Obama's defenders are right about the presidency

[jpgray]

It is not the highest office in the land, whose powers have increased substantially over the last generation, that has influence over the course of policy. It is instead those with the least power that hold us helpless. It is liberal blogs that no one reads, or jumped-up NYT columnists that somehow control the entire population by a readership representing fractions of one percent. It is liberal activists that cost us elections, influencing mass millions through their complete lack of exposure, relevance or influence. It is difficult to guide the national debate when an entire nation will stop to listen to your every word.

It is criticism that ruins a presidency, not the concessions and deals that load the miserable with more misery. The only way, after all, to prove the irresponsibility of your opponents is to give in to their irresponsible demands. Capitulate, but show reluctance--that stands better for disapproval than opposition, contradiction, or flat refusal. Let conciliation thrive when your enemies are insane, because what could more thoroughly expose insanity than our willing embrace of it? The tighter we clasp to ourselves our profligate, venal and vicious opponents, the clearer we show the separation between us, no?

Finally, it is best to gauge the heart of a president by what he fails to do. If he has failed to fulfill or even attempt the policies of urgent need, it is tragic not insofar as it harms the entire world. The tragedy is that his failure to fulfill or attempt such policies is proof positive of his desire for those policies. What more evidence could you need?

The presidency is a weak office, you see. Utterly bound by the demands of the billions in this world that are completely weaker and less influential than its holder, we weep for the sad impotence that must haunt a president's every step.

[vi5]

1. Amen....

Poor, poor defenseless and helpless President Obama needs all of our prayers and all of our efforts to fight back the liberal blogger menace that is destroying this country by not appreciating all of his work and his hard fought battles on behalf of the poor and downtrodden in our country.

[Horse with no Name]

2. Recc'ed to "0"

:D

[CelticThunder]

3. k&r.Bingo.

[killbotfactory]

4. unrec for the strawman nt

[EFerrari]

6. Rec for clarity.

[jpgray]

12. Threads about the powerlessness of the presidency aren't hard to find here

The argument is usually that we need a super-majority in the Senate and a majority in the House before anything much can be expected from a Democratic president.

[killbotfactory]

13. For enacting major legislation, like FDR did, it's completely true.

That's just the separation of powers at work. That doesn't mean the president is weak.

The GOP is a ruthless, cynical, well organized, well funded political machine driven by some of the wealthiest and most powerful people in the US. They have used whatever power they have in government to stall, filibuster, and deliberately sabotaged the countries economic well-being to try to protect their gains during the Bush presidency. No democratic president is going to shame or sweet talk these motherfuckers into being compliant with the demands of the populace. They just don't give a fuck.

Clinton compromised on a wide range of issues to get things done, drawing the wrath of enough left-wing activists to support the Nader campaign, which was enough to tip the scales in Bush's favor. Corruption and fraud notwithstanding.

That's how our government works.
That's how ruthless the GOP is.
That's how disorganized the left is when it comes to presidential politics.

That doesn't mean the president doesn't deserve criticism and is a delicate flower we need to coddle, it just that focusing all of your political rage on him is counter productive, stupid, and politically naive.

[jpgray]

19. The presidency is about more than legislation.

Obama appointed Geithner. He appointed lobbyists for Raytheon and Goldman Sachs to Defense and Treasury. He put his weight behind the Deficit Commission. He made an odious deal with the same Bill Tauzin he excoriated in the primaries.

He was forced to do none of these things. He was certainly never forced to surrender the whole ideological basis of our economic debate to the GOP, wherein austerity is the rule and the only way to ensure hiring is not to increase demand but to provide tax breaks and trade incentives to corporations that are sitting on trillions while off-shoring profits and manufacturing.

It's not just that he couldn't pass a job bill in this climate. He probably can't. It's that he does nothing to alter that climate. The power to do so is one of the chief strengths of the presidency. Both Roosevelts showed that, if nothing else.

He can start a war in Libya without Congress, but he can't talk about the need for a jobs bill without them? He is constrained to speak only of free trade, cutting social spending and giving corporations more tax credits? Really?

[killbotfactory]

20. FDR had a solid majority on congress, and the support of an organized labor movement

Willing to face down gun-thug union busters.

That alone was far more effective and important than sending the "right message" or setting the "terms of the debate", through a mass media that is far, far different than it was back in the mid 20th century.

Today we have eviscerated unions, and a left-wing cottage industry that banks off of bashing democrats for not delivering instant results while ignoring the GOP because "everyone knows they're shitbags". And even today when Obama does step up and call out republicans for being the shitbags they are he is hounded by his most fervent opponents on the left for passing the buck to congress and not owning up to what a piece of shit they think he is.

[jpgray]

21. Your replies prove my post was no strawman

None of what you note forced Obama to appoint a failed economic team, least of all one directly responsible for the environment that created this crisis. None of it forces him to -embrace- dangerous and irresponsible legislation.

