Five Ways Obama Went Wrong

In a new story up on Time.com, I run through some of the working theories, and argue that they each contain a bit of truth.

1. The challenges were just too big for any one man. The thinking here is pretty straightforward: Obama was not elected Emperor. He was elected President, subject to the onerous balance of powers, in a hyper-partisan age, with only slight Democratic majorities in the House and Senate, an enormously well-oiled lobbying industry, and a divided Democratic party. Even if the President’s policies prevented financial catastrophe, there was no quick fix available to forestall the long period of economic struggle that has followed. The most commonly recommended solution, massive government stimulus, carried with it its own political downside, as polls show significant voter unease with the massive deficits. (See a report card on Obama’s first year.)

2. Crises are not opportunities; they are just crises. If the Obama Administration had a mantra coming into office, it was this: Don’t waste a crisis. As Larry Summers said in January 2009, “Any study of history reveals that with crisis comes enormous fluidity in the system.” In other words, when the going gets rough, go big. It all sounded great at the time, but it was flat wrong. In a time of economic suffering, the American people want a President who focuses on one thing, and one thing only — improving their lives in the short term. They stop caring so much about global warming, or health-care reforms that won’t take effect until 2013.

3. The Obama mandate was not what it seemed. No one can doubt the wave of enthusiasm that brought Obama to office, but many have been surprised by just how quickly the independent voters who supported Obama in 2008 have turned against him. In New Jersey, Virginia and now Massachusetts, independents have sided with Republicans over the last six months, continuing their long time dissatisfaction with whomever holds power in Washington, D.C. In a press briefing Tuesday, White House Spokesman Robert Gibbs seemed to lend support to this idea. “In many ways we’re here because of that upset and anger,” Gibbs said of the frustration driving independent support to Republican Scott Brown’s campaign. “That upset and anger, quite frankly, dates much farther back than simply the 2008 election. That’s not to talk about any previous Administration, except for quite some time the middle class has thought that Washington was looking out for Washington and the big special interests, and not looking out for them.” As soon as Obama settled into office, voters decided he wasn’t the change they wanted. (See who’s who in Barack Obama’s White House.)

4. Health care is just too hard. It was the third rail that burned the last Democratic president, Bill Clinton, in his first years in office. It strikes at emotional pressure points that make reasoned debate difficult to maintain. And it involves too many powerful interest groups — doctors, hospitals, drug companies, the elderly — who have countervailing interests, making compromise almost impossible. The nation’s founders designed a government that moved slowly, making the task of taking on an issue as big and complicated as health care more than the system could bear.

5. Americans just don’t like government. “Americans are an unusual people,” New York Times columnist David Brooks argued in Tuesday’s New York Times. “They seem to want a government that is helpful but not imperious, strong but not subordinate.” A cynic might put it differently, that Americans want all the benefits of government without having to pay much for it. Obama’s own belief in the power of government, combined with the major government interventions required by the financial crises, spooked many voters, who worried about the trillions of dollars in additional government spending required by the stimulus efforts and health-care reform.

Don’t agree with the list above? Go into the comments below and write your own theory for where Obama went wrong. Will make another post out of it, if there are enough thoughtful responses.–M.

Related Topics: Uncategorized
  • Latest on Swampland

    Pete Souza / The White House via Getty Images

    Political Picures of the Week, May 18-25

    TIME’s photo editors bring you the best pictures of the past week from the Beltway and beyond.

    Obama Administration Blocks Global Health Fund To Fight Disease In Developing NationsHuffPost Politics

    From left: AP; ABACAUSA

    The Phony War: Obama and Romney Are Debating Character, Not Policy

    More than five months from Election Day, the back-and-forth about Mitt Romney’s record at Bain already feels played out. Unfortunately, there’s good reason to expect the campaign continues in this vein indefinitely. Neither Barack Obama nor Mitt Romney are terribly interested in dwelling on policy platforms. Romney’s plan to slash spending and keep taxes low on the wealthy isn’t especially popular, at least not at any level of detail beyond a blithe promise to shrink the deficit. Meanwhile, Obama’s signature first-term achievements, like health care, the stimulus and Wall Street reform, are all unpopular or tricky to sell. (The Dodd-Frank bill is the most popular of these, but hyping it means offending wealthy donors.) So what we’re getting instead is a superficial duel about character–and, worse, one that’s based on the largely false premise that the better man can better “manage” the economy back to health.

  • stuartzechman

    Does somebody else want to take this on?
    .
    This is just some of the worst analysis I’ve come across.
    .
    It’s just mind-bogglingly inaccurate on so many levels, it’s ludicrous.

  • allthingsinaname

    1. Lack of direction
    2. Lack of leadership
    3. Lack of strenghth.
    4. Mixed message
    5. So Pragmnatic that he was forzen in place.

  • afguy

    In a time of economic suffering, the American people want a President who focuses on one thing, and one thing only — improving their lives in the short term.
    .
    Oh, BS, Michael!! That comment is straight out of the Reagan campaign playbook. “Are you better off today than you were four years ago?”
    .
    Doesn’t that contradict our stated need not to saddle our children with debts WE created?? Sounds like you are saying we’ve become a nation of greedy, selfish, short-sighted ba$tards.
    .
    Isn’t that type of philosophy what got us to this economic position in the first place?
    .
    I want someone at the top who isn’t trying to buy us off for his reelection chances.

  • afguy

    stuart,
    .
    I wish Cincy were still commenting. He had a unique talent for commenting on bilge such as this.

  • anon76

    but, but, he quoted David Brooks. That’s got to count for something.

  • stuartzechman

    So many left us after Time did that asinine Beck cover, and ridiculous middle of the road “analysis” and “profile”.
    .
    Cinci would have had something useful to say about this amazing dreck Scherer’s been paid to produce.

  • anon76

    afguy- you may want that, but it seems to me that in the mind of political reporters “not trying to buy us off for his reelection chances” is what they mean by “went wrong”. It seems that getting it right is more about getting re-elected than passing legislation that substantially improves constituents’ lives.

  • http://www.ghostnote.com Cookie Puss

    Flush. Twice.

  • shepherdwong

    Does somebody else want to take this on?
    .
    Here:

    Don’t believe any of it. Here’s what’s really going on. In Massachusetts, in New Jersey, all over the nation, voters are petrified of losing their jobs, their homes, and what’s left of their savings. Nothing counts more than the economy. Rightly or wrongly, presidents and the party in power are blamed when the economy is lousy. Voters fired Jimmy Carter in 1980 because the economy went south. They fired George Bush the first in 1992 because the economy was awful. They fired congressional Democrats in 1994 because the economy was still awful. And they’re in the process of firing Obama and the Democrats — unless or until the economy turns around.

    http://robertreich.org/post/344459321/what-scott-browns-victory-really-means

  • allthingsinaname

    We gave them the authority and the power to act. They didn’t, end of story. Even Brown is threatening them now, and off the go with the tail between their legs protecting their own private interests.
    .
    Seems there is nowhere for the voters to go. Certainly there is no one in the Democratic Party to rally behind.

  • afguy

    allthings,
    .
    Yes to all of those.
    .
    I wonder how long it’s going to take those in DC to realize how badly they’ve “screwed the pooch”.
    .
    Memo to Obama: the Rahm Emanual/Karl Rove playbooks of perpetual campaigning and legislative gamesmanship suck!
    .
    TRUST is a hard thing to re-earn. Time’s running out…

  • deconstructiva

    …stuart, take it on, go for it, don’t be at a loss for words. I’ll toss in one table scrap: re: last point, do journalists “don’t like” govt. too? Without that first amendment thingy they’d have no govt.-enforced legal protection from covering the same govt. they despise (aka biting the hand that feeds them, which in MS’s case literally may be true if he gets food and drinks at WH pressers).

  • afguy

    anon76,
    .
    No argument at all with what you say.
    .
    I hope that way of strategic thinking never starts to make sense to me on an ethical/moral level.

  • stuartzechman

    I’m re-reading this again, and I’m just dumbstruck.
    .
    This is a shockingly bad piece.
    .
    I can’t believe Scherer wrote this, unless there was a gun put to his head or something.
    .
    Fatuous, facile, cliched, patronizing, inaccurate (“go big”?), unqualified quotes from Summers and Brooks, nothing in the way of introspection in terms of how political-media dysfunction interacts with a failed process, the anti-common folk airs of Versailles, the reliance on official pronouncements, empty-headed repetition of decades-old Conventional Wisdom and insider-y truthi-ness…

    And all of this nonsense printed in the service of Scherer’s overwhelming (and obvious) priority: advertising his own objectivity, and disappearing the press corps from the picture.
    .
    Just so, so disappointing…and ridiculous.

