On President Obama, Krugman is wrong, again

[ProSense]

Over at the Roosevelt Institute they're protecting FDR's legacy, and offering up a lot of analyses of Obama and FDR.

Today Krugman (who I now believe is protecting Clinton's legacy) jumps on Obama based on a piece posted at the Institute's blog.

Krugman: FDR, Reagan, and Obama

Some readers may recall that back during the Democratic primary Barack Obama shocked many progressives by praising Ronald Reagan as someone who brought America a “sense of dynamism and entrepreneurship that had been missing.” I was among those who found this deeply troubling — because the idea that Reagan brought a transfomation in American dynamism is a right-wing myth, not borne out by the facts. (There was a surge in productivity and innovation — but it happened in the 90s, under Clinton, not under Reagan).

All the usual suspects pooh-poohed these concerns; it was ridiculous, they said, to think of Obama as a captive of right-wing mythology.

But are you so sure about that now?

And here’s this, from Thomas Ferguson: Obama saying

We didn’t actually, I think, do what Franklin Delano Roosevelt did, which was basically wait for six months until the thing had gotten so bad that it became an easier sell politically because we thought that was irresponsible. We had to act quickly.

<...>

More and more, it’s becoming clear that progressives who had their hearts set on Obama were engaged in a huge act of self-delusion. Once you got past the soaring rhetoric you noticed, if you actually paid attention to what he said, that he largely accepted the conservative storyline, a view of the world, including a mythological history, that bears little resemblance to the facts.

And confronted with a situation utterly at odds with that storyline … he stayed with the myth.

I'm not even sure I understand Krugman's point. Most people believe Obama ran as a progressive, citing his rhetoric. Even Krugman has accused him of that. Above, Krugman cites a comment about Reagan made during the campaign to claim the rhetoric wasn't progressive. So which is it? Did he campaign as a progressive or not?

Still, here's the crazy thing, in context, the quote Krugman cites appears to have been an awkward comment to bloggers:

<...>

THE PRESIDENT: But I guess I’d make two points. The first is, I’m President and not king. And so I’ve got to get a majority in the House and I’ve got to get 60 votes in the Senate to move any legislative initiative forward.

Now, during the course — the 21 months of my presidency so far, I think we had 60 votes in the Senate for seven months, six? I mean, it was after Franken finally got seated and Arlen had flipped, but before Scott Brown won in Massachusetts. So that’s a fairly narrow window. So we’re right at the number, and that presumes that there is uniformity within the Democratic caucus in the Senate — which, Barbara, you’ve been around a while. You know that not every Democrat in the Democratic caucus agrees with me or agrees with each other in terms of complicated issues like health care.

<..>

This notion that somehow I could have gone and made the case around the country for a far bigger stimulus because of the magnitude of the crisis, well, we understood the magnitude of the crisis. We didn’t actually, I think, do what Franklin Delano Roosevelt did, which was basically wait for six months until the thing had gotten so bad that it became an easier sell politically because we thought that was irresponsible. We had to act quickly.

And getting 60 votes for what was an unprecedented stimulus was really hard. And we didn’t have the luxury of saying — first of all, we didn’t have 60 votes at the time. We had 58. And we didn’t have the luxury to say to the Senate, our way or the highway on this one.

So we did what we could in an emergency situation, anticipating that we were going to have to do more and hoping that we could continue to do more as time went on.

He was basically saying that he didn't do what FDR did because he didn't have the luxury of waiting until he had 60 Democratic votes or until things got so bad that that it became an "unprecedented national emergency" as FDR inherited (see below).

For all his dismay, Krugman was equally dismayed when health care reform nearly failed. He is one of its strongest supporters.

Krugman

<...>

Yes, I know, someone is going to tell me that this isn’t fundamental — but the truth is that the bill the Senate is about to pass looks a lot like the Obama campaign plan, so something real has happened. Give credit to Obama, or Harry Reid, or whoever; the fact is that four months ago the usual suspects were gleefully writing the obituary for reform, and have been sorely disappointed.

Wow, the President actually achieved something?

