measure, the first few weeks after the midterms were hardly encouraging. The president gave a low-energy press conference, then jetted off to Asia for ten days; the advisers he left behind seemed rootless and out of sorts. Still, as November wore on, the White House settled on the contours of a plan: Obama would refocus on reforming government and transcending partisanship—something they felt voters craved. “It was back to the first principles he stood by in the campaign,” says the strategist. This was, among other things, the impetus behind embracing a ban on congressional earmarks and freezing federal pay.
Both initiatives raised hackles among congressional Democrats and liberals, and stirred suspicions that Obama was bent on Dick Morris–style triangulation. But the charge is unfair. Obama has a longstanding appetite for good-government initiatives, dating back to his work on ethics and welfare reform in the Illinois state Senate. As a U.S. senator, he teamed up with Oklahoma conservative Tom Coburn to create an online database for earmarks. “It’s not left-right, it’s inside-outside,” says one administration official. In 2008, Obama was the vehicle for a backlash against Washington dysfunction. In 2010, the Tea Party was. The challenge Obama has set for himself is to reclaim that role.
Of course, the last two years weren’t exactly an advertisement for the tactical benefits of bipartisanship—Republicans had a huge incentive to defect, sowing frustration that hurt the governing party. But the Obama people and even many on the Hill believe the elections have altered this dynamic. “The Republicans for the first time share some responsibility for cleaning up the mess,” says Chris Van Hollen, soon to be the ranking Democrat on the House Budget Committee. It’s one reason, adds the White House–friendly strategist, that “we’re probably in a better position now than if we’d barely held control of the House.”
Nowhere is the continuity motif more evident than the president’s midcourse personnel decisions. So far, the White House has replaced its budget director, national security adviser, and Council of Economic Advisers chair with internal candidates. Legislative Director Phil Schiliro is rumored to be in line for deputy chief of staff and senior aide Stephanie Cutter is likely to shoulder some of the outgoing Axelrod’s responsibilities. Other than Larry Summers’s replacement at the National Economic Council, where the administration has hinted at a fresh face, the only real possibility for a high-profile outsider is chief of staff. Veteran Obama aide Pete Rouse—a beloved figure at the White House—is serving on an interim basis while Valerie Jarrett conducts a formal search.
"Obama would refocus on reforming government and transcending partisanship"
The above is the key sentence in Scheiber's report and is also the key to understanding the rolling disaster thar is the Obama presidency.
"Reforming government," in this context equals slashing bureaucracy, a central Republican trope and utterly beside the point of the massive difficulties our nation faces.
"Transcending partisanship" is an empty fantasy. Politics is, by definition, a competition between different interests, and if, like Obama you adhere to this post-partisan fantasy while your real-world partisan opponents pursue their own, hyperpartisan agenda you will get abused as a patsy and a fool.
"Obama would refocus on reforming government and transcending partisanship"
The above is the key sentence in Scheiber's report and is also the key to understanding the rolling disaster thar is the Obama presidency.
"Reforming government," in this context equals slashing bureaucracy, a central Republican trope and utterly beside the point of the massive difficulties our nation faces.
"Transcending partisanship" is an empty fantasy. Politics is, by definition, a competition between different interests, and if, like Obama you adhere to this post-partisan fantasy while your real-world partisan opponents pursue their own, hyperpartisan agenda you will get abused as a patsy and a fool.
What he said! I am appalled about how averse the discussions of the last 24 hours have failed, unlike Noam, to take into account the unwillingness of the White House to acknowledge that there are SOB"s in both parties who see sticking it in the President's eye as the only way to stay in office. When is the last time the U.S. Senate got ahead of its own President and led? 1850? And what did that give us? The MIssouri Compromise. A better model for this President (aspirational, but still a model) is Lyndon Johnson and the Senate in 1964 and 1965.
What would this country look like if Obama had been President in 1964 and 1965? He wants to be Eisenhower, get a compliant Congress like Eisenhowe ... view full comment
What he said! I am appalled about how averse the discussions of the last 24 hours have failed, unlike Noam, to take into account the unwillingness of the White House to acknowledge that there are SOB"s in both parties who see sticking it in the President's eye as the only way to stay in office. When is the last time the U.S. Senate got ahead of its own President and led? 1850? And what did that give us? The MIssouri Compromise. A better model for this President (aspirational, but still a model) is Lyndon Johnson and the Senate in 1964 and 1965.
What would this country look like if Obama had been President in 1964 and 1965? He wants to be Eisenhower, get a compliant Congress like Eisenhower had. But he will not even work for that.
Obama absolutely won the day yesterday, dominated. I cheered his press conference.
He played McConnell beautifully - stimulus + wingers demanding the deficit grow again to finance billionaires. Wingers own that part, Obama owns: doing everything he possibly can to help the hurting middle class. Why should Obama risk his entire ouvre as a pragmatist - which he's had from Day 1 of his career and campaign - to please a bunch of whining Democrats who don't even bother to show up to the polls to help him out? Eff them and good for him.