  • shepherdwong

    “Seems there is nowhere for the voters to go. Certainly there is no one in the Democratic Party to rally behind.”
    .
    Oh, bullsh*t. But we’ve already established that you don’t even know who the liberals are. Look, it took thirty years of corporatist policies and propaganda to get us to this level of dysfunction and outright corporate control of government. And there are still many liberal/progressives in the Congress. It’s not about rallying around anyone (except that’s all authoritarian followers know how to do), it’s about replacing the corporate whores with better representatives of the people’s business. The problem will always be people like you who can’t tell sh*t from Shinola.

  • square1

    Let me dive in.
    .
    1. The challenges were just too big for any one man.
    .
    Wrong. The challenges were no bigger than those faced by LBJ in passing landmark civil rights legislation, or FDR in addressing a worse economic crisis.
    .
    2. Crises are not opportunities; they are just crises.
    .
    Wrong. Summers is 100% right. Scherer fails to grasp that crises have context. A financial crisis creates opportunities for big changes in the financial system. An unemployment crisis creates opportunities for big job growth policies. A crisis of health care costs creates opportunities for big changes in health care financing and delivery. A climate crisis creates opportunities for big changes in energy consumption policies. A energy cost crisis creates opportunities for big changes in energy generation policies.
    .
    Does a jobs crisis create opportunities for climate change policies? No. But so what?
    .
    The problem for Obama hasn’t been that he has tried to go “too big” (e.g. proposing single-payer). His problem was that he had a mandate for big changes and has preferred to tinker around the margins.
    .
    3. The Obama mandate was not what it seemed.
    .
    Wrong. The mandate was exactly what it seemed. The President wasn’t what he seemed.
    .
    4. Health care is just too hard.
    .
    Wrong. Clinton got burned because (A) he was inept in managing the legislative process and (B) he failed to deliver a solution. But there isn’t anything magical about HCR that is too hard. It just requires political will that Obama lacks.
    .
    5. Americans just don’t like government.
    .
    Wrong. Americans just want results. They don’t trust government because they believe that it is bloated, wasteful, inefficient, and slow. Whatever solution that Democrats came up with for HCR, should have been one that Democrats could have sold as countering this stereotype. Unfortunately, the Rube-Goldberg solution that the Democrats settled on is complicated, wasteful, and confusing.

  • shepherdwong

    “This is a shockingly bad piece. I can’t believe Scherer wrote this…
    .
    Really? What’s the surprising part?

  • http://twitter.com/michaelscherer Michael Scherer

    For Stuart, I would add a #6.
    .
    6. It’s the media, stupid. The national political press, obsessed with chasing stories about conflict, its own self importance and tangential issues like Sarah Palin’s Facebook notes, Obama, a great communicator by any measure, was not able to communicate his reasoning for his actions to the American people.

  • sy2d

    CJS wants to give you your money back.

  • afguy

    Thanks you, Michael, for the addition.
    .
    This is so self-evident (and has been for some time).

  • Exiled_At_Home (formerly Neo)

    [Cincy] had a unique talent for commenting on bilge such as this.
    ~
    In addition to the unique talent of spouting bilge. This is the same Cincy that repeatedly accused KT of publicizing the death of her brother to further her journalism career. When so well versed in the exhortation of utter bile, I should hope one would occasionally have the ability to offer some first-hand insights into such matters.

  • stuartzechman

    Michael Scherer:
    .
    It’s just too bad for reality-based reportage that Rick Stengel won’t let #6 into the magazine or the Time.com story, but I guess that’s another part of #6, isn’t it?
    .
    Seriously, you are very generous to have responded to criticism in this manner. Thank you so much for providing a decent level of interaction on this blog.
    .
    Perhaps you could email this exchange to Journo-list, so that other professionals (some of whom may or may not get paychecks from Time) can benefit from your more enlightened approach…?

  • allthingsinaname

    “The problem will always be people like you who can’t tell sh*t from Shinola.”

    BS. I know exqactly what went on. Theyb refused to act, they bent when they should have shoved. They watched their backsides instead of looking forward.
    .
    It was Congress and the Democratic Party who got us here, not me, not my vote, or lack of it that failed, they failed. Those Corporate whores are the Congress.
    .
    Prove me wrong.

  • stuartzechman

    Crises are not opportunities; they are just crises.
    .
    …said the good people at Project for a New American Century on the day after the 9/11 attacks.

  • http://twitter.com/michaelscherer Michael Scherer

    Let’s do this, since I think it will make the thread a lot more interesting. I assume most of you agree something has gone wrong with Obama’s presidency. If not the five things I mentioned above, or the sixth I added for Stuart, what is your theory.
    .
    As in my story, the theory does not have to be comprehensive. Just a piece of the puzzle.

  • Exiled_At_Home (formerly Neo)

    No one with conviction gets elected to the Office of the President of the United States of America.

  • apollyon07

    “Americans just don’t like government”
    .
    THIS. Thus has been the case, since, oh, 1776.

  • allthingsinaname

    See post two

  • apollyon07

    Maybe this latest election will cause for a more bi-partisan atmosphere in the Congress.
    .
    LOL JK

  • Ivy_B

    So many people keep bringing up Corzine as if the New Jersey election falls neatly into their pre-written story. It is now etched deeply into the CW, but just for fun…

    New Jersey switches to a Republican governor every time they have a Democrat who tries to deal with the fiscal problems left by the previous borrow and spend Repub governor. See Kean, T; Florio, J; Whitman, C.T.; Temp fill-ins; McGreevey, J; Corzine, J; Christie, C.

    Until this past year, NJ did not have a Lieutenant Governor, so the leader of the state Senate filled in if the Governor left.

    Corzine’s real problem was that he did some unpopular things to cut the deficit. Turns out the people didn’t care so much about the deficit.

    http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_Governors_of_New_Jersey

    Agree with Stuart about this article it is terrible – just needed some place to blow off steam about NJ since so many commenters have brought it up today.

  • apollyon07

    You are so right, allthings. Your number 5 is particularly interesting to me. The ongoing conflict of idealism vs. pragmatism is as apparent today as it has ever been. Who would’ve thought a candidate who ran a campaign like Obama would’ve been frozen in place by pragmatism???

  • newfreedomblog

    I guess if I suck up enough, Michael may respond back to one of my comments, too.
    .
    Michael, you are spot on in your analysis. Great job.
    .
    Oh, by the way, if you are calling the Recession a “crisis”, yes it was bad, but was made even worse by complete incompetence. The American people are fearful, fearful that futher spending as we have never seen before in history will finally bring about the total collaspe of this country. If that is what you mean, then by all means continue.
    .
    If by #2, you mean JOBS JOBS JOBS. Then you are spot on. Had Obama concentrated his efforts rather than flying across the world to accept a Noble Peace Prize for something that obviously he has not even come close to doing, then he would have seemed in touch with not only reality, but with the American people. Had he restrained himself from attempting to bring the Olympics to Chicago, then you may have seen the American people behind him 100%, working hard to help this recovery. If he had praised the United States for all of the things we have done, which have been good to great, instead we were told how terrible we’ve been, then yes, the American public would have been behind him 100%.
    .
    If by mandate, that he thought by getting 52% of the popular vote in the 2008 election, then he is more stupid than I thought possible.
    .
    Health care? Health care reform was packaged as the best thing since sliced bread. Well until we read the bill and found out it had absolutely nothing to do with reform, and everything to do with sellouts, buyouts, bribes and kickbacks. It is no better than the TV show, “Let’s Make A Deal”!!! However Americans know when one is being feed a game show, and when real reform is taking place. They rejected the Let’s Make a Deal ideas of ObamaCare.
    .
    And, you are right on with “Americans do not like Government”. Americans know from the teachings of the founding fathers that a big, gluttonous government is everything we do not need, and everything to fear. Despite FDR who said “we only thing we need to fear is fear itself”, but he left out the part that Americans have known since the days of FDR that big government is nothing shy of a large, un-manageable sucking machine. A machine that will suck every last dollar out of our wallets. A machine if left to grow, will sooner or later consume everything in sight.
    .
    But, thanks for responding to comments Michael, it is truly appreciated.
    .

  • afguy

    Anyone with a strong personal ethical or moral compass is probably unsuited for office at the state or national level.
    .
    You probably can’t be totally moral/ethical and politically successful on those levels. Lying and distortion have become too much parts of the governing process.

