There is, in fact, a budding consensus that social and economic inequality is a real problem — and that the right should have some sort of answer. The last six years, moreover, have vindicated the Democratic strategy of using a stimulus to get out of recession, rather than the Republican one of following Angela Merkel toward deflation.
The wars? The economy? The deficit? Lower than before the recession. Gay rights? A revolution. Climate change? A decisive shift in government spending and regulations. A new guarantee of security for millions including me that will become very hard to take away — unless the Supreme Court decides to politicize itself more profoundly than it has since Roe vs Wade.
Still very hard to tell if the negotiations can work — but we seem to have avoided premature Congressional meddling. Legal weed? Well he can insist, but why would the GOP not talk right past him? The answer to that is that Obama has not lost all his leverage. The sequester remains — and is suspended only for two months a reasonable compromise, although I'd have preferred it going into force already as a way to pressure these politicians into grander ambitions.
The threat to the Pentagon therefore endures, which frightens those Republicans and many Democrats still wedded to a Cold War defense strategy a couple of decades after the Cold War ended. And the threat to Medicare hasn't gone away for the Democrats. Both sides will want to mitigate these crude cuts — and closing loopholes is one way to do it. Another Small Bargain with more revenues — and fewer loopholes — is therefore not necessarily a pipe dream. And so you see that Obama's re-election has meant the biggest increase in revenues to the federal government since That would not have happened under Romney.
And if the tax deal is not as big as the polls suggest Obama could have gotten away with, it is in part because of the contextual reasons Bruce Bartlett lays out here , in part because Obama genuinely believes in exercizing responsibility as president, but also in part because the president wants to avoid too much austerity too soon as we inch out of the worst recession since the s.
It seems to me this latter point is under-rated. The left often talked of the fiscal cliff as if it were only win-win for Obama. It wasn't, in my view. He faced two dangers: of seeming unable to come up with a compromise which is integral to his appeal and of seeing the US economy sink under the weight of an imprudent and drastic reduction in demand.
Atrocious, not scandals? The corporate media didn't define it as such, so no scandal. The Washington Times. Oh, so because the Washington Times.
Once Again, Off Topic. How the heck am I off topic? When exactly did he "Attack Libya"?? You're joking right? A date would be nice. I take it that True dat. Why bother? Did you watch or read a damn thing I linked to? Thanks for posting! You sound like another blue links-using Obamabot apologist!
Alas, my links are blue just like everyone else's. Ironically, a blue link means the reader has never looked at it. Perfectly said. If I could bookmark this, I would. Outstanding article by Andrew Sullivan. I think Andrew hits it on the money Great find. But the President is a super progressive libereal! I think this states the case very well. Sorry I can't help you Skinner. I don't have any centrist friends.
Health care reform helped to cost us the election. The notion of some longterm economic game is just utter tripe. Well, I'm a DUer and a liberal. Does anyone else want to puke until you can't puke anymore about this defense of Magnificent series of posts, eridani. Thanks, but as far as refutation so far Of course. The delusion was successful because Democrats refused to use countermessaging. And that is what is destroying us among voters.
Thanks ever so much. They might have "voted" but they didn't GOTV, which is far more important. They got out more votes because they successfully faked being defenders of Medicare.
And how did they "successfully fake being defenders of Medicare"? The Commission's point was to put attacking Social Security and Medicare on the table. It was never "on the table. It never got out of committee. Focusing on his dumbest critics.
Except that the left critiques happen to be persuasive. Here's one conservative who seems to have come a long way since his support for "Bell Curve" theories from his sordid past. For what it's worth, Sullivan is still a believer in the Bell Curve theory, writing in support of it as recently as this past November.
Sully is a con who was driven from the GOP by Bush rec. An excellent read. But I still think that the president would fare better this November by governing the way he campaigned, and rallying those 70,, voters who swept him into office last time.
I'm open to rethinking about being open minded when it comes to Sully, but there's no need to attack me. If you have information to send, I'd be willing to consider, but the attacks are not necessary.
Be careful who you talk to. You don't know me or anything about me. I didn't think I was attacking you. I was just pointing out that for extreme Obama devotees, his support for Obama trumps his unrepentant support of The Bell Curve. If you see yourself in that comment, then By the way, what's the point of sending that info on Sullivan to some of his conservative supporters?
Why would they care that he hasn't changed his mind on The Bell Curve? Wouldn't it be better to send it to some liberal "Sully fans"?
No, the point for sending it to the conservative folks who like Sully is that they didn't know about his Bell Curve views. And yes, you were rude in your post.
It's not a way to win over folks to your side. You are condescending and a jerk. Sullivan truly is a gifted writer. And of course, I happen to agree with him. I think this is great and not just for centrists and independents It's good for all to note: Biased toward the actual record, not the spin; biased toward a president who has conducted himself with grace and calm under incredible pressure, who has had to manage crises not seen since the Second World War and the Depression, and who as yet has not had a single significant scandal to his name.
