| The Colbert Report | Mon - Thurs 11:30pm / 10:30c | |||
| The Word - Unrequited Gov | ||||
| ||||
OK, John, this one's for you. :)
Like it or not - and I don't - this is Obama getting what he can from a GOP riding high after the recent election. I wouldn't mind as much if Barack Obama would just fight about something, but giving in to Republican demands has become a dependable pattern for him (and, indeed, for Democrats in general). When will he take a stand?
Yet I can't say that he's entirely wrong here, either:
"Take a tally. Look at what I promised during the campaign. There's not a single thing that I haven't done or tried to do," the president said.
He staunchly defended his decision to deal with the GOP in order to extend about-to-expire tax cuts for all Americans.
"There are some who would have preferred a protracted political fight," the president said at a White House news conference a day after the compromise was announced. "And I understand the desire for a fight. I'm sympathetic to that."
Many Democrats in Congress are unhappy about the agreement because it continues tax breaks for the wealthiest Americans. But Obama said a long political battle "would be a bad deal for the economy. And it would be a bad deal for the American people."
He promised a renewed fight during 2012 when the tax cuts would expire again, making the point that he still opposes the Republican position that high-income earners should get the extension, too. The agreement includes individuals making $200,000 or more a year and families making $250,000 or more.
Obama called "tax cuts for the wealthy" the Republicans' "holy grail." ...
Obama cast his decision to accede to the GOP position on extending the tax cuts in stark terms.
"It's tempting not to negotiate with hostage takers -- unless the hostage gets harmed. Then, people will question the wisdom of that strategy. In this case, the hostage was the American people, and I was not willing to see them get harmed."
The big problem is this pattern of caving to the GOP on everything. There are enough spineless Democrats in Congress. We don't need another one in the White House. What we need is a leader!
Sadly, we've gotten the world's worst negotiator. Republicans have learned that he won't stand up to them on anything. They know that his primary goal is simply to get an agreement. So of course they get everything and he gets nothing, or nearly so.
There's nothing wrong with compromise, but we progressives need someone who will stake out a strong position and defend it fiercely. If you're not willing to fight, all negotiations will turn into one-sided concessions. That's why the Democratic base is upset. That's why I'm upset. It's this continual pattern we've been seeing for almost two years now.
Of course, for years I've seen this from Democrats. Throughout the Bush administration, Democrats just meekly went along with the GOP. Democratic politicians were completely spineless. But Barack Obama seemed to be different, at least during the campaign. That's why his supporters were so enthusiastic. And now he'd completely squandered that enthusiasm.
This is just confirming that pattern. And if Barack Obama doesn't change - radically - in the next two years, it's going to be a complete disaster for the Democrats and for America. And at that point, in 2012, the disasters will only be beginning. You think the Bush administration was disastrous for our country and our world? Just wait for the next Republican president.
Posts
2 comments:
Obama is a coward. And Republicans are a bully. Remember in "Back to the Future" the character George McFly never stood up to his high school bully, Biff, so he was still doing Biff's work for him even as an adult? Obama is starting to remind me of Geroge McFly. Why do the Republicans need a Republican president when Obama does their homework for them?
Obma uses the analogy that Republicans are hostage takers, the American people are hostages and that he is the hostage negotiator. And he says I could have fought the hostage takers but I was afraid the American people would get hurt. Using that analogy, Obama just gave a bunch of hostage takers the plane they wanted and the millions of dollars they wanted and just let them go. A real hostage negotiator gives the hostage takers what they want but only because there is a plan down the line to catch the criminals when the hostages are out of harms way.
What is the plan here? Obama makes cryptic statements that going to renew the fight in 2012. Is he talking about his reelection? If he wants to get reelected he is going to have to take a stand somewhere or his campaign is going to be laughable.
Well, John, there are a couple of other interpretations you might find of interest.
Here's David Kurtz at TPM talking about Obama's "seminal moment" where he's announced very clearly that he's a pragmatist, without much patience for idealists.
And here's Jonathan Chait calling this compromise a "huge win" (maybe), because the Democrats got far more than the Republicans did. According to him, the Republicans were "willing to bargain away a lot to help the very rich."
So there are a lot of different ways to look at it, and we won't know which is correct for awhile. Whatever the truth, we progressives have no choice but to support Barack Obama, if we don't want to just hand the presidency to the GOP in 2012. That doesn't mean we can't bitch, but we absolutely can't give up hope.
Still, someone has got to get through to Obama that enthusiasm matters. (I can't believe I even have to say that, considering his masterful campaign in 2008.) Pragmatism is fine, but it doesn't get people enthused. And nothing he does, with the possible exception of resigning from office, will ever make the GOP stop their relentless lies.
Post a Comment