  • apollyon07

    “In a time of economic suffering, the American people want a President who focuses on one thing, and one thing only — improving their lives in the short term”
    .
    MS: I’m not really sure why some people on here say you are wrong for saying this- nothing could be closer to the truth. I recognize that you are not endorsing this train of thought, merely acknowledging that it exists. And it is very true- we Americans can be very fickle, and have a strong desire for instant results.
    .
    Now had we not had this mindset, I believe many of our problems could have been reduced. Recessions would still exist, of course, but they would be less sharp I think and less prolonged. Of course, in the future when Medicare and SS have consumed all of our government’s income, the American people will blame everyone but themselves. And the band plays on…

  • newfreedomblog

    See 7.4

  • Ivy_B

    Most voters do not pay constant attention to politics. They tend to hear odds and ends of things and some of it filters in as fact. Unfortunately, after Obama was elected, the press decided they had to suddenly criticize and show that they weren’t in the tank for Obama. Alas during the Bush years, there was no constant hand-wringing about the deficit. There were no Democrats on places like NPR giving a different point of view – now all I hear are Republicans so NPR can show how objective it is.
    .
    All the talk today about the loss of Supermajority simply enshrines that as the way they have to do business. It isn’t. I’d like to hear someone suggest that Senators must actually do their jobs and hold debates on the floor – bet the 60 vote threat would fade a bit.
    .
    Looks like I’m agreeing with your added point #6. After all every story was OMG, there are two Democratic Senators retiring as though the six Republican ones meant nothing.

  • gysgt213

    How is that bi-partisanship working out?

  • allthingsinaname

    “Who would’ve thought a candidate who ran a campaign like Obama would’ve been frozen in place by pragmatism???”
    .
    .
    I certainly didn’t. I knew he wasn’t the liberal that people made him out to be, but I certainly thought he would lead.

  • afguy

    apollyon07,
    .
    Hasn’t always been like that.

    Compare John Kennedy’s inauguration: “Ask not what your country can do for you, ask what you can do for your country.”
    .
    with the campaign of Ronald Reagan: “Are you better off today than you were 4 years ago?”
    .
    DIRECT appeals to our personal greed are a fairly recent phenomenon.

  • sy2d

    Obama Finally Gets His Victory For Bipartisanship
    *
    …It is a truly remarkable feat, in just one year’s time, to turn the fear and anger voters felt in 2006 and 2008 at a Republican Party that had destroyed the economy, redistributed massive amounts of wealth from the middle class to the richest of the rich and the biggest of big businesses, and waged a trillion-dollar war in the wrong country, into populist rage at whatever Democrat voters can cast their ballot against.
    *
    All of this was completely predictable. And it was predicted. I wrote about it for the first time here on the sixth day of Obama’s presidency, and many of us have written about it in the intervening year.
    *
    The President’s steadfast refusal to acknowledge that we have a two-party system, his insistence on making destructive concessions to the same party voters he had sent packing twice in a row in the name of “bipartisanship,” and his refusal ever to utter the words “I am a Democrat” and to articulate what that means, are not among his virtues. We have competing ideas in a democracy — and hence competing parties — for a reason. To paper them over and pretend they do not exist, particularly when the ideology of one of the parties has proven so devastating to the lives of everyday Americans, is not a virtue. It is an abdication of responsibility.
    *
    What happens if you refuse to lay the blame for the destruction of our economy on anyone — particularly the party, leaders, and ideology that were in power for the last 8 years and were responsible for it? What happens if you fail to “brand” what has happened as the Bush Depression or the Republican Depression or the natural result of the ideology of unregulated greed, the way FDR branded the Great Depression as Hoover’s Depression and created a Democratic majority for 50 years and a new vision of what effective government can do? What happens when you fail to offer and continually reinforce a narrative about what has happened, who caused it, and how you’re going to fix it that Americans understand, that makes them angry, that makes them hopeful, and that makes them committed to you and your policies during the tough times that will inevitably lie ahead?
    *
    The answer was obvious a year ago, and it is even more obvious today: Voters will come to blame you for not having solved a problem you didn’t create, and you will allow the other side to create an alternative narrative for what’s happened (government spending, deficits, big government, socialism) that will stick. And it will particularly stick if you make no efforts to prevent it from starting or sticking.

    The White House has squandered the greatest opportunity to change both the country and the political landscape since Ronald Reagan. It should have started with a non-watered-down stimulus package big enough to stop the bleeding in the job market — and a smack-down of any Republican who dared to utter the word “deficit” after 8 years of reckless, unpaid Republican spending. It should have followed with stringent regulations on Wall Street and protection of homeowners and small businesses instead of with a jobs creation program inside the administration for failed bankers and failed regulators. A stimulus — including a jobs program — strong enough to prevent the hemorrhaging of 700,000 jobs a month and a muscular approach to the bad actors who had crashed the economy would have gotten the public firmly behind the President and the Democrats, demonstrating to the average voter that they have a choice between one party that’s on their side and another that’s not. Instead, the White House just blurred the lines between the parties so the average American couldn’t tell the difference.
    *
    With all its efforts to tack to the center, the White House missed the point. The issue isn’t about right or left. It’s about whose side you’re on. In Massachusetts, the voters believe they know. It’s now up to the President and his party to convince the American people otherwise.
    *
    http://www.huffingtonpost.com/drew-westen/obama-finally-gets-his-vi_b_429232.html

  • jcapan

    In general, I agree with N-R and afguy. Not only is it incredibly difficult to get elected, IMO, most folks with strong convictions avoid the arena like the plague it’s become. And when the rare candidate with integrity makes an honest run, he is castrated by the media. Paul, Kucinich, Nader once upon a time. Their voices are so marginalized it’s ludicrous. It’s not merely about them having a realistic chance of winning, it’s about at least having their voice at the table, in debates and in MS’ #6, the dying print media: Our public discourse requires these outside the box views.
    .
    #6 for me is simple: Obama simply wasn’t prepared to fight for the people over the powerful (i.e. a populist). It turns out he’s a villager. His supermajority gone, we’re facing 3-7 years of inaction & it’s mindboggling that it could get worse than it’s been in year 1. As Taibbi says the US gov’t is a failed system. Until we start facing that fact all of this is cosmetic (think of makeup on a cancer-ridden dying body/politic).
    .
    SZ, any sunshine?

  • stuartzechman

    newfreedomblog:
    .
    I’m going to make this personal for two seconds, and then I’m going to stop and try not to return. Please understand that these criticisms are genuine and made in good faith
    .
    It’s an indication of how disconnected you are from reality that you would characterize commentary that, in essence, said “This is spectacularly bad.” as “sucking up.”
    .
    Whatever this online persona is that you’ve got going, it’s not really working for you. It’s abrasive, foolish, smug and dogmatic, and not particularly unique in either substance or rhetorical style. You’re not terribly strong on the facts, too. Do you honestly want people to recoil from your writing? It seems from this assumed persona that this is the reaction you’re going for.
    .
    If not, I’d sincerely suggest that you work on these things, if you’d like to be taken seriously here, and perhaps think of ways you can uniquely contribute to the discussion. I don’t say this because you’re a rightist, I say this because you could probably help the dynamic become better in here, if you were to reinvent this persona thing you’ve got going.
    .
    Thanks for considering this.

  • http://elvisberg.wordpress.com Elvis Elvisberg

    Thanks for engaging, Michael, especially in a thread where people were not happy with you.
    -
    1: The GOP “had an interesting theory that if you refuse to cooperate with efforts to make the country better, things won’t get better and the out-of-power party will benefit. The theory appears to be true.” http://yglesias.thinkprogress.org/archives/2010/01/our-broken-institutions.php See, e.g., the Gang of Six, which served to delay for months, get zero GOP support, and ruin the possibility of health care reform. Also note that, as with stimulus spending during a recession, there is no disagreement among well-informed people that something along these lines needs to be done; however, the GOP went with maximal exaggeration and obstruction in both cases.
    -
    2: The GOP and the press think it’s always 1980– the the cavalry’s coming, and they’re going to be swept back into power. This, despite the fact that if you consult polling issue by issue– leaving party affiliation and loaded questions out of it– the Dems are much, much more preferred than the GOP. But the press thinks that every moment is “fraught with peril for Democrats.”
    -
    3: So do Democrats. They’re always scared that it’s 1994, too much so to do anything. See this staffer email: http://www.talkingpointsmemo.com/archives/2010/01/relieved.php?ref=fpblg
    -
    So, in short, the best lack all conviction, while the worst are full of passionate intensity. Surely nothing bad can come of that sort of situation.

  • jcapan

    N-R is right to bring up the comments Cincy was making just prior to his departure.

  • kevpvp

    Michael, I think it’s pretty simple:
    .
    1. The financial crisis sapped a lot of political willpower and resources. It’s hard to get a whole lot done when faced with an economy in as dire straits as has been the case for the last year and a half.
    .
    2. Health Care is difficult to pass, not simply because of all the contending interests involved (although that is definitely a big part of it), but because the average voter can’t understand it. This is incredibly complex stuff. As a group of engaged people (you’re reading the comments here at Swampland, so I assume you’re probably more politically savy than the typical person on the street), I would challenge you to describe to me what your own coverage is. My guess is no more than a handful could say what your copay, deductable, coinsurance, lifetime maximum is.
    .
    By no means are these the only two issues, but they are big ones.