Anyway back to the Roosevelt Institute. Here is Roosevelt historian David Woolner (who also doesn't agree with the Obama quote): Setting the Record Straight on Roosevelt

<...>

Unfortunately for all of us, but especially for President Obama, who is no doubt sincere in his desire to move the country toward a shared sense of economic prosperity, the Congress he inherited in 2009 was nothing like the Congress that FDR faced in 1933. In FDR’s day, some of his strongest critics were conservative Democrats, while some of his strongest supporters were liberal Republicans. Congress also understood and agreed that the country was indeed facing an “unprecedented national emergency,” and as such tended to put the needs of the nation ahead of partisan political interests. In this much healthier political environment, the filibuster was a rare event and it was not only possible, but fairly common, for New Deal legislation to pass with both Republican and Democratic support. That is something for which all of us can be thankful, as many of the measures passed by Congress and the President more than seventy years ago have helped stop today’s Great Recession from becoming a second Great Depression.

more

When it comes to the poor and middle class, this country has been on the decline for decades.



posted here

Notice that, today, the minimum wage adjusted for inflation is at the highest it has ever been in more than 20 years (blame Reagan for its decline), but it's still lower than it was in 1968. Things improved under Clinton, but get real, the problems didn't go away. It took Bush to trigger a near collapse.

It's okay to be disappointed in Obama, but let's not pretend he's failing where most other Presidents have succeed. Cornel West, who supported Obama, is now expressing disappointment. (On edit) Still, I understand West's criticism because basically it could be applied to almost every U.S. President, the entire U.S. government and culture. Here is what West said in 2008:

Cornel West on the Election of Barack Obama: "I Hope He Is a Progressive Lincoln, I Aspire to Be the Frederick Douglass to Put Pressure on Him"

<...>

AMY GOODMAN: Professor Cornel West, you were a big supporter of Barack Obama, but you also have been giving speeches about holding him to account. What are the issues you are most concerned about right now?

CORNEL WEST: Well, I think, as a deep Democrat, I recognize I have some significant differences with Brother Barack. He’s a liberal. It looked like he wants to govern as a liberal-centrist, given the choices of Emanuel—Rahm Emanuel and others. And one has to be honest and candid in terms of one’s criticism, because in the end, it’s not about Barack Obama, it’s about empowering working people and poor people. It’s about trying to accent the dignity of those Sly Stone called “everyday people.” And when he moves in that direction, it’s good. When he doesn’t move in that direction, we need to criticize him. Same is true in terms of foreign policy: Latin America, Africa and the Middle East. We have to be honest about it.

For me, my criticism of Barack has to do with trying to acknowledge the degree to which, one, thank God we’re at the end of the age of Ronald Reagan, we’re at the end of the era of conservatism, we’re coming to the end of the epoch of the Southern Strategy. For the first time now, we’ve got some democratic possibilities. This has been a political ice age, and the melting is just beginning. And Barack Obama is a symbol, but we’ve got to move from symbol to substance. We’ve got to move from what he represents in a broad sense—and it’s a beautiful thing to have a black man in the White House, we know that, and black slaves and laborers and other white immigrants built the White House. And to have a black family there, significant; black face for the American empire, fine. Can we revitalize democratic possibilities on the ground with Barack in the White House? I think we can. We can put some serious pressure on him, and we can actually continue the democratic awakening among working people and poor people and push Barack in a progressive direction.

AMY GOODMAN: Can you talk about just this latest news that came out last night—of course, not the official announcement, but Eric Holder, the former deputy attorney general under President Clinton, being tapped as the next attorney general, if confirmed?

CORNEL WEST: Well, two things. First, on a personal level, I know Brother Eric Holder. I’ve spent good time with him in meetings and so on. He’s a brilliant lawyer. He’s a very decent human being. I know he was very upset about Clinton’s attitude toward crime. We know during the Clinton administration we got the tightening of the mandatory sentences that’s had devastating effects on poor communities, especially disproportionately black and brown poor communities. And Eric took a strong stand in that regard. I appreciate that, because there’s a sense that we kind of whitewash the Clinton administration—welfare bill, crime, deregulation and so forth. We’ve got to be honest about some of the flaws during the age of Reagan and the Clinton moments during the age of Reagan. And Eric did take a stand.