Republicans said very clearly to the American people: Deficits don't matter. They have zero credibility to continue their ridiculous ready-for-my-close-up c ... view full comment
Obama absolutely won the day yesterday, dominated. I cheered his press conference.
He played McConnell beautifully - stimulus + wingers demanding the deficit grow again to finance billionaires. Wingers own that part, Obama owns: doing everything he possibly can to help the hurting middle class. Why should Obama risk his entire ouvre as a pragmatist - which he's had from Day 1 of his career and campaign - to please a bunch of whining Democrats who don't even bother to show up to the polls to help him out? Eff them and good for him.
Republicans said very clearly to the American people: Deficits don't matter. They have zero credibility to continue their ridiculous ready-for-my-close-up caterwauling about it.
Obama is walking a tightrope with this strategy, who knows what will happen. I'm dubious but no matter what, I admire the man. He is incapable of posing and leaping about changing himself for anyone. Maybe it will pay off. It sure did yesterday. I'm not sure Americans apprecaite honest politicians, they need to be lied to and petted.
If you want a President who will put his ass on the line for you, then get your ass out there and vote Democrats. Otherwise, get out of the way and let the man get things done. Next stop: START.
Uh, Jill, I voted for the man, and I voted Democratic in the most recent election. I suspect that the Democrats, like me, who are "whining" most loudly are, again, like me, those who DID show up to the polls.
I don't expect Obama to change. I'd like him to change, but I don't expect it. For a person to change is a devilishly hard thing to pull off. But if Obama's not changing means that he clings to a delusion then am I supposed to admire him for it? I mean, tell me the truth, Jill, can you honestly admire the idea--not the man, but the idea--that transcending partisanship is what the American people most want? What self-serving horse shit! You yourself just described the Republican ... view full comment
Uh, Jill, I voted for the man, and I voted Democratic in the most recent election. I suspect that the Democrats, like me, who are "whining" most loudly are, again, like me, those who DID show up to the polls.
I don't expect Obama to change. I'd like him to change, but I don't expect it. For a person to change is a devilishly hard thing to pull off. But if Obama's not changing means that he clings to a delusion then am I supposed to admire him for it? I mean, tell me the truth, Jill, can you honestly admire the idea--not the man, but the idea--that transcending partisanship is what the American people most want? What self-serving horse shit! You yourself just described the Republicans as having zero credibility and described their speech as "ridiculous, ready-for-my-close-up caterwauling." Is this your idea of transcending partisanship?
The American people don't want to transcend partisanship. The American people want answers to the problems that trouble them most. If those answers can be achieved through inter-party compromise (it can't) then great! If those answers can only be achieved through one party shoving a knife up into the other party's thorax then standing on the prostrate party's neck while it waits for the opposing party to exsanguinate, then the American people would be fine with that too. You want to congratulate Obama for his pragmatism, but pragmatism has its limits. For a shitty baseball player who knows he'll never put wood on a given pitcher's heat it may be pragmatic for him to lean in and take a hit for the walk, but no one will congratulate him for it. The MOST pragmatic thing would have been for Obama to look at the poll numbers, look at the fact that what the American people wanted was an end to the upper-tier Bush tax cuts and an extension of unemployment benefits, stayed home from Asia, called the Democratic Congressional delegation to the Oval Office one or two at a time to give them a Tony Soprano-style talking-to and where necessary shove steel rods up their spines, and then get on tv to make a series of speeches as punchy as his presser today telling the American people he had a plan to bring the people RELIEF--such an important word in times like these--whereas the Republicans had just too words for the people: bend over. But of course for him to do that would mean giving up his postpartisan transcendence.
I hope he enjoys it up there above the partisan fray, because down here in the trenches the mud is up to our waists.
I think Obama has to frame the debate as follows. "The Republicans believe that if we lower taxes on the rich, the economy will grow and the deficit will shrink. I believe the economy will grow based on expenditures that improve consumer demand and that the economy will improve, but not enough to offset the revenue lost from tax cuts." And then see what happens. If the economy improves and the debt goes up, Obama was right. If the economy does not improve, then both he and the Republicans were wrong and Obama should spend his time complaining about the debt.
I think Obama has to frame the debate as follows. "The Republicans believe that if we lower taxes on the rich, the economy will grow and the deficit will shrink. I believe the economy will grow based on expenditures that improve consumer demand and that the economy will improve, but not enough to offset the revenue lost from tax cuts." And then see what happens. If the economy improves and the debt goes up, Obama was right. If the economy does not improve, then both he and the Republicans were wrong and Obama should spend his time complaining about the debt.