  • allthingsinaname

    Just great! Look what is being accomplished, one more Republican Senator, and his refreshing statement about what is the hurry? Now we can blame the Republicans because they have the majority of 41 to 59. Better still we can blame Bush for the failure on Health Care, or for failure to regulate the Banks, or any number of things that need to be done.
    .
    No I know that the Republicans are useless, but I can’t blame them for this.

  • shepherdwong

    “DIRECT appeals to our personal greed are a fairly recent phenomenon.”
    .
    I don’t know if that’s true but certainly it’s a long way from the civic hay day of calls to our better natures that we heard from the likes of JFK, RFK and MLK. Though they were assassinated before our eyes, which tells you everything you need to know about how that frightens the shrunken souls among us.
    .
    Anyway it is still the absolute mark of leadership in my book. The much harder pull of appealing to our hopes and aspirations, generally the Democratic way, rather than inflaming our fears and resentments, always the Republican way.

  • gysgt213

    Michael-May you would be better off scrapping your entire list and start over. But first get some insight. You list 5 ways that Obama when wrong. WTF? A seat was lost and that’s a pretty big deal, but are you implying its all Obama’s fault that seat was lost and now he done?
    .
    As for insight maybe you should consider that any administration run by Rahm Emanuel and staffed throughout with centrists, Wall Street mavens, and former Bush officials and a Congress beholden to minority groups in their own party as well as the opposing party and tells its base to STFU is going have a few difficulties.

  • shepherdwong

    “It was Congress and the Democratic Party who got us here, not me, not my vote…
    .
    Prove me wrong.”

    .
    Ever vote for George W. Bush?

  • apollyon07

    “…but are you implying its all Obama’s fault that seat was lost and now he done?”
    .
    I think this is more a reaction to the do-nothing Congress. Not to say either side is more to blame than the other, though.

  • deconstructiva

    Instead of an Obama list I’d be more interested in “Five Ways the Senate F’d Up, I Mean, Went Wrong.”

  • shepherdwong

    …and if it’s mostly “#6″, a corrupt corporate press, plus the devastating economic conditions – it is – then it really isn’t about where “Obama Went Wrong” at all, is it?

  • apollyon07

    afguy- thanks for the thoughtful response. I wish I could have been alive during a time like that (born in ’88). It’s so hard for me to believe that there actually used to be a time when politics worked. This reminds me of when my mom and I were talking the other day about music. I was telling her how much disdain I have for most modern music, and how much I love older stuff: Sinatra, The Who, Hendrix, Al Green, Steely Dan, The Police. She then said that I was born a 40 years too late. It seems this would apply to my views on the political process as well.

  • allthingsinaname

    Oh God give me a break! Live in TX, in the old Army district now Burges for 35 years now, seen Bush as Gov and never have voted for him. I have voted and supported Democrats when ever I could.
    .

    Sorry your tell about throwing the bums out in practical terms means nothing to me. It was up to the people of the politicians respective Districts and States to do what they have to do.
    .
    I have lived up to my duty. I voice my opinion and I vote it, more than likely I vote the way that you do, just there isn’t a hell of a lot I can do about how Texans vote. If the politicians can not make their case, I certainly can’t for them,.

  • jcapan

    Ezra:

    “There will be more to say on all this tomorrow. For now, it’s worth observing that a Democratic Party that would abandon their central initiative this quickly isn’t a Democratic Party that deserves to hold power. If they don’t believe in the importance of their policies, why should anyone who’s skeptical change their mind? If they’re not interested in actually passing their agenda, why should voters who agree with Democrats on the issues work to elect them? A commitment provisional on Ted Kennedy not dying and Martha Coakley not running a terrible campaign is not much of a commitment at all.

    Speaking of Kennedy, he anticipated this reaction back in 1980. On the eve of his defeat to Jimmy Carter, and Carter’s defeat to Ronald Reagan, he warned his supporters against letting electoral setbacks dampen their commitment to their cause. “If the Democrats run for cover, if we become pale carbon copies of the opposition, we will lose — and deserve to lose,” he said. “The last thing this country needs is two Republican parties.”

    Pity he’s not around to remind Democrats of that today.”

    http://voices.washingtonpost.com/ezra-klein/2010/01/what_ted_kennedy_would_tell_th.html

  • shepherdwong

    I’m pretty sure that, even without JFK, RFK and MLK, the music alone, jazz, blues and rock, marked the peak of human civilization.

  • http://randomkirk.wordpress.com randomkirk

    It seems to me that one conclusion is simply: Now that we have gotten to actually KNOW Obama, he ain’t all that special. So many people, voters, media, etc., got so caught up in the hype that Obama’s (very talented) campaign team put out, there just wasn’t enough critical analysis of who he was. I read “Audacity of Hope”…some good ideas (even to this right-winger), but I couldn’t get over thinking to myself, “How is a first-term Senator, with limited experience at any level of government ever going to sell this to Congress?”
    .

    Someone in an earlier post mentioned LBJ’s success in getting civil rights legislation passed. What wasn’t mentioned was that Johnson was a seasoned pol, experienced in the back-room, hardball style of politics that sea-changing legislation like that (and HCR) requires.
    .

    Obama may INTEND to be a change agent, but he lacks the gravitas…as many of us suspected all along.

  • shepherdwong

    “Obama may INTEND to be a change agent, but he lacks the gravitas…”
    .
    Compared to whom? John “get off my lawn” McCain? Sarah, “who ate my reading material” Palin? George “is our children learning” Bush? 1) politics is always the choice of the lesser of evils and 2) who, exactly, has the “gravitas” to wrest control of the government from our corporate owners?

  • grape_crush

    Fail.

    When it comes to analysis, you’re kind of consistently thick-headed, Michael.

    1. The challenges were just too big for any one man…polls show significant voter unease with the massive deficits.
    .
    I think it’s understood that Obama had to have help from others in order to enact an agenda.
    .
    Polls always show unease with massive deficits, massive unemployment, massive natural disasters. What’s less clear is the polling around what is being done about those items we are so uneasy about.
    .
    2. Crises are not opportunities; they are just crises…In other words, when the going gets rough, go big.
    .
    Clear misinterpretation. When the going gets rough, people tend to be more open to change. That’s what Summers was alluding to.
    .
    3. The Obama mandate was not what it seemed…In New Jersey, Virginia and now Massachusetts, independents have sided with Republicans over the last six months..
    .
    a. ‘The Obama mandate’ means that any Democratic candidate can get elected over any Republican, no matter how weak the Dem candidate is or how lackadaisical their campaign effort was?
    b. The upset and anger is due to the continued hammering the lower and middle classes are taking while Washington as a whole is failing to deliver on its obligations to all the people. It’s not just the ~30% of the population that are teabaggers that’s upset…it’s the ~30% of the population that are lefties whose enthusiam brought Obama into office that are taking issue.
    .
    That’s your #3; Democrats are failing to maintain the enthusiam of the 2008 election season.
    .
    4. Health care is just too hard.
    .
    Whinging, and wrong…
    .
    “We will go to the moon. We will go to the moon and do other things, not because they are easy but because they are hard.”
    .
    If anything lay the blame difficulty of fixing health care on the influence of special interest dollars spent to affect the outcome.
    .
    5. Americans just don’t like government…the major government interventions required by the financial crises, spooked many voters…
    .
    People love the goverment when it swoops in to save the day. They just want to know that the money is being spent wisely, and they don’t know.
    .
    Number 5 should instead be about message control, or lack thereof…which in turn involves your #6: It’s the Media, Stupid.

  • http://policingwingnutwelfare.blogspot.com/ JJ
  • bobcn1

    Michael,
    Since you are looking for items to add to your list, please look at Elvis’s post above (8.7). You’re list is entirely pointed at Obama. It ignores the fact that there’s no price to pay for the relentlessly partisan obstruction tactic used by the gop. If you want to add to your list, then add this: Obstruction works!
    .
    You can also add this corollary: Bipartisanship doesn’t.
    .
    What is the price the gop pays for their obstruction? Would the press respond the same way if the dems took away from this defeat the lesson that they should set filibuster records too, when they’re in the minority?

  • http://randomkirk.wordpress.com randomkirk

    I didn’t necessarily have anyone in mind as having more depth of experience and trackable background than Obama, but a military veteran, multi-term (both House and Senate) like McCain would seem like a good start, yes.

  • bobcn1

    When has Obama ever been rewarded for his attempts at bipartisanship?

  • http://randomkirk.wordpress.com randomkirk

    I’m wondering how the partisan obstructionism of the Democrats when they were in the minority differs from the partisan obstructionism of the GOP today. Both sides do it, and both sides whine. Get over it.
    .
    Read a little history and you’ll discover that there has ALWAYS been bickering, abusive language, etc. in our messy political process. In fact, compared to some of the things that went on early in our country’s history, things are positively civil today.