On the other hand, of course, I’m sure I have some disagreements with him. But I am a little suspicious, in fact, highly suspicious, of the degree to which my dear Brother Barack Obama seems to be recycling all of these Clintonites. I’m looking for an age of everyday people, not a Clintonite recycling in this new period. And so, I’m a little bit suspicious of this, though I think Eric Holder is much better than many of the other Clintonites that’s being recycled.

<...>

CORNEL WEST: Yes. Well, I mean, one, I had a major clash with Brother Larry Summers. It was ugly. There’s no doubt about that. I’ve forgiven him, but it’s very clear that he has tremendous difficulty treating many people with decency and empathy. That’s far removed, of course, from his brilliance. He does have are brilliant mind.

The problem is, he has been a deregulator. He’s part of the Robin Rubin circle of Jason Furman and the others under Clinton. They were very much responsible for stripping the powers of the Glass-Steagall Act that made that crucial separation between investment and commercial banks. They’re responsible in part for the larger Greenspan-like shadow cast that wedded us to the dogma of unregulated markets that has led toward the near catastrophe and what Mike Davis rightly calls the financial Katrina, two million fellow citizens being pushed into homelessness. So it’s the political and ideological orientation of my dear Brother Larry Summers that deeply upsets me in terms of his character, in terms of his inability to treat so many of us with decency and empathy.

OK, I acknowledge that, but sometimes brilliant folk have social challenges. I can understand that. But it’s the political concern that I have about Brother Larry Summers, and I would think that we’ve got William Greider, we’ve got Joseph Stiglitz, we’ve got Sylvia Ann Hewlett, we’ve got Ben Barber, we’ve got Robert Kuttner, we’ve got a whole host of progressive economists who are actually coming up with visions of empowering poor people, that I would hope that my dear Brother Barack Obama would take seriously. Why stay with centrists like Robin Rubin and company?

Yeah, Obama should have stayed away from all the Clintonites, which also include Robert Reich and Joe Stiglitz, who helped to "define a new economic philosophy, a 'third way." People change.

In terms of perspective, these two posts by Axrendale are very enlightening.

The first here

<...>

Let's first take a look at some of the historical precedents that you hold up as being superior Presidential Legislators to our current POTUS. I find it interesting that you use Harry S. Truman as an example. "Give 'em Hell Harry" certainly did know how to roar from the Bully Pulpit with the best of them, and any liberal Democrat worth his/her salt can only experience a distinct feeling of pride that our party was once led by a such a man. The trouble with holding him up as a parable of how a President should get a legislative agenda passed through Congress when their party holds the majority however, is that Truman was, quite frankly, terrible at doing this. His approach to dealing with Congress had all the subtlety of a sledgehammer, and the (rather predictable) result was that in almost eight years of promoting his Fair Deal legislation, HST managed to get Congress to pass one - that's right, count 'em, one - of his initiatives in a form that he was prepared to sign - a housing bill that had been so watered down by the time it landed on his desk that it seems patently ludicrous to hold it up as any sort of example of "getting more and giving up less".

John F. Kennedy had something of a better time working with the Democrats in his two (or rather one and a half) Congresses, but not so much so that the last truly great President (every President since has been either of flawed greatness or a relative nonentity) can be trumpeted as having had enjoyed anything even close to the same level of success as that enjoyed by truly successful PLs. By 1963 the New Frontier initiatives that had managed to be signed into law were uniformly of a fairly minor note - and this was quite deliberate. JFK was more than canny a politician enough to understand that any political capital he sought to expend fighting to break the thoroughly conservative Congress of the time to his will would only be wasted - he would have to work with, not against, the legislators of his day. He did so in a manner highly reminiscent of that employed by Obama, incidently - and the result was that although Kennedy did not managed to achieve any overly flashy results in the short-term, he was able to get a good number of watered down measures enacted, and build up the foundations for much greater action in the future. Some might find this a little disappointing, but others would argue that it was better than the failure to get anything done at all. JFK always defined himself as a "pragmatic idealist" - he understood what he wanted and why, but he also understood the limitations of the political resources at his disposal, and sought to work within those boundaries.