I wrote this in an email to my aunt today, the speech on unemployment benefits Obama could have made but chose not to:
"The Republicans in the Senate are blocking needed relief for millions of Americans who can't
find work because of the recession. I support this relief. The Democrats in Congress support it. Polls indicate that a large majority of the American people support it. Leading economists say that unemployment benefits provide a sorely needed economic stimulus because the recipients of such benefits go out and spend that moneyquickly. Economists say that every dollar spend on unemployment benefits is worth 5 dollars to the economy. So why do the Republicans oppose it? The ... view full comment
I wrote this in an email to my aunt today, the speech on unemployment benefits Obama could have made but chose not to:
"The Republicans in the Senate are blocking needed relief for millions of Americans who can't find work because of the recession. I support this relief. The Democrats in Congress support it. Polls indicate that a large majority of the American people support it. Leading economists say that unemployment benefits provide a sorely needed economic stimulus because the recipients of such benefits go out and spend that moneyquickly. Economists say that every dollar spend on unemployment benefits is worth 5 dollars to the economy. So why do the Republicans oppose it? They say we can't afford it. But these are the same people who say we can afford a tax cut that benefits no one but the rich that will cost the government many times over what the unemployment extension will cost. So what's the real reason? I'll tell you why the Republicans are opposing unemployment benefits: it's called blackmail. They are so focussed on securing a tax cut for their wealthy backers--a tax cut that only a small minority of the American people believe should be continued--that they are willing to hold millions of American families for ransom, threatening to cut off their benefits unless we in the government give them and their rich backers what they demand. One thing I've learned in my life is that if you knuckle under to bullying and blackmail, you guarantee yourself nothing but more of the same. I'm not going to do it, and neither should you. The only thing standing in the way of relief for millions of unemployed Americans is the Senate Republican delegation. Write to your Republican Senators, email them and phone them to tell them how you feel, tell them you want them to do the right thing, the Christian thing, not the stingey, mean-spirited thing. They know what is right, and with a little nudge from you, they will do it."
In 2012 I will not vote for Obama for the same reason I never voted for him or his supporters. Unlike 80% of US Jews I will never vote for someone who either belonged to a club not accepting Black people or a Black man belonging to an anti-Semitic church. Everybody knew who Obama was before the elections and still they voted for him. Obama made his infamous speech on race, a perfect Straw Man. Republicans could not be seen as racist and Democrats where caught in the head light like deer's with a racist nominee. As a result none raised their voice except poor little me. I remain a voter who do not vote for any known racist, ever!
In 2012 I will not vote for Obama for the same reason I never voted for him or his supporters. Unlike 80% of US Jews I will never vote for someone who either belonged to a club not accepting Black people or a Black man belonging to an anti-Semitic church. Everybody knew who Obama was before the elections and still they voted for him. Obama made his infamous speech on race, a perfect Straw Man. Republicans could not be seen as racist and Democrats where caught in the head light like deer's with a racist nominee. As a result none raised their voice except poor little me. I remain a voter who do not vote for any known racist, ever!
Poupic - please take your irrelevant lies about Obama to the Spine where you'll fit in and make some sort of sense.
Aaron - I love ya honey, but you're driving me nuts with this self righteous stuff. I'm glad all four of us who bothered to vote in 2010 are proud of it, but the vast majority of Democrats chose to let Obama twist in the wind alone in tis last cycle while he got his ass kicked doing the countries business - rebuilding the agencies, ending the Iraq War, saving Detroit and the economy, saving millions of jobs, passing health care, re-inventing public education. I do not blame him for his giving them the finger, in Obama-ese of course.
What you are not seeing for some reason is th ... view full comment
Poupic - please take your irrelevant lies about Obama to the Spine where you'll fit in and make some sort of sense.
Aaron - I love ya honey, but you're driving me nuts with this self righteous stuff. I'm glad all four of us who bothered to vote in 2010 are proud of it, but the vast majority of Democrats chose to let Obama twist in the wind alone in tis last cycle while he got his ass kicked doing the countries business - rebuilding the agencies, ending the Iraq War, saving Detroit and the economy, saving millions of jobs, passing health care, re-inventing public education. I do not blame him for his giving them the finger, in Obama-ese of course.
What you are not seeing for some reason is that Obama absolutely *schooled* the Republicans and retook the narrative of his Presidency (so naturally its time for Democrats to form their circular firing squad and destroy each other). in one step, he ceased being the Muslim Socialist that Republicans would only seek to destroy, screw the hurting people of this country, to to being the President of America who is fundamentally helping hurting people in a concrete way BTW - winning back Indepedents, who went Republican whether you like it or not, in the process. Obama, as he has made clear, takes the world as it is - bless him.
Pick your poison Aaron - do you give a shit about the deficit right now? Me neither and neither does anyone else. Do you think this economy needs a stimulus or not? Do you think that middle class people need help right this effing instant or not? If yes, do you want Jesus Christ to come down and hand us another multi-billion dollar stimulus package in this political environment? Because that's what it would take!
Read Full Article »