  • shepherdwong

    I’m wondering how the partisan obstructionism of the Democrats when they were in the minority differs from the partisan obstructionism of the GOP today. Both sides do it, and both sides whine. Get over it.
    .
    Read a little history and you’ll discover that there has ALWAYS been bickering, abusive language, etc. in our messy political process. In fact, compared to some of the things that went on early in our country’s history, things are positively civil today.”

    .
    Completely. Clueless. Why don’t you try reading some history so you can occasionally know what you’re talking about:

    “In the 1970s, the average number of cloture motions filed in a given month was less than two; it moved to around three a month in the 1990s. This Congress, we are on track for two or more a week. The number of cloture motions filed in 1993, the first year of the Clinton presidency, was 20. It was 21 in 1995, the first year of the newly Republican Senate. As of the end of the first session of the 110th Congress, there were 60 cloture motions, nearing an all-time record.
    .
    Placing a hold has morphed into a process where any individual can block something or someone indefinitely or permanently—and often anonymously.
    .
    What makes this Congress different? The most interesting change is GOP strategy. Republican Senate leader Mitch McConnell (KY) has threatened filibuster on a wide range of issues, in part to force Majority Leader Harry Reid (D-NV) to negotiate with his party and in part just to gum up the works. Republicans have invoked filibusters or used other delaying tactics on controversial issues like Medicare prescription drugs, the war in Iraq, and domestic surveillance—and on non-controversial issues like ethics reform and electronic campaign disclosure.

  • http://forgottenlord.livejournal.com forgottenlord

    #1: A variation of Scherer’s #6. It isn’t the #1 problem as it wasn’t a mistake Obama made nor are the points Scherer listed alone a problem. The reality is that media has split from Tabloid and Real to 5 categories: Tabloid, Partisan, Self-absorbed (Scherer’s point), Real and Internet. Yes, you could argue that the real media like Washington Post and New York Times have been Partisan in the past, but I doubt many of us would disagree that the headliners on MSNBC or Fox – AKA the faces of news today – are far more partisan. In effect, we have powerful Partisan media, powerful Self-absorbed media that only looks different from Tabloid media insofar as it’s dealing with Washington instead of Hollywood, a powerful Internet media which is far more a voice box on everything that’s broadcasted that doesn’t so much deliver what’s happening as it does spread what’s happening, and a weakening real news with the papers going out of print and the news channels almost hiding the actual newsmen. None of that is the fauly of Obama, but this gigantic shift hasn’t been responded to properly by Obama. Between it all, it has the power to explode anything and fast. Obama did a better job than any candidate in history to take advantage of this during the campaign, but his attempts to revolutionize it have almost stopped since he got into office. Imagine if Gibbs had a twitter feed? Instant response every time a Republican states a lie on National TV. Not next day response, instant. You could have people told a claim is false before they’ve even heard the claim – and we all know that the story gets on page 1 while the rebuttle ends up on page 10. And I came up with that in 2 minutes.
    .
    #2: Selling the stimulus bill as a cure all. Every analyst with reasonable skill said that the stimulus bill couldn’t solve the economic crisis. Everyone from the White House to Wall Street knew that a second stimulus would have to come. The response he should’ve given was “this Stimulus Bill is to help stabilize the economy by helping main street, but it is not the last one we will pass to ensure that people can get back on their feet. We will need to evaluate the situation further and have a clearer grasp of how people are hurting and what can be done to help them and pass further bills as it becomes clearer”. Yes, it might’ve hurt him with deficit hawks in the short run, but telling Main Street it wasn’t going to be left in the rain when you had to know that unemployment would continue to tick up probably would’ve helped.
    .
    #3: Leaving Republicans out of the stimulus negotiations. I know this is a debatable one and it wasn’t really Obama’s fault but rather Reid and Pelosi, but still, he ran with bipartisanship as a key element and this set the tone in Washington that bipartisanship was out the door. It has the bonus effect that if Republicans actually slowed down the bill, they could be tossed out with “you go ahead and wait, we want to help real Americans”. On the other hand, you throw in a few compromise items (not many, they still had a mandate) and you’re off to the races. It might not have prevented the teabagger takeover of the Republicans, but it might’ve helped. Heck, if they did it right, they could’ve used it to further split the GOP
    .
    #4: Not keeping a tab on Kennedy’s seat. Yes, Coakley should’ve told them earlier, and it’s Mass, but you can still have some lackey who’s job it is to check the numbers every week just in case something happens.
    .
    #5: Control one, just one, press cycle. Sure, they couldn’t do anything about Joe Wilson, but what about Sargeant Crowley. It seemed for the latter half of the year, if they had some news go their way, someone, somewhere, figured out how to usurp it.

  • shepherdwong
  • stuartzechman

    Great thought, Michael Scherer, I think that we should be trying to answer these questions ourselves.
    .
    OK, JC, I’ll take a whack at it.
    .
    1. Obama over-promised and under-delivered
    Whatever else can be weaseled out of, Obama campaigned and was elected on the promise to fundamentally change Washington. In the year since he was elected, there are no indications whatsoever that this premise of his campaign –of his political existence– will translate into anything meaningful in terms of reforming our political institutions. This means that either A) he was lying, or B) he’s a naive fool. It also means that the public who believed in, organized for and voted for him are also naive fools, and are starting to be humiliated for that trust.
    .
    2. Obama’s political philosophy doesn’t work in practice, either politically or in terms of good policy
    Since now (as of March 9, 2009) Obama has revealed himself as a centrist (“I am a New Democrat,” he told a gathering of 65 members of that Congressional caucus), we know that his is the classic Clintonian centrist approach to politics and policy. Unfortunately, these policies are bad for the country, if you think that “the country” primarily involves the interests of tens of millions of ordinary Americans, and not merely the leaders of industry and finance. They’re also suicidal for Democrats, if, by “Democrat” one means the political party whose sole premise for existence is the need for ordinary people’s representation in government to counter the influence of elites.
    .
    As an example, his policies with respect to the financial industry’s collapse were predicated on a continuation of the government’s partnership role, and not the adversarial role envisioned by the architects of the New Deal. As a result, Obama’s Administration has acted largely to preserve these institutions (and their elite leadership) as they are, in their collapse-worthy state, and has saddled the government with enormous debt in doing so. As was the case in the Great Depression, the Administration was literally threatened by the finance industry, but this time they submitted.
    .
    As the continuing lending crisis demonstrates, these expenditures with no reforms attached are wastes of wealth, serving no stimulative effect, and producing nothing in the way of material benefit for citizens –a fact of which they’re well aware. Economist Joseph Stiglitz calls this “ersatz capitalism, the privatizing of gains and the socializing of losses.” Voters call it “business as usual in the corrupt Beltway.”
    .
    3. Obama’s apparent desire to remain studiously “above the fray” until absolutely necessary is awful politics in hard times
    Democrats have suffered electorally by preemptively surrendering a key rhetorical weapon to Republicans: the ability to define one’s own political identity. Obama has continued this disastrous trend, by refusing (once in office) to identify himself with a body of ideas that relate to a strong political agenda. Many voters are increasingly afraid of what Obama will do because they don’t know what he stands for. Most importantly, they don’t know if he stands against the political-economic system on behalf of them, or with elites against them. When a politician communicates his fidelity to “balance” above the interests of the people, it’s not hard for them to get the wrong impression, especially from the opportunistic right.
    .
    In his reticence, Obama has relinquished the role he assumed during the campaign, which was the means by which Americans were to take control of their government, so that their interests would finally be served. Unfortunately, technocratic Leader, minus service, minus the people’s interests turns out to be quite an imperial image for the President. In difficult economic times, that translates into Marie Antoinette politics. If people sense that Obama won’t fight for them, disillusionment, despair and then rage will inevitably follow.
    .
    4. Obama peopled his Administration with the same insider Democrats that Americans elected him to replace
    When one has to ask “Which is the worst idea? Tom Daschle for Health and Human Services, or Larry Summers for Chief Economic Adviser?,” you’re in pretty bad territory. Symbolic appointments (Van Jones was thrown under the bus, anyway) aside, the Administration hasn’t demonstrated a willingness to bypass establishment patronage, and it shows to the public. When folks see the same old faces in high positions doing and saying the same old things (Leon Panetta, Janet Napolitano) they expect from dysfunctional government, it’s insulting –and it bolsters the right’s claims.
    .
    Americans are painfully aware that government has failed them for at least the past two decades. A Who’s Who of people who were wrong about every major issue isn’t Change They Can Believe in.
    .
    5. Obama ran to the left in the primaries for so long, that when he eventually rejected the liberal base of the Democratic party, he was already in office…and now we’re pissed off
    It cannot be said strongly enough. A lot of liberal sweat, money and hope went into electing this man. Hillary Clinton would be president today, if it weren’t for the people who thought they were electing something different than the same old centrist guard who didn’t take liberals seriously.
    .
    Obama used his lack of record and enormous rhetorical gifts to persuade a lot of folks he was one of them, that he wouldn’t laughingly reject their positions like a round-table guest on Meet The Press. He needed to convince the popular left, because otherwise the choice between one historic, centrist candidate and another historic, centrist candidate might not have given him the edge in the Democratic primary. He did this deliberately, and it allowed many to forget that he had just previously campaigned for Joe Lieberman against Ned Lamont in Connecticut. So many just wanted to believe, and he let it be that way.
    .
    When the primary was over, he didn’t seem him run to the right of the base, because the general was so relatively compressed. Democrats didn’t have time to consider that he really had run to the left in the primary, and didn’t actually mean those inspirational words with which he whipped up mass enthusiasm for trans-formative politics. Liberals didn’t have the opportunity to get comfortable with the “lesser of two evils” thing once again. By the time folks started to understand who Obama was, what he was (and wasn’t) going to do, and that they were back to crying about the “lesser of two evils” into their liberal beers on their liberal blogs, he was the President.
    .
    What’s so important to understand about how the base feels in all of this is the profound sense of humiliation that comes from being had so badly. When Rahm tells these people that he could give a rat’s ass about what they think, and to get back to being ATM’s or just shut up, it’s more than just angering, it’s humiliating. When liberals are told to sell policy that they don’t believe in, it hurts. When things that political enemies say start to ring true, it’s shameful. When the guy who folks elected goes out of his way to court the people who failed for the past decade, and snubs them, it’s embarrassing –for them and him.
    .
    This sense of wild enthusiasm turned fear (that it could be worse if the right takes power) and humiliation is what’s hanging heavily on the consciences of many liberals and Democrats, and if the President continues down the centrist, Blue Dog way Rahm has prepared for him, it will get worse for Democrats’ electoral fortunes in bad economic times.
    .
    That it can get much, much worse is the biggest lesson of all that the Obama team and national Democrats must learn…or it surely will get much, much worse for them.