The fact is that in the entire course of American political history, there have only ever been five Presidents who have succeeded in forming a contextually historic progressive legislative agenda and been able to compel/coerce Congress into enacting at least part of it into law - one Republican and four Democrats. They are: Theodore Roosevelt, Woodrow Wilson, Franklin D. Roosevelt, Lyndon Johnson, and... Barack Obama (John F. Kennedy and Richard Nixon might have made the list, but were respectively assassinated and disgraced before they could do so). Of these five, it is fairly safe to say that three of them can be singled out as possessing legislative accomplishments that stand out in scope above those of the other two: and those are Roosevelt, Johnson, and Obama, in that order (Obama's present legislative accomplishments probably hover in relative terms somewhere between those of Johnson and Wilson). The inclusion of our current President in that list for the results of his first two years (if some people think it unfair to rate Obama solely on the outcome of half his first term, it should be remembered that it is usual for Presidents to cram the bulk of their achievements into short periods of time. Most of Theodore Roosevelt's Square Deal was enacted from 1905 - 1906, Woodrow Wilson's New Freedom was largely confined to the period from 1913 - 1914, FDR's New Deal was at its height from 1933 - 1936, and LBJ's Great Society was brought about in bulk during the years prior to 1966) is all the more remarkable, one might note, as all of the four (with the exception of Wilson, in terms of numbers at least) 20th Century ones had at the time of their greatest legislative accomplishments significantly more in the way of political resources to draw upon than Obama ever dreamed of. Don't believe me? Let's take a look at the numbers:

- From 1905 5o 1906, when Theodore Roosevelt sought to ram as much of his Square Deal legislation through Congress as possible he was able to do so more than anything else by virtue of commanding a twenty-eight seat majority in the Senate (59 Republicans to just 31 Democrats) and a one hundred and sixteen seat majority in the House (251 Republicans to 135 Democrats), over both of which he was widely thought to hold even greater influence than Kaisar Wilhelm held over the Reichstag.

- From 1913 to 1914, Woodrow Wilson's Democratic coalition that he used to pass the New Freedom held an overwhelming majority in the House of one hundred and forty-seven seats (291 Democrats, 9 Progressives, and an Independent to 134 Republicans). Their majority in the Senate seemed less convincing on paper (51 Democrats and 1 Progressive to 44 Republicans), but this belied the reality that the entire progressive wing of the Republican party remained furious at the rejection of Theodore Roosevelt by the Party powerbrokers in 1912, and in revenge for this were more than willing to join with the Democrats in a coalition to enact that legislation they had been agitating for for years.

- The 74th United States Congress, which met from 1935 to 1936 and which was compelled by Franklin D. Roosevelt to pass a series of historic economic and social statutes that formed the keystone of the New Deal, did so partially thanks to FDR's matchless politicking, but partially also by virtue of being dominated by the most powerful legislative coalition ever to be assembled in American history. FDR enjoyed the loyalty of 69 Democrats, 1 Farmer-Laborer, and 1 Progressive against just 25 Republicans in the Senate, and 322 Democrats, 3 Farmer-Laborers, and 7 Progressives against just 103 Republicans in the House.

- When Lyndon B. Johnson rammed measure after legislative measure that collectively made up the bulk of the Great Society through the 89th US Congress from 1965 to 1966, he was in command of a legislative coalition that was almost as impressive as that presided over by FDR. 68 Democrats in the Senate (to 32 Republicans) and 295 Democrats in the House (against 140 Republicans) swore fealty to LBJ at the height of his power.

It is worth noting that despite holding these seemingly invincible majorities in both houses of Congress, TR, Wilson, FDR, and LBJ all had to wheel, deal, compromise, and negotiate like mad to get anything from the Legislative branch. Those who felt (and continue to feel) that the results each of these men achieved were somehow "half-measures" that could have been far better than they were (a famous story tells how Eugene Debbs, the leader of the American Socialist Party, was in the aftermath of the Social Security Act of 1935's enactment asked whether FDR had not carried out the Socialist agenda. "He certainly has carried it out", Debbs replied. "He has carried it out on a sretcher!") fail to appreciate just how much effort it really took to achieve even these "limited" results.