You echo the exact sentiment of my OP--it is the least powerful who are to blame in failing to change the political debate. The most powerful people, particularly the one who has the ears of millions and enormous powers to shape the composition of an entire third of our government, are the helpless ones? They must dither away their terms in impotence, waiting on battered unions and a hapless and corrupt press corps?

Nothing can be done unless the entire nation changes, in other words, but we can't expect our most powerful leaders to assist in making those changes?

Do you have any idea how ridiculous that sounds?

[killbotfactory]

22. I really don't think Obama is the problem in all this

Or his economic team. No one is saying the president is a hapless weakling position in government, but there are serious constraints he is working under which people like you ignore to justify focusing all of your wrath upon him.

You greatly overvalue the importance of his tone, or his political advisers, which respect to what legislation actually gets through congress. A couple strongly democratic senators could have offset the filibuster threat of republicans and allowed passage of everything Pelosi got through the House. The stimulus package and healthcare reforms would have been much stronger. You guys would still wail and gnash your teeth regardless, but we would still be much better off.

[jpgray]

29. Do you believe we should push for free trade, tax credits for corporations and entitlement reform?

If not, then why is Obama forced to push for these? Do you believe we should push for austerity? If not, why is Obama forced to embrace it? Do you believe Geithner, Summers, Rubin and the gang are helpful guides for our economic future? If not, why is Obama forced to give these men ever-increasing power over the economy?

If his tone is unimportant, and his advisers are unimportant, why not strike the right tone? Why not pick the best advisers? Your arguments undermine themselves.

I'll be voting for Obama in 2012. I'll even be working for him, as I'll be working for my local Democratic party. What I don't understand is the idea that I shouldn't be critical while doing those two things. I don't see how replacing anonymous, irrelevant criticism of Obama (like this post) with anonymous, irrelevant sycophancy (like some other posts I've seen) does anyone any favors.

[sabrina 1]

32. Gore won the 2000 election.

Why do some people keep forgetting that it was the SC in an act of treason, that gave us George Bush, along with many other treasonous and criminal acts committed by rightwing political operatives.

You lost your whole argument with that foolish claim.

The GOP has always been cynical and ruthless. We assumed all Democratic candidates knew this. They didn't just become ruthless recently.

Knowing that, we thought we needed a fighter to deal with them. Instead we got someone who still thinks they can be reasoned with.

Or is it that on some issues, he agrees with them? Like cutting Social Programs, eg. The Third Way agrees with them on many issues, and since this administration has a few them on their staff, we have to wonder, which is it?

How many real Progressives are on this President's staff?? His Education team? Economic Team?

That is going to be a big question in the next election. Who will be appointed to cabinet positions. I wish we had asked it in 2008.

[Vanje]

46. The presidency is so powerless,

I expect Obama to decline 2012 re-election so he can campaign , instead for a seat in Congress.
I hear THATS where the power lays.
THOSE guys call the shots. Those guys get what they want.EVEN if its nutty!
Poor damn President cant do NOTHIN!

[leeroysphitz]

18. rec'd for great justice.

[mzmolly]

24. Joining you.

:hi:

[Lasher]

5. This is partly my fault for not doing enough.

But I'm going to do my part tomorrow by calling the White House so I can be ignored.

[stklurker]

8. WH

Yes.. because calling the White House will help get better bills coming out of the House....

[avaistheone1]

7. Brilliant.

:kick:

[Tierra_y_Libertad]

9. Yes. He is but a delicate flower whose only recourse is to lead by surrendering.

And, discard that horrid veto pen lest he become tempted to use it and anger those he's surrendering to. Better to swallow the poisoned fertilizer and tell us it's the dish on the menu.

[Skittles]

33. yup; OMG their latest meme is pretty sickening

[chill_wind]

10. kick

[cherokeeprogressive]

11. "It is liberal activists that cost us elections, influencing mass millions through their..."

"complete lack of exposure, relevance or influence".

That kind of made me dizzy.

The presidency is "bound by the demands of the billions in this world that are completely weaker and less influential than its holder"?

THAT just made me laugh.

[JoePhilly]

14. There isn't enough straw in the world for these strawmen.

Please, give us a break .... and go get your primary challenger on the field already.

[Fire1]

16. Man, you see right through the crap!! LOL!! n/t

[jpgray]

38. You see the call for a primary challenger as a futile dream and a waste of effort

Fair enough. Speaking of futile dreams and wastes of time, what do you think of the pursuit of bipartisanship in this climate?

[MadHound]

15. Well played, very well played

Masterful, needed sarcasm

[Name removed]

17. Deleted message

Message removed by moderator. Click here to review the message board rules.

[Name removed]

25. Deleted message

Message removed by moderator. Click here to review the message board rules.