  • http://forgottenlord.livejournal.com forgottenlord

    sorry – clarification – this is my list as requested in post 8, not a response to Scherer’s list

  • bobcn1

    ‘Both sides do it, and both sides whine. Get over it.’
    .
    Really? This is not ‘business as usual’. It’s something new (link).

  • carlosvaldivia

    Eh. I think the list above misses the real problem. The democratic leadership and Obama and Reid are really just feeble leaders. If they hadn’t agreed to postponing debate on Health care over the summer or allowed Lieberman to repeatedly betray them without consequences things would be much different. In the end, I think that is the entire story.

    Health care reform was doable this time around. The public was in support of it and if Reid and Obama had the wherewithal to enforce some party discipline it would’ve happened.

  • Nathan Clark

    I don’t get the presumption this analysis is based on.
    Where’d Obama go wrong with what?
    With a terrible candidate losing a race by 1.5% of the state’s population?
    With steering HCR through both chambers?
    Through keeping us from a depression?

    I understand 1 of the 100 seats was just lost in a traditionally Democratic state during an off-year election. But to presume a loss is purely the product of a 3rd party’s failure is silly at best and sensationalist at worst.

  • stuartzechman

    neorationalist86:
    .
    I had forgotten that episode.
    .
    Thanks, I needed reminding.

  • http://randomkirk.wordpress.com randomkirk

    shepherdwong-
    Believe your fantasy that you are intellectually superior to all who don’t buy your anti-business, “everyone who disagrees with me is a know-nothing racist” if you must, but try actually reading HISTORY. I’m talking about from the foundation of this country…
    .
    If you want to compare notes on threats of filibuster, don’t forget the threats made during the consideration of Bush’s appointment of Roberts to the Supreme Court (among other appointment) threatened with filibuster until John McCain (for whom you already expressed disdain) and others arranged a truce.
    .
    Get a grip. If you want people to actually pay attention to your point of view, try treating them with some respect.

  • repzak

    I actually think MS is right about #5. Obviously not EVERYONE feel that way – but a very, very large number of people do seem to want a free lunch when it comes to government – they want all the improvements politicians promise, but they don’t want to pay a dollar for them.

    But there is no such thing as a free lunch in politics.

    The rest of the reasons given are manure from a large horned creature that mates with cows though…

    And #6 is that the press in it’s constant need to create conflicts, oppositions and balance have lost the ability to tell people simple truths, and instead trade in lies, deceits and oversimplifications.

  • martingifford

    Michael,

    Here’s my take:

    Mass. is a very strong Dem state. Therefore, there are many leftwingers there (they would be called moderates in most other democracies – America votes very rightwing). So this was a protest vote from the left. Country-wide, Obama has a 54% approval rating, so it must be because Mass. has more leftwingers.

    While the media acts oblivious, the left is well aware that Obama has continued many criminal Bush policies (e.g. Obama is guilty of conspiracy to hide Bush’s crimes against humanity), Obama has been in the pocket of the Health Insurance and Banking industries, and Obama has grovelled to the likes of Lieberman and the Republicans. Do you think the leftwingers were pleased with all that? No intelligent, ethical, informed person would be pleased with it. And the only power they have is to not vote for them.

    Regards,
    Martin Gifford.

  • http://randomkirk.wordpress.com randomkirk

    shepherdwong-
    The examples you cite only serve to prove my point: The increasing incidence of clotures didn’t STOP in sessions when Democrats held power, and rarely dropped below levels established in previous sessions. BOTH PARTIES abuse the system to serve their purpose!
    .
    And really…do try to read some history.

  • jcapan

    SZ, excellent. Funny that the optimistic and cynical takes are largely the same. And I for one was not fooled by your “Does somebody else want to take this on?” You were merely buying yourself a little time to unleash the whopper.
    .
    The question (the lesser of 2 evils school of thought notw/standing) for me is if Zinn is right about the illusion of democracy in terms of the ballot box. If what you describe is true, after 8 years of Bushism, that a mere year on we’re poised as a nation to throw the bums out, and put the old bums back in place (the mofos who destroyed the nation and whose, BTW, policies have not changed one lick), isn’t there something extremely dysfunctional about our politics. It’s like a custody case gone awful–the battered child is passed between the parent who literally beats the snot out of him and the parent that merely smacks him around. At some pt. more dramatic fixes must be weighed, no?

  • stuartzechman

    Sorry, that should read “When the primary was over, we didn’t seem him run to the right of the base, because the general was so relatively compressed.

  • stephenfromottawa

    So it’s all over, is it. Obama’s done. Time to analyze his failure.

  • Exiled_At_Home (formerly Neo)

    SZ, JC~
    Thanks for the understanding. I would generally refrain from mentioning such in the absence of Cincy’s presence, as I see no point to dog someone without giving them the opportunity to respond. However, given the outpouring of positive acclaim for Cincinatus, I just wanted to make sure people remembered exactly what type of rhetoric was often streaming from his/her keyboard.

  • stuartzechman

    Gah…”see him” “see him run” not “seem him”.
    .
    That’s what I get for writing non-stop for five minutes.

  • martingifford

    Stuartzechman @ 8.16:

    You hit the nail on the head!

    I would just add, as per my comment @ 23, that Mass. is a very strong Dem state and therefore there are many leftwingers there, so the protest vote (or simply not voting) from the left came through exactly in line with what you said.

    Perhaps in a more moderate state with less leftwingers, the Dems would still do okay – after all Obama still has 54% approval rating. So it must be because Mass. has more leftwingers, and they are protesting because Obama has continued many criminal Bush policies (e.g. Obama made himself guilty of conspiracy to hide Bush’s crimes against humanity), Obama has been in the pocket of the Health Insurance and Banking industries, and Obama has grovelled to the likes of Lieberman and the Republicans. The left would be mighty angry at all this corruption and weakness.

  • repzak

    I’m sorry, but shepherdwong is correct. He gives you statistics that show for a fact that filibusters are up 300% or so compared to 10 years ago. And your “rebuttal” is to refer to one specific filibuster that you didn’t like? I’m sorry – you fail at math, and factchecking.

  • shepherdwong

    “The examples you cite only serve to prove my point: The increasing incidence of clotures didn’t STOP in sessions when Democrats held power, and rarely dropped below levels established in previous sessions.”
    .
    Allrightythen, won’t waste any more enlightening links on you, if you can’t read and comprehend. At least we know why you’re so woefully ignorant.

  • http://randomkirk.wordpress.com randomkirk

    I fail at nothing. You both refuse to get my point: Both sides do it, and history bears out that when one party ups the ante, so does the other. Check back with me next time the Dems have been out of power for a few years.

  • http://randomkirk.wordpress.com randomkirk

    shepherdwong-
    Perhaps my reasoning is just a bit too abstract for you, but I won’t resort to calling you ignorant…just misguided.

