Paul Krugman - The World as He Finds It

[Mass]

I have been trying to figure out where I was for a few weeks now, concerning the Jon Stewart rallye for sanity and the bipartisanship talks of president Obama in the face of the refusal of the RW to even talk about compromise, but I think my disappointment on both counts was so large that I could not say it in a coherent way.

Krugman, in this column, hits the nail on the head. I do not know if the president, as he says, cannot deal with the world as it is. I know, however, that the whole exercise has left us in a state where fighting does not seem to matter. Why the heck is Axelrod talking about compromise on TV rather than attacking the GOP. Why is the president not calling out the GOP rather than saying in a very dispassionate tone that he is ready to listen. Listen to whom? Those who have already told him they did not want anything else than wait for 3 years.

Some wonder why Obama is losing his supporters. It is largely because people do not feel he is emotionally invested in the fight. It seems more of an intellectual exercise, while people are fighting for survival. He has not yet lost me, but I feel more and more irritated when I hear some of these weak talks, and I worry it is going to continue . Yes, Mr president. The other side is wrong. You cant fix wrong with compromise. Their ideas are wrong.


http://www.nytimes.com/2010/11/15/opinion/15krugman.html?_r=1&partner=rss&emc=rss

...
In retrospect, the roots of current Democratic despond go all the way back to the way Mr. Obama ran for president. Again and again, he defined America’s problem as one of process, not substance — we were in trouble not because we had been governed by people with the wrong ideas, but because partisan divisions and politics as usual had prevented men and women of good will from coming together to solve our problems. And he promised to transcend those partisan divisions.

...

The president has a bully pulpit. He needs to use it to say things clearly to the American people.

...Even given the economy’s troubles, however, the administration’s efforts to limit the political damage were amazingly weak. There were no catchy slogans, no clear statements of principle; the administration’s political messaging was not so much ineffective as invisible. How many voters even noticed the ever-changing campaign themes — does anyone remember the “Summer of Recovery” — that were rolled out as catastrophe loomed?
...

And now on the tax cuts

And then there’s the tax-cut issue. Mr. Obama could and should be hammering Republicans for trying to hold the middle class hostage to secure tax cuts for the wealthy. He could be pointing out that making the Bush tax cuts for the wealthy permanent is a huge budget issue — over the next 75 years it would cost as much as the entire Social Security shortfall. Instead, however, he is once again negotiating with himself, long before he actually gets to the table with the G.O.P.

Here’s the thing: Mr. Obama still has immense power, if he chooses to use it. At home, he has the veto pen, control of the Senate and the bully pulpit. He still has substantial executive authority to act on things like mortgage relief — there are billions of dollars not yet spent, not to mention the enormous leverage the government has via its ownership of Fannie and Freddie. Abroad, he still leads the world’s greatest economic power — and one area where he surely would get bipartisan support would be taking a tougher stand on China and other international bad actors.

But none of this will matter unless the president can find it within himself to use his power, to actually take a stand. And the signs aren’t good.

:hide:

[dennis4868]

1. It's easy for Krugman and others to say....

That Obama should have done this and that to really save the economy and help the middle class but what they never take into account is that Obama is not a king and really did not control the congress....the dems did not control the Senate for the past 2 years....the DINOs, obstructionist repubs, and the fillubuster did! Krugman dies not understand that Obama cannot simply pass legislation on his own.

[Mass]

2. Somehow, I think Krugman knows that. This was not his point.

His point is about fighting and stop saying you are ready to compromise against somebody who is WRONG and not ready to do so, and to use the bully pulpit.

But I guess I should not be surprised.

[ProSense]

3. It would have been better

if Krugman used the piece to hammer the point home about the tax cuts and why the Republicans' claims are preposterous. He also could have, like Robert Reich did, offer solutions or state why they should expire.

Krugman seems intent of focusing on the President and his message. In fact, it seems most of the commentary from the left does this. Where is the left apparatus for helping to get the message out? On the right, every commentary from David Brooks to the WSJ is pushing the Republicans' message.

Krugman doesn't take any of this into consideration as apparent by his statement yesterday that the RW jumped on and he had to clarify.

It's as if everyone on the left is oblivious to the media's capacity to distort and block the President's message. Stop talking about how he needs to get the message out and help, especially if you're so vested in the outcome.

This is the current state: RW media hammering their message home; left claiming not to know what the message is.

Why is Krugman writing a commentary about the HuffPo piece that was thoroughly rehashed and debunked? The President made a couple of statements since then that completely contradicts the HuffPo claim and reaffirmed his position about not extending the tax cuts.

Also, Krugman's title focused on the statement by Axelrod that was spun in the HuffPo piece as relevant to the lame duck session. He is perpetuating a false notion that House Republicans are a factor. They are not.

[MBS]

4. Krugman is usually better about expressing anger than offering

solutions. But I have to say that Obama (whom I admire and support) and the Dems really need to do a better job of getting a clear, consistent message out, so that it penetrates through the yell-fest of the craven media. It's the only way we're going to win. (Dems did well in MA not just because it's a "blue" state (though not as blue as you would think), but because they really worked at getting their message out, and had a good ground game.)
I really, really want Pres. Obama to come out swinging on this one.

[ProSense]

6. I completely agree.

This is a huge country and the media has a significant advantage.

I just wonder why we need a commentary every week about the President's message from Herbert, Krugman and Rich? Every week I read these pieces and I find the criticisms about policy sometimes valid, sometimes not, but the harping on the President not getting his message out is tiresome. Again, where is the apparatus? It cannot be just the President and a couple of spokespeople.

Meanwhile, the WSJ is writing editorials lauding Sarah Palin and John Boehner. They did the same during the Bush administration.

The point is not about criticism. Krugman is mostly criticism, and often spot on. The problem I have is the noise about messaging.

[Mass]

8. Totally agree. except on Krugman. He has offered solutions again and again.

He has been ignored again and again.

There is a certain crowd that cannot stand even banal criticisms of our president. Some people think that offering a solution means agreeing 100 % with the president.

[impik]

5. Exactly. The professional left is much more busy fighting Obama than fighting the real enemy

[Mass]

7. And you are so predictable...