[mzmolly]

23. No you're right. Obama is akin to Bush and finding any comparison we can

on any issue, and bleating about it day after day, helps him win the next election. This is actually good for progress, because even if COLA adjustments to SS never happened, pretending they were imminent, was valuable in thrusting the country to the left. :sarcasm:

[jpgray]

27. Where do I compare Obama to Bush?

The irony of your post is that so much of the evil from the last eleven years was rightly laid at Bush's feet, whereas none of the evil of our party's current inaction and embracing of right-wing ideology is laid at Obama's feet. In the one case, the presidency was so crucial and powerful that separating Bush from the country's failures was laughable. Now we are to believe the buck stops everywhere but the Oval Office? How do you reconcile these two beliefs?

[mzmolly]

30. The buck stops at the Oval Office? If so, how can we say

Democrats are partly to blame for the wars?

[jpgray]

31. The buck should at least make a stop there, yes?

[mzmolly]

39. It did, or we'd have had a 4T debt ceiling deal with no revenues

period. We'd have no expiration of the Bush tax cuts. We'd have actually signed the Ryan plan into law, etc.

[jpgray]

40. We have no expiration of the Bush tax cuts. We have no tax increases.

All that is certain currently are spending cuts. The future of the New Deal, of tax increases and all the rest remain in complete doubt. You have a Democratic president at the podium lamenting that we could not use the debt ceiling increase as an opportunity to reform entitlements. How was that necessary in any way?

[mzmolly]

42. The tax cuts either expire or the commission has to replace them

dollar for dollar with new revenues.

Entitlement reform could mean negotiating drug prices, could it not?

I find it hard to believe that John Boehner is the reason we haven't had cuts to social security.

[jpgray]

44. Notice what is agreed to here and now, and what is deferred to triggers and commissions

Is that leadership? There is only doubt over what "entitlement reform" means, or what "revenues" mean, in the context of this deal. How Obama was forced to embrace austerity remains to be answered. The people are against it, the experts predict it will shrink the economy, and everywhere cash is sitting idle as no one will invest. The deal guarantees the government will not make up the lack. A tax increase (or "revenue reform" if you prefer a euphemism) is preferred to spending cuts if we must go the austerity route, but the entire route is not preferable, and there was no reason for our leaders to embrace it. It will worsen the deficit if it shrinks the economy.

There is no way Obama could pass a stimulus. There are many ways he could refuse to preside cheerfully over an anti-stimulus.

[mzmolly]

45. Leadership? How does one lead the insane?

There is no way to "lead" those who said it was ok if the US decided to default. Or to "lead" those who are ok repealing the new deal so that Bill Gates can have another tax cut.

[jpgray]

50. What is the administration's alternative to austerity?

What is the administration's alternative to entitlement reform? They have none, because rather than respond with opposition to either they respond with a reluctant advocacy for both. If you believe neither represents our proper course, why should you believe in an administration that embraces both and fails to argue for any alternative?

[mzmolly]

51. Do you think John Boehner

believes the President is deeply interested in gutting entitlements?

[Proud Liberal Dem]

43. Obama isn't treating his office like Bush did

Bush and his (mis-)administration did many things, particularly in regards to the "war on terror" outside of the zone of commonly established law and policies (even by the standards of most recent REPUBLICAN administrations), not to mention congressional authorization and the Republican majorities in Congress zealously protected and rubber-stamped Bush and his policies every step of the way no matter how egregious the conduct. Obama seems to be trying to (re-)establish the proper balance of power between the branches of government not trying be a "liberal Bush" like (it seems) most people here want him to be. :shrug: I would point out too that also Bush didn't have to deal with a Democratic Party willing to go "nuclear" and consistently obstruct normal business in the Republican-controlled Senate (they could have, of course, but Democrats generally don't believe in shutting government down completely based on ideological disagreements unlike Republicans) and they were completely shut down in the Republican-controlled House as I recall.

[Tatiana]

26. It is very important for us to donate $$$, volunteer, and vote to help re-elect our Dem President.

However, after spending enormous amounts of energy, time, and dollars, it is completely out of line to expect any policies or programs to be implemented to make the wealthy pay their fair share and put the unemployed back to work.

There are too many hostage-takers to negotiate with and the office of the President can do nothing without Congress. Executive orders are meaningless, unless signed by Republican Presidents.

I get it now.

[blkmusclmachine]

28. Their illogical spin...makes one's head spin.

:crazy:

[JVS]

34. K&R

[johnaries]

35. Unrecc for twisting arguments, gross exageration, and

completely ignoring reality.

[jpgray]

36. I'm fed up with the idea that everyone but the president is to blame for a disappointing presidency

The evil occurring in this country you can lay on the GOP almost utterly. That there is no significant opposition to their ideology, however, even in something so simple as words, is a condemnation for all of our party's leaders. The embrace of austerity, further free trade agreements and tax credits for cash-rich corporations is not forced by any legislative math or institutional barriers. It is not desired by the public. There is no excuse for it.

[rhett o rick]

48. deleted

[rhett o rick]

49. good grief

[woo me with science]

37. Very well done. nt

[Name removed]

41. Deleted message

Message removed by moderator. Click here to review the message board rules.

[Rex]

47. I might of said something about this

and it got deleted. Don't remember.