  • Paul-no not that one

    I couldn’t believe when Cincy said he didn’t care if some irresponsible women had to have a back alley abortion.
    .
    Never mind that was Neo.

  • stuartzechman

    Oregon JC:

    the mofos who destroyed the nation and whose, BTW, policies have not changed one lick

    That’s not exactly true. It’s not that these are the same policies as the rightists, they’re a different bad. It’s not accurate to say that the centrists do the same things as the rightists. It has to be shouted from the rooftops, however, that centrist governance is just as much a catastrophic failure as the rightists’ attempts, just in different areas. People know that Obama is not the same as Bush, and it doesn’t do us any good to rhetorically contradict that. The effect –the situation for ordinary people gets progressively worse– is the same, not the policy or ideology. That’s the truth we need to tell.

    At some pt. more dramatic fixes must be weighed, no?

    Yes, but patient, steady and true will be what wins the day.

  • stuartzechman

    martingifford
    .
    I very much appreciate you having taken the time to read through all of that!

  • shepherdwong

    “Perhaps my reasoning is just a bit too abstract for you…”
    .
    Yes, seeing an analysis (with a chart!) establishing the explosion of the use of the filibuster by Republicans when they were sent to minority status as proving your point that Democrats do it equally is certainly abstract thinking – probably too much so for a reality-based conversation. Not to worry though, I see loads of that sort of thinking these days so you’ve got company.

  • shepherdwong

    …try actually reading HISTORY. I’m talking about from the foundation of this country…”
    .
    Well, why don’t you enlighten us on how The Founders felt about corporate influence on government and where they ensconced the concept of corporate personhood in our founding documents, I’m all ears.
    .
    For bonus points, also tell us what they thought about a standing military under a powerful chief executive.

  • Exiled_At_Home (formerly Neo)

    Ha! Had to? As in an imperative? Interesting. Don’t recall ever typing that, although I of course could be mistaken. Rather, I remember suggesting that if someone were misguided enough to choose to risk a back-alley abortion, then she should be prepared to live (or die) with the consequences. We should all be prepared to live with the consequences of our actions, Paul. This is simply an application of a near unanimous philosophy to an unfortunate scenario. No one, and I do mean no one, Paul, must get a back alley abortion. Under any circumstances in which an abortion is medically required (i.e. health of the mother), or even psychologically necessary (i.e. rape) I have unequivocally supported legalized access to abortions. Under my views, no women would ever have to get a back-alley abortion, Paul, because any required operations would be legally sanctioned. In the case of elective abortions, obviously, as per the definition of elective, no woman would ever need a back-alley abortion, and therefore, I find it extremely unlikely that I ever made such remarks as not being phased by a woman who had to get aback-alley abortion.

  • pintortwo

    We’re discussing ways Obama went wrong, and no one wants to mention that our military is spending WAY beyond our means?! How about:
    .
    #1 Obama was elected largely as a rejection of neoconservative colonialism, yet, in the face of grave econimic turmoil, he continues to grow the military budget (CBO estimates 6% annually- *bellow), build military bases throughout the Middle East, exaggerate the national security threat posed by foreign groups (Bush had Saddam/Baathists, Obama has the Taliban), employs the same military advisers as his predecessor and seems dedicated to the “Long War” (link).
    .
    .
    .
    http://abcnews.go.com/Politics/wireStory?id=9128370
    (per 6% growth)

  • stuartzechman

    neorationalist86:

    Under any circumstances in which an abortion is medically required (i.e. health of the mother), or even psychologically necessary (i.e. rape) I have unequivocally supported legalized access to abortions.

    This isn’t the time or place for this debate, and I’m sorry you were baited into it.
    .
    That said, I’ve never understood this to be your position. I did not know you believed these things, and, quite frankly, I am shocked you do.
    .
    When we have an opportunity, I’d like to understand how you can simultaneously believe these and other things you also espouse, and I mean that sincerely.

  • stuartzechman

    deconstructiva:
    .
    I appreciate your encouragement. Perhaps I appreciate it a tad too much, as my comment downstream may prove.

  • stuartzechman

    I should also mention sqr1′s superior commentary beats mine by, oh, I don’t know, eight or twenty or so paragraphs.

  • Exiled_At_Home (formerly Neo)

    SZ-
    Without getting sidetracked into another discussion, I’m curious as to what is shocking? You find the views that I expressed to be shockingly disagreeable, or, you are shocked that I espoused a view on the matter that you support, or least, can accept?

  • Cliff

    David Brooks is the biggest assh*le in the world, apart from Bill Kristol, and you are a f–king moron for quoting him.

  • Paul-no not that one

    Sure Neo you continue to slay me.
    .
    Well since I’m not a pregnant woman who doesn’t meet your criteria for having a legal medical procedure not literally

    “choose to risk a back-alley abortion, then she should be prepared to live (or die) with the consequences”
    .
    Perfect.
    .
    SZ Neo “baited” you into going from missing Cincy to joining in the scolding from the moral paragon that washes his hands from the idea of a woman dying.
    .
    Interesting.

  • Cliff

    Also, right now is not the time for Democrats to panic.
    .
    We lost one seat because Coakley was a complacent moron.
    .
    We need to to look the Republicans square in the eye and ask them what they’ve got.

  • stuartzechman

    PNNTO:
    .
    I’m just saying it’s OT, that’s all.

  • stuartzechman

    Centrist Democrats exist to panic in the face or Republicans.
    .
    That’s why they voted for an immediate invasion of Iraq.

  • stuartzechman

    neorationalist86:
    .
    It’s OT, I wouldn’t be able to answer that here.

  • michaelfury
  • acameronw

    6. Conservatives distort and get away with it. Ex 1: The continued use of the term “government takeover” regarding healthcare. What, exactly, is being taken over. Ex 2: “Death Panels” No further comment required. Ex. 2 “Malpractice Reform” Damages from lawsuits are less that 1% of healthcare costs, and punitive damages are awarded by juries, not judges. “Secret deals” Did the Congressional Record and C-Span disappear and I missed it?

    7. The Media can’t be bothered to do policy in detail. When was the last time you saw an extensive, coherent discussion of policy (as opposed to politics) on television? Track down the number of minutes devoted to “Game Change” by Hedda Hopper and Louella Parsons – oops – Haloerin and Heileman and you’ll get a sense of the problem.

    8. The decline of the American educational system: People do indeed get the government they deserve.

  • Cliff

    Okay, when I said “Democrats,” I meant that as a blanket term for left-leaning voters. Perhaps I should have said “netroots.”
    .
    As for our cowardly Congress scum, they need to get lashed back into line with a bullwhip.

  • formerlyjames

    I am in awe. I have hit the mother lode of Swamp commentary. I am not worthy. I can’t read fast enough to do justice to this thread. Although I haven’t even begun to give up on Obama yet, thanks M.S. Thanks everybody.

  • stuartzechman

    Thanks for reading, formerlyjames. You should put your own 5 up.

  • destor23

    It’s his first year. Is it really fair to say he “went wrong?” Things seemed pretty bad for Clinton at this point in his presidency he wound up a two-termer and a rock star in his post presidency. I suggest that, though I have tons of problems with Obama, that he has not gone wrong yet.

    But if I’m wrong and it’s all over now, it’s for the same reason George HW Bush went wrong and Clinton got elected — he ignored his base.

  • stuartzechman

    “Went wrong” doesn’t mean it’s all over now, it just means “needs course correct –badly”.

  • Exiled_At_Home (formerly Neo)

    PNNTO~
    Well since I’m not a pregnant woman who doesn’t meet your criteria for having a legal medical procedure not literally “choose to risk a back-alley abortion, then she should be prepared to live (or die) with the consequences.”
    ~
    It’s fascinating to watch your mind in action, or rather, should I say, your mind’s inaction. I understand that the mere mention of disapproval towards abortions sends you into an incoherent frenzy, but next time, PNNTO, try to take the argument on its merits, and then rationally respond in kind. This muddled exercise in linguistic irregularity annoys me. Make a point, if there is one to be made.

  • http://swampland.blogs.time.com/2010/01/20/swampland-responds-what-went-wrong-for-obama/ Swampland Responds: What Went Wrong For Obama – Swampland – TIME.com

    [...] Swampland A blog about politics. Swampland Feed   Daily E-mail Updates   « PreviousFive Ways Obama Went Wrong [...]