Attacking Libya without consulting Congress? Appealing to the authority of the UN instead??? Fast and Furious??? And those are just 3 scandalous items. Did Bush I have any sort of scandal or was he in there too briefly? I think you're working with a definition of "scandal" that many have gotten used to where the meaning of "scandal" deals more with actions in the dark than the violations they reflect.
The constitution mandates that congress "declare war" prior to attacking sovereign nations Article One, Section Eight of the Constitution. Attacking Libya without congressional vote would be a treasonous action done in the light, not in secret, and should require the impeachment of President Obama.
A president who represents the money grubbing defense department and MIC. From the article I linked to: "Agent Brian Terry was killed by weapons that were part this illegal Obama administration operation He was a victim of his own government. This is not only a major scandal; it is a high crime that potentially reaches all the way to the White House, implicating senior officials.
Operation Fast and Furious About Mexicans have been killed by Fast and Furious weapons. More than 1, guns remain lost. Agent Terry likely will not be the last U. This Obama signing is a treasonous act par excellence. He swore to protect the constitution, not destroy its statutes!
I hate the Bush crime family like a Celtics fan hates the Lakers. Wake the F up everyone! The corporate media didn't define it as such, so no scandal Just more abusive wordsmithing by a self-hating egotistical twit. The Washington Times Get real. Next thing you will be quoting Fox News.
Try thinking for yourself for once. If that was even possible you might understand what Sullivan means but I don't hold my breath. Instead, Obama reversed Bush's policy of ignoring Osama bin Laden, immediately setting a course that eventually led to his capture and death. And when the moment for decision came, the president overruled both his secretary of state and vice president in ordering the riskiest—but most ambitious—plan on the table. He even personally ordered the extra helicopters that saved the mission.
It was a triumph, not only in killing America's primary global enemy, but in getting a massive trove of intelligence to undermine al Qaeda even further. If George Bush had taken out bin Laden, wiped out al Qaeda's leadership, and gathered a treasure trove of real intelligence by a daring raid, he'd be on Mount Rushmore by now. But where Bush talked tough and acted counterproductively, Obama has simply, quietly, relentlessly decimated our real enemies, while winning the broader propaganda war.
Since he took office, al Qaeda's popularity in the Muslim world has plummeted. Obama's foreign policy, like Dwight Eisenhower's or George H. Bush's, eschews short-term political hits for long-term strategic advantage.
It is forged by someone interested in advancing American interests—not asserting an ideology and enforcing it regardless of the consequences by force of arms. By hanging back a little, by "leading from behind" in Libya and elsewhere, Obama has made other countries actively seek America's help and reappreciate our role. As an antidote to the bad feelings of the Iraq War, it has worked close to perfectly. But the right isn't alone in getting Obama wrong. While the left is less unhinged in its critique, it is just as likely to miss the screen for the pixels.
From the start, liberals projected onto Obama absurd notions of what a president can actually do in a polarized country, where anything requires 60 Senate votes even to stand a chance of making it into law.
They have described him as a hapless tool of Wall Street, a continuation of Bush in civil liberties, a cloistered elitist unable to grasp the populist moment that is his historic opportunity. They rail against his attempts to reach a Grand Bargain on entitlement reform. They decry his too-small stimulus, his too-weak financial reform, and his too-cautious approach to gay civil rights.
They despair that he reacts to rabid Republican assaults with lofty appeals to unity and compromise. They miss, it seems to me, two vital things.
The first is the simple scale of what has been accomplished on issues liberals say they care about. A depression was averted. The bail-out of the auto industry was—amazingly—successful. Even the bank bailouts have been repaid to a great extent by a recovering banking sector. The Iraq War—the issue that made Obama the nominee—has been ended on time and, vitally, with no troops left behind. Defense is being cut steadily, even as Obama has moved his own party away from a Pelosi-style reflexive defense of all federal entitlements.
Under Obama, support for marriage equality and marijuana legalization has crested to record levels. Under Obama, a crucial state, New York, made marriage equality for gays an irreversible fact of American life.
Gays now openly serve in the military, and the Defense of Marriage Act is dying in the courts, undefended by the Obama Justice Department. Vast government money has been poured into noncarbon energy investments, via the stimulus.
Fuel-emission standards have been drastically increased. Torture was ended. Two moderately liberal women replaced men on the Supreme Court. Oh, yes, and the liberal holy grail that eluded Johnson and Carter and Clinton, nearly universal health care, has been set into law.
Politifact recently noted that of specific promises, a third had been fulfilled and only two have not had some action taken on them. To have done all this while simultaneously battling an economic hurricane makes Obama about as honest a follow-through artist as anyone can expect from a politician. What liberals have never understood about Obama is that he practices a show-don't-tell, long-game form of domestic politics. What matters to him is what he can get done, not what he can immediately take credit for.
And so I railed against him for the better part of two years for dragging his feet on gay issues.
0コメント