Hey! Remember when Libs and Dems automatically assumed they were smarter than their so-easily manipulated, low-convolution count Right-Wing counterparts?
Remember when they pitied those squelched, moderate, sane Republicans who had clearly been overwhelmed by their party's deep, wet, sloppy embrace of the of fringe berserkers and who were almost forced to jettison any pretense of achieving things through a traditional democratic process?
Remember when the Left even accepted the fact that it was itself ill equipped to wage a similar psychological blitzkrieg by dint of its sheer damnable humanity and cursed reason and swishy analytical tendencies, lacking the cohesion to put even the least offensive social policies across in order to sate an exploited and misused public hungering for simple answers to complex questions, they at least had an understanding of the predictable ebbs and flows of our nation's sociopolitical history?
Then you're just playing the role you're being programmed to play.
For, to buy into the writ-in-crayon meme of Obama having "let us down" or being "vulnerable in 2012" or that he is in any way "less than what we hoped he would be" makes us -- the supposedly smarter, more sensitive, better educated Liberals -- into the slobbering chumps we have characterized our opposition to be. We've just processed our hypnotic suggestions through our hopelessly-hampered-by-Liberalism brains differently.
Here are the facts: Barack Obama was handed the worst situation imaginable in this modern era and has taken all the steps possible to correct the catastrophe. And saps that we are, many -- including myself -- have felt less than satisfied.
It's a cheap parlor trick and the Right has been expertly employing it (the only employment they can be credited with creating) for some time: going so extreme in rhetoric and gesture that any compromise in response only seems reasonable and right, even when by most standards it most certainly ain't. Going absolutely apeshit with the manufactured debt ceiling crisis yielded a shit deal which seemed reasonable and in their favor. Going bull goose loony with health care yielded flawed and inadequate legislation. Vomit round-the-clock nonsense about patriotism and "otherness" and socialism and you get a comfortably ignorant mass, motivated by fear and repulsed by traditional values of ethics, service and thrift. But be assured that this is a pas de deux, not a solo.
The Right is such a writhing spectacle of insanity, hubris and Bald, Bullying Bad that the Left's inevitable response, as much devoid of subtlety, is a fitting match and anything other than the Right's complete eradication -- an understandable but irrational desire given the IEDs strewn in Obama's path from minute one -- is doomed to failure. This president has had attack dogs snapping at his legs, hands, throat and nuts while still trying to govern a broken country with intelligence, play the corporate game and just survive. And all at the same time.
But the Left forgets that it, too, lives in a world of the 24 hour spews -- sorry -- news cycle and despite a healthy disdain for such Orwellian invention is itself vulnerable to it's toxic runoff and collateral effects. Witness then, the current and utterly predictable disappointment with our besieged president.
So even the highest dudgeon fits the contrived scenario perfectly. American consumers didn't buy the unholy scourge that is Ring-Around-the-Collar for nothing. The dudes marketing capitalism know exactly what they're doing and how to pierce even the most impregnable hearts and minds.
So just because you listen to NPR, wanna sleep with Rachel Maddow (even if it's only for the cuddling) and know that there was a film industry that pre-dates Star Wars doesn't mean your brain is not washable. Our instincts about Obama were sound -- he's got the goods. The Right's instincts about him were sound, too. He threatens their primacy for a reason and are therefore going after him with everything they can concoct. Hell, the Tea Party's instincts, misapplied and misused though they may be, are sound as well. Better, more efficient, more accountable government? I'm there!
So, Libs and Cons alike: turn Slim Whitman up to 11 and fight the power that is desperate to stop Americans from doing the work that is before us. And that we smartly elected our president to do.
Snap out of it!
Follow Steven Weber on Twitter: www.twitter.com/TheStevenWeber
I've been walking over the battlefield observing the carnage myself, and I see a couple of iffigies of Obama still smouldering on the grass. There's a primary candidate supporter who didn't make it, and a third-party-run advocate or two, cut down in the trenches.
And whoa! Is that a "limousine liberal's" limo still smoking up there on the ridge? That admirable defender of the left's ideals, took a direct hit from friendly fire. That's not supposed to happen.
And, just like in WWl and WWll, the dead horses are the most disturbing sight in the battle's aftermath.
Some fella once said, "A house divided against itself, cannot stand." Seems like we've got a house breaking apart on all sides. Where's Bob Vila, when you really need him?
Tried to post this once, I'll try again.
Apparently Steven is now the victim of the kind of restriction that previously had only been exercised on posters.
I have him "linked" on my Huffpost Social News, which shows a comment that never made it to the thread, and if I click on the link, it shows the comment as "removed".
So much for the "liberal control of the media" we've all heard so much about.
WTF! I couldn't get this blog or any of Steven's other blogs to show up on his main profile, and now the comments to his new blog, "Bullies," is closed.
Thanks so much for this reply, SirReal1.
I certainly hope my reply to Steven wasn't taken in the wrong way. It was meant to be playful, and to try to break some of the tension of the sometimes heated debates going on. I'm definitely on Steven's side in this debate (as well as yours), and have always realized that we must unite and get both Obama and Congress back next year.