  • Paul-no not that one

    Neo I just wanted to illustrate your selective moral code.
    .
    And as for making a point -the last time I engaged you you called me a bigot and when asked to give an example or retract you came up with me not objecting to other people in comments who offended you.
    .
    You are a generally civil, silly person.
    .
    I think of you as the David Duke of Swampland. A smooth veneer on what otherwise could be a Rusty or spob post.
    .
    Except for the Mid-East of course. (I wanted to save you the trouble)

  • Exiled_At_Home (formerly Neo)

    PNNTO~
    I admit, at times I have been a bit reflexive in my defenses. When getting harangued from all sides for being Catholic, or conservative, or this, or that, sometimes I aggressively jump at less offensive commentary that may coincide with another commenter’s hyperbole or libelous bigotry, of which there is quite a lot on this forum.
    ~
    Now this is a matter of opinion, of course, but I see little selectivity in opposing, for example, Cincy’s tasteless accusations of KT’s motives, and, say, opposing elective abortions. I truly fail to see any semblances of a broken moral compass in this regard. To oppose elective abortions naturally is to oppose elective back-alley abortions as well, yes? And, again, I must reiterate the inherent choice involved in elective procedures, and therefore I see no reason to victimize women who make this choice and pay grave consequences as a result. Do you victimize the drunk driver who wraps his car around a tree and is killed? Do you victimize the junkie who shares one too many needles and contracts AIDS or Hepatitis? When you make risky, potentially lethal decisions of your own volition, you set yourself up for the consequences. Now, were a rape victim to be denied access to an abortion as per rigid government policy, seek an illicit abortion, and consequently lose her uterus to a shoddy ‘surgeon,’ I would be appalled, and I would view her as a victim of a compassionless society. However, this, as you know, is not the scenario to which I was speaking.

  • jcapan

    Sorry, SZ, that probably wasn’t clear. Having to literally run to a class, there was little time for precision. When I said:
    .
    “after 8 years of Bushism, that a mere year on we’re poised as a nation to throw the bums out, and put the old bums back in place (the mofos who destroyed the nation and whose, BTW, policies have not changed one lick), isn’t there something extremely dysfunctional about our politics”
    .
    My pt. was the dems are the current bums and the electorate is ready to toss ‘em out, replacing them with the old bums (i.e. republicans, i.e. those whose policies haven’t changed a single lick). All this is being considered a year after the nation rejected republican policies. If it weren’t so tragic, if the consequences weren’t so utterly devastating, it would be comical.

  • stuartzechman

    JC:
    .
    You’re right, I totally missed your point.
    .
    Thanks, I get it now.

  • martingifford

    “We lost one seat because Coakley was a complacent moron.”

    It can’t be as simple as that. This is a deeply Democrat state, and the Republicans were toxic over the last 8 years and are still just as toxic. If Obama had have been leading properly and doing the right thing, the Democrats would have won such a state by miles, even with a bad candidate.

  • kbanginmotown

    Dang. Leave early to check out the Auto Show and look what happens…heckuv a job, Mikey!
    .
    Still reading posts, but here’s mine:
    .
    #0: Set the message, sell the message.
    Obama (and the Dems) biggest mistake has been not setting/selling the message that Govt’s role in the economy is to provide regulation for the benefit of the American people.
    .
    Regulation is good. Americans know this. Turn on a TV any Sunday and you’ll see 22 guys playing football who are regulated by 8 refs, umps and replay officials. We understand that this level of regulation is necessary because we’d like the winner to be the best playing team, not the best cheating team.
    .
    Having 8 refs for a game is regulation, not socialism.
    .
    But, over the course of the past year, Obama and the Dems have let the message of Govt Regulation==socialism prevail, spawning Tea Parties, low approval numbers, and the appalling spectacle of the Senate Sausage Shoppe.
    .
    To turn this around, Obama and the Dems have to reconsider if there policy proposals really do provide the industry regulation that the American people voted for, modify it accordingly, and get out and sell it!
    .
    Cheers.

  • afguy

    shepherdwong,
    .
    Appeals to greed have always been part of the campaign process but they were mostly phrased as a benefit to the country as a whole. I always took Reagan’s campaign slogan as “Are YOU better off? The heck with anyone else…”
    .
    apollyon07 and shepherdwong,
    .
    Every time one of the cable shows has a “Jazz Masters” concert on, I tell my two youngest to come in and listen. James Taylor, Clapton, even old Lawrence Welk shows when they are playing Benny Goodman, Glenn Miller or Dave Bruebeck are a treat. You forget how good they were.
    .
    apollyon07,
    .
    And, as my personal favorite, whenever the Conservatives here say that government can’t do anything right, I sit back, close my eyes, and think two words: Apollo 11. I got to be a part of that when I was your age. Kennedy infected those involved with that with his idealism. After he died, it became personal for them. I am convinced many of the engineers would have worked for food money just to be a part of that.
    .
    And I’m still ticked that we let that idealism die.

  • afguy

    4. Health care is just too hard.
    .
    Bingo, grape!
    .
    Two words: Apollo 11. From “what’s space exploration?” to a man on the moon in less than 10 years.
    .
    And we didn’t even have the technology in place to do that. We had the will and learned the rest.
    .
    We have the knowledge now to accomplish health care reform. What we lack is the political will.
    .
    Project Apollo is also a good answer for those who say that government can’t ever do anything right.

  • mariocavalli
  • freeinpa

    FDIC, SEC Comptroller of the Currency, Federal Reserve Bank, State banking regulators, Local Federal Reserve, Congressional Financial Services Ctm, House Banking Ctm., Senate Banking Ctm, Committee on Banking, Housing and Urban Affairs among others.

    Your right not nearly enough regulators. These same regulators joined by the rabid left are quick to point fingers without any basis or acknowledging any responsibility.

    ====

    So now we have banks that have have paid back TARP money with interest (some who were forced to take the money) and are being taxed to make the taxpayer whole. Only problem the ones responsible GM, Chrysler, Fannie Freddie who will never repay the money are not on that list. Nor are they on the executive pay list. Obama again changed the rules- which is a ploite way of saying he lied again to protect liberal constituencies who will cost the taxpayer money again.

  • iggydwonderllama

    I think the best way to list why his popularity dropped is to look at what various groups wanted from him, and how and to what extent he didn’t deliver.
    .
    Ideological liberals expected work on health care reform and help to the poor and jobless. Obama has taken a hands off approach, which is a disappointment to them. When you campaign on inspirational change, you need to deliver, not wait for someone else too. And there are plenty of well-documented substance problems with health-care proposals for the liberal palette. The mandate, the lack of single-payer, public option, etc. When it comes to the recession, the trickle-down bailout was a major disappointment to liberals.
    .
    You don’t hear much from the anti-war/checks on executive power folks these days, but they are still around. You heard a lot from them during the campaign. I think that’s because you can’t afford to sweep them under the rug during a campaign. Remember that even McCain would occasionally comment in this direction on the trail. Obama may have disappointed these folks most of all. No real investigation, no rollbacks of executive power, only small changes to prevent military torture, and active undermining of transparancy.
    .
    There are the pragmatists, who make up a good chunk of the independents. We loved him on the campaign trail. I didn’t always agree with him, but I got the sense he was intelligent enough that sometimes he would be right and I would be wrong. I don’t get that sense from many politicians. What pragmatists wanted was measurable improvement in our lives. Whatever ideology led to it. Well it turns out he is a pragmatist. Just a political pragmatist, rather than the getting-things-done variety. He’s very good at running to the center. What pragmatist voters want are solutions, whether conservative, liberal, or other, so long as they work. Pragmatists tend to pay attention, because the media doesn’t provide a scorecard like they do for ideologies. And his ideas have not seemed very good.
    .
    He’s spent a lot of time trying to win over conservatives. First, I’m not sure this is possible. There is a large block who are simply republicans, and simply want their team to win. There are also many people who care about conservative ideology, but believe Fox News to the point that they can’t see the conservative actions he has taken. But beyond that, his efforts are too small. A democrat is not going to win conservative minds by being kind of conservative. The blue dogs are very conservative. People have become more polarized, and going half way does no good. I don’t know any conservatives who think for themselves that like him either.
    .
    Frankly, I think the main reason he polls as high as he does is that many people still remember how bad the Bush-led government was, and worry that not supporting Obama risks inviting a recurrence.

  • kennethalmquist

    1. Obama underestimated the magnitude of the economic downturn and asked for too small a stimulus package. The economic crisis is mostly defined by decisions made before Obama was sworn into office, but Obama did make a significant policy error on the stimulus.

    The political consequences of this are (1) Democrats are trying to function in a worse economic climate than necessary, and (2) supporters of Obama were given an early reason to wonder whether Obama’s policy judgement was as good as they had hoped.

    2. Obama hasn’t made Republicans pay a political price for obstructionism. Of course that assessment is a bit premature–we’ll have to see how the 2010 and 2012 elections play out–but that’s how it seems to me at this time. Our country will be in trouble until either (1) Republicans conclude that it is in their political interest to do what is best for the country, or (2) Republicans decided that doing what is right is more important than gaining political power. It may be unreasonable to expect Obama to fix the Republican party, but somebody has to do it.

blog comments powered by Disqus