- We know come to Barack Obama and the 111th Congress. Over the past (almost) two years, Obama in seeking to enact his own legislative agenda (dubbed the "New Foundation") has been confronted with the realities of managing a legislative coalition that at its absolute height consisted of 58 Democrats and 2 Independents opposed by 40 Republicans, while in the House the Democratic coalition never achieved a greater strength than 258 Democrats to 177 Republicans - the smallest effective majorities on this list.

When one then factors in the die-hard opposition that the Democrats have faced from the Republicans, a phenomenon that almost resembles the fervor with which Southern politicians opposed Civil Rights legislation, applied universally to the agenda of the President, as well as the difficulty involved in simply maintaining cohesion within the ranks of his own party (a problem that has not been so pronounced in the House, but which has proved lethal to numerous pieces of legislation in the Senate), and a case can actually made that Obama was lucky to get as much out of the past eighteen months as he has.

Certainly one can argue (probably rightly) that he could have improved considerably on certain areas of his performance. But that is to neglect that there is much to the legislative record of the 111th Congress that is genuinely historic, and to dismiss the President as merely a bit-player in the process, crippled by a "lack of experience and expertise", is forgive me, to betray having paid little attention to exactly what role he did play. It was Obama's iniatives that resulted in a great part of the legislation that he has managed to sign into law, and a number of items that failed to be enacted. His initiatives and his negotiations, his attempts to fulfill on his promises, and his input into the contents of the legislation that will be his legacy, formed an influence on the legislative process since the beginning of his presidency, that for better or worse must be reckoned with as having been highly influential on the "contents of the sausages", so to speak. Like it or loathe it, the legislation that has become law, from the ARRA through to the Healthcare Bill, through to the Financial Regulation package, and beyond, bears Obama's signature in more ways than one. If Hillary Clinton or John Edwards had been the Democratic nominee in 2008, or if Bill Clinton had managed to evade the 22nd Ammendment and return for a third term, then their final tally of legislative accomplishments by this point would certainly have been very different from Obama's - but I for one am not at all sure that the differences would have been for the better. Those who complain of the Healthcare Bill's flaws have a number of very important points to make, but it is important to remember that we could just as easily have had no bill at all. The Financial Regulatory package could have been a lot stronger... but it could also potentially have been signiciantly weaker.

As a final note on the Stimulus bill, I agree with those who contend that it was/is not nearly large enough, but also tend to sympathize with those who contend that it was just about as a big as was reasonable to hope for from a strictly political standpoint. Perhaps it could have been made bigger, but not by enough to make a reasonable difference.

A note on the tax cuts however - it is certainly true that the ARRA contained within it one of the largest tax cutting programs in history. That does not however make them in any way, shape, or form in any way similar to Reaganomics, nor do they at all resemble the supply-side tax cuts that have done such harm over the past decade. The tax cuts that Obama pushed for were demand-side Keynesian tax cuts of the same kind as those which were pursued by John F. Kennedy and Lyndon Johnson in the 1960s. Certainly from an economic perspective government spending is far more effective at stimulating the economy than tax cuts (although these are very capable of providing some stimulus if they are properly aimed at the middle class), but the entire rationale behind "Reactionary Keynesianiam" has always been that it is more politically acceptable, even if it is less economically efficient, than Progressive Keynesianism (one thinks of FDR using military spending as a substitute for deficit spending in order to banish the last vestiges of the Great Depression).

The second here

<...>

It is indeed true that Franklin Roosevelt and Lyndon Johnson (and for that matter Woodrow Wilson, Harry Truman and Jack Kennedy) had an immense amount of trouble with the Southern Conservative wing of the Democratic party, to say nothing of numerous other factions amongst the party, from the Populists to the Silverites, all of whom had wildly different agendas. The Democratic party has always been a far more diverse and chaotic political organization than the Republican party, and it has historically been extremely rare for any party leader to get some measure of control over it as a whole (really the only ones who ever managed were Roosevelt and Johnson, and to an extent Clinton - but only after 1994).

The problem is that you are refusing to recognize that Obama has had to deal with the exact same problems of party factional management. You are kidding yourself if you think that he hasn't had to deal with a positive nightmare trying to get the Blue Dogs to stand in line long enough to get something done. And unlike Wilson (or Reagan, to use an example from the opposite side of the political spectrum) the opposition party has allowed him no opportunities to form an effective majority to overcome the conservatives within his own party. When Woodrow Wilson was passing the New Freedom legislation through the Senate, he was able to bypass a number of the more conservative Democratic Senators who were opposing his agenda because an entire wing of the Republican party (the Bull Moosers and progressives) were willing to vote with him - forming a coalition that had enough votes that the conservative wing of the Democratic was rendered irrelevant. In the times of FDR and LBJ, they had such large majorities that the conservative wing of the party was balanced out by enough moderates and liberals to largely squash the more unpleasant aspects of the Southern agenda (it ought to be remembered that many of the conservative Democrats were invaluable allies for FDR in overcoming the isolationists), and in addition to this there was a progressive/liberal wing of the Republican party that they could reach out to for the extra votes that they needed to again render the Southern Caucus irrelevant.

Obama has had none of these advantages of the past two years. There is no longer anything even resembling a liberal wing of the Republican party - the GOP has been virtually unanimous in its opposition to just about every single part of the President's agenda, from the Stimulus Bill to the Healthcare Bill to the Financial Regulation Bill, and so because of this he has been forced to look for almost all of his votes within his own party. Because the size of its majorities have not been anything even approaching the effective majorities that were commanded by Wilson, FDR, and LBJ (or even the paper majorities held by Truman and JFK), he has had to cope with his agenda effectively being held hostage by the Blue Dogs, and yet in spite of that he has managed to force initiatives through the Legislative branch that in relative terms surpass those of any other President save Roosevelt and Johnson. That is a significant achievement, like it or not.

When President Obama came into office, there was indeed a general expectation of great activity from him, and Congress was already churning over a number of ideas. But it was the President's initiatives, thrown into the mix, and the active role that he played in the development of the legislation that was ultimately passed and signed into law, that played the truly decisive role in the shaping of the substance of that legislation. For all that legislative sausage-making is a process that requires many hands working the machinery and feeding in the meat, it is Barack Obama who at the end of the day an honest assessment finds to be deserving of the lions share of the credit for the form and contents of the bulk of his "New Foundation" thus far. It is indeed the substance of any legislation that must be judged to determine its historic importance, and I would contend that the substance of the initiatives that Obama has been responsible for passing through Congress - yes, playing an active role in the forming and passing of the legislation by "working" the legislative branch, not merely just signing the end result - are more than enough for an evaluation of him as a Presidential legislator to find him to have surpassed the relative achievements of Theodore Roosevelt and Woodrow Wilson, and to be somewhere below Franklin Roosevelt and Lyndon Johnson (this is not surprising, as these two had respectively twelve and five years to work on their legislative legacies, whereas we are only evaluating Obama's first two years).

You continue to insist that "any" of the candidates running in 2008 could have gotten "just as much as Obama did". I continue to think that this is a positively ridiculous assertion. In 1993, when Bill Clinton - who you hold up as a "master" of "working Congress" - came into the Presidency with a legislative agenda of his own, he had Democratic majorities in both houses of Congress to work with that were on paper only the tinest fraction smaller than those which Obama had to work with: 57 Democrats in the Senate (to Obama's 58) and 258 Democrats in the House (to Obama's 258). Clinton had a Republican party to deal with that opposed his agenda, but not nearly to the same rabid extent to which they have opposed that of Obama, and the Blue Dogs were far less of an influential presence in the Democratic party in the 1990s. And yet Clinton utterly fluffed his chances of achieving an historic legislative agenda. His political management and party leadership during the first two years of his presidency were appalling by just about any standard, and the result was that while a few pieces of important progressive legislation were enacted (such as the Family Medical and Leave Act) and some controversial pieces (such as NAFTA), on the whole Clinton