Where Obama And The Left Agree

[Pirate Smile]

Where Obama And The Left Agree
08 Dec 2010 08:45 pm

Sargent puts the tax fight in perspective:

Obama's argument with the left, at bottom, is more a dispute over what's achievable, and less an argument over what is desirable to achieve. Obama opposes extending the high end tax cuts, just as the left does. His disagreement with the left is over whether there's another way to achieve the goals Obama and the left agree on: Extending the middle class cuts and extending unemployment benefits. The left says a protracted fight would achieve those things. Obama and his advisers say a fight wouldn't achieve those things, or at least that a fight wouldn't achieve them in time to stave off a tax hike for the middle class. Hence his willingness to reach a deal.

Indeed, Obama's outburst yesterday was rooted in genuine frustration with the left for not agreeing with him about what's possible given today's political realities.

http://andrewsullivan.theatlantic.com/the_daily_dish/2010/12/where-obama-and-the-left-agree.html

Comes from this post by Greg Sargent:

Is Obama triangulating? Naah, not really.

By Greg Sargent

A White House official emails Ben Smith to dispute the notion that Obama's assault on the left yesterday was part of a concerted strategy of triangulating:

Obama, the official noted, was "responding to several very loud voices from the left." Triangulation, by contrast, "is an intentional political strategy to win favor with swing voters by pushing off the left. That's not what the President is doing, and that's not our strategy."

Whatever you think of Obama's broadside yesterday, it seems clear that it has nothing to do with "triangulation," at least as it was practiced by Bill Clinton. Obama's dispute with the left isn't an effort to position himself ideologically as a centrist. It's part of a broader effort to present himself as Washington's lone resident adult in a room full of bickering children on both sides -- the last line of defense for the American people against Washington business-as-usual.

The problem here is that people tend to view Obama's constant quest for compromise and stated aspiration to always seek common ground between warring parties through the prism of ideology. But that aspiration has always been more about temperament and process than about occupying the ideological "center." During the 2008 campaign and since then, he has insisted he would unite opponents by finding points of agreement between them and working outward from there. This isn't really about ideological "centrism" in any meaningful sense. It's a case about process. It might better be described as "Beer Summit-ism."

http://voices.washingtonpost.com/plum-line/2010/12/is_obama_triangulating.html?wprss=plum-line

[Safetykitten]

1. On his ties. He really has nice ties. I have always liked them.

[DURHAM D]

2. Its really hard to take someone as a serious adult when they make stupid mistakes/statemen...

Examples -

(1) for the second time he has publicly proclaimed that SS started as a "program for widows and orphans". Wrong and wrong.

(2) "Medicare started small". What do you call coverage for everyone over 65? That isn't small.

He is apparently getting his history facts from Reagan's diaries.

[Laelth]

3. Vomit. Apologias for an insane and inopportune attack by the President on his base. n/t

-Laelth

[Exilednight]

4. Then why is he raising taxes on those making 20-40k a year? n/t

[lamp_shade]

6. Say what? I hadn't heard that. Got a link?

[Recursion]

8. There's a gap between an expiring tax credit and the payroll tax deduction

...for individuals making less than $20,000 and families making less than $40,000

http://www.rawstory.com/rs/2010/12/deal-raises-taxes-poorest-earners

Not a big gap, but a gap, and at that income level there's really no such thing as a "small" gap.

[Clio the Leo]

5. kick nt

[lamp_shade]

7. A meaningful article. Thanks. K&R