Tried to lay the Obama debate out for those seriously concidering not voting for him, in my tweeking of Hamlet's "To be or not to be" soliloquy, but I guess I should have just simply said, "There's effed up, and then there's Republican and effed up."
Loved your arguments as to why we must vote next year. Why that vote must include Obama. I had those very same arguments at this same time last year, when I was posting under another sign-on.
Trying to convince liberals not to stay home, and got many of the same BS replies. And we know where that "send a message" got us.
Anyway, thanks again for this reply, and would you mind letting me know if you receive it? This is all too strange, and I hope Steven's not truly being censored. We need his voice now more than ever.
M. Lewis
The 2006 elections were precipitated on two significant issues in voters minds. First, the Republican Congress, during the first 6 years of the Bush administration, had become little more than a "rubber stamp" for any endeavor the White House engaged in. The system of "checks and balances" had virtually disappeared, allowing an ambitious agenda by a power hungry executive branch to be pushed through with little discussion and even less debate. Second, the Republican Congress had become notorious for its lack of initiative. The "do nothing" Congress held less legislative sessions, fewer votes, less investigations and had more "holiday time" than nearly any previous Congress in America's history.
Four years later, we gave them back their jobs.
The Republicans "stormed back into control" with the landslide 2010 victories, premised upon one significant issue that had captured voters passions. JOBS!
What have they done since coming back into power? Legislated women's reproductive health and taken LOTS more time-off!
Actually, "debate" isn't the right word, it doesn't really capture what we are engaged in. Two and a half years of vitriol, obstruction, obfuscation, and outright LIES, have resulted in a laser focus on the highest office in the land, and yet not. The American electorate, IS focused, but they are focused on an image of the President, as drawn by one of those "caricature artists" who make their living by recognizing, and then comically highlighting, minute aspects of their subjects appearance, only there has been no "humor" in this rendering, no humility or humanity in the artist's vision. The "Rembrandt's of the Right" have sought to paint a vision from Dante', where moles become hugely exaggerated warts, thin lips become sneers, eyes are depicted as hollow and empty of emotion, a popularly elected leader as the enemy of ANY true American.
They have sought to demonize and denigrate with such energy and enthusiasm that, at times, they seem nearly giddy when they see evidence of a measure of success. We've all seen it, it's been commented on and reported in the media, yet, we seem to be incapable of defending ourselves against its affect.
We have allowed them to characterize every negative as "the fault of the President", while any positive is attributed to some other agent. Them, the "strength of our system", a "bi-partisan effort in the House, the Senate, the Congress, ANYTHING but the President.
Elections, particularly those for the highest offices, are often won by very small percentages. This is what they count on.
A little manipulation of the electorate. A few people who "stay home", or cast a "protest vote", combined with some changes in State laws (to reduce the number of "legal voters"), some "redistricting", and *POOF* , a Republican President, with a Republican House, Senate, and Supreme Court!
This battle is being waged on multiple fronts! Those who they can persuade to commit desertion on one front, can cause the kind of "mass desertion" that led to the results we saw in 2010. Look at Michigan, Wisconsin, Ohio, and Florida! Is this the kind of Government you want?
The President is not the only player in the game. He's been challenged, blocked, denigrated, over-ridden, and objected to by EVERY player on the Right, and many on the SUPPOSED Left.
He's not a Liberal. He's not a Progressive. He's not Pro-Labor. He's not supporting Main St. He's not Pro-gay. He's not any different than BUSH!
Seriously?
They want you to focus on the Presidential election. They've put a lot of time and effort into convincing you that your "enthusiasm" and "hope" were misplaced. They want you to believe that there isn't any significant difference between re-electing President Obama or having a Republican elected (and, by extension, no difference in having a Democratic or Republican Senator, Representative, Governor, Mayor, or Dog Catcher).
Here's a clip of how women got duped into becoming smokers.
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=qsUM1AtqS1I
"We" have had decades to improve upon the process. It's not fair, but here we are. If it turns out that we have a commander-in-cheat, then who is to blame, and how do we go about restoring our integrity and trust. It is my belief that once the trust is restored we can prosper like never before.
If the electorate could get off their computers and their couches and into the streets to make some noise - not just one Saturday when you feel like it, but once or twice every month, in every city and town across the nation - then they would force both Congress and White House to listen to them.
Silence - in politics - equals acquiescence.
Me? I prefer a president who chooses his battles and actually gets something done.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Inverted_totalitarianism
Obama IS playing a corporate game; he HASN'T taken "all the steps possible to correct the catastrophe." It's as if you need us to enumerate all the wrong things!
How about just one or two -- 1. he allowed the Republicans to control the debt debate by refusing to raise the debt ceiling unilaterally, 2. he helped push through the renewal of the goddamned Patriot Act, which continues to rob us of civil liberty and privacy and security to this day.
I find my hopes for you as a voice for progressives -- dead.
They are making legitimate criticisms for legitimate failures, but I doubt either feels that the President is SOLELY RESPONSIBLE for those failures, or that they will vote for anyone but the President in that election.
There is an ongoing tendency to look with disfavor on the Presidents performance in a pitched battle with an intransigent and relentless POWERFUL Republican Party. He's lost a few fights, I would rather have seen him win, but he's been much like a single fighter in a "cage match" against a PACK of opponents.
Let's take out some of their teeth, give him some allies, and then see who's side he supports, and how many WINS he can rack up.
1. He is a lousy negotator. One of the worst I have ever seen. he does not know his own BATNA and he never starts off with a firm opening.
2. He has no understanding of economic policies.
3. He rarely sets clear goals with timetables and measurable outcomes and when he does and these are ignored, he does nothing.
4. He permits his opposition to define what issues are most important and the framework through which these issues ought to be approached. In essence he was hired to drive, but instead has chosen to be a whiny insignificant backseat passenger.
5. He waits until issues become a crisis instead of anticipating issues in advance. Leaders get out ahead and lead. Obama is unable to do this.
6. He has confused constructive rivalry and destructive opposition and continues to try engage his avowed enemies in productive partnesrship which they continue to use to exploit and manipulate him.
the one good he has is public speaking, and that just is not enough.
In my opinion, your criticisms are not totally valid nor do they add up to the negative assessment you lay out.
I have spend my entire professional life with senior management and from where I stand I see competence in the face of an intransigent interest group that criticizes every word and action.
I don't know what your actual knowledge is but I cannot accept extreme statements like "he is a lousy negotiator" without knowing what went on in the negotiations. The same is true for all your 6 statements. They are opinions, not facts and I am skeptical of them.
Don't like the outcome? Get the extreme right out of Congress.
Or complain and let the extreme right govern this country in 2012.
Realistically those are your choices. Personally I urge you to manage your disappointment and focus on the reality we face. Criticize those who are most to blame.
Charlie
all you are offering is opinions as well. that's all this place has to offer, and if you do not like it then I do not see why you come here.
Yes Obama is a lousy negotiator.
He has no understanding of the concept of BATNA. Do You? its a very basic negotiating concept that any competent negotiator ought to know and be able to put to good use. Obama's failre to understand this very basic concept is one reason he agrees to lousy deals.
Obama also does not understand that his opening position can set up a desired result.
Let's take health care. a competent negotiator could open by forcefully demanding single payer universal health care and then fight hard for this and finally settle on the establishment of the public option as a compromise.
Nothing would have done more to reform health care short of universal single payer, than a public option because if people had a better cheaper option than private for profit insurance then insurance would need to cut rates and deliver better results just to stay in business.
Obama campaigned on the public option. But he never eaven tried for it. Instead he began by asking what his opponents wanted, and then he failed to offer an effective counter offer.
the GOP wins so long as Obama stays in the race. If Obama wins, the GOP wins, if Obama loses the GOP wins. There are still better options.
in case you have not noticed, Obama is already allowing the extreme right to govern this nation.
He was confronted by about 80 teabag freshman repub congresspeople, who absolutely would not compromise on the issue of taxes, but insisted on limiting deficit reduction to spending cuts.
Obama had an option - invoking the 14th amendment, and unilaterally raising the debt ceiling. It's been done before, by Truman. Had he done that, the tea party repubs would have been neutralized, and he wouldn't have led the dems to the terrible rout that they have now suffered.
Bill Clinton said he would have invoked the amendment without hesitation. Pelosi wanted Obama to do it, rather than give away the store.
I have no doubt that any of our top tier chief executives, facing the same threat, would have done the same thing.
To add insult to injury, the polls were unequivocal: By a large margin, Americans want a balanced approach that includes tax increases on the wealthy and cuts to spending.
And what would have been the result? The tea partiers would have looked like the radical extremists that they are, and lost favor among almost all Americans - certainly the independents. Obama would have burnished his reputation as a leader, rather than tarnishing it.
To be a truly effective chief executive, you have to have a certain measure of ruthlessness when it comes to your enemies. Obama is missing that
He is a constitutional lawyer and when he said that the case for unilateral executive action was weak. I believe him.
Do you really think it is so simple? There was a "good choice that would not give away the store" and a "bad choice that would." And dumb Obama chose the wrong one because he was too weak and frightened to stand up to the Tea Party?
I think that is a serious oversimplification.
If you want the tea partiers to be exposed for what they are, contact the news media and demand that they be more honest in their coverage. It was not "congress" who is the problem and as long as they don't make the distinction between politicians willing to govern and ideological obstructionists, America will be confused.
Charlie
Oh well.
while it is convenient to dengrate those who disagree with you, a more interesting question to ask is why are people now abandoning Obama when many of us so eagerly supported his election?
My problem with Obama is that he seems to have concluded that the only actual skill a presdient needs is public speaking. While it might actually be ture that this is all one needs to win a Presidential election, the performance of prior Presidents indicates that those who performed well had both traits and skills that Obama never bothered to acquire, or even knew he needed to actually be effective.
Go ahead and offer your excuses, but just be aware that excuses are no substitute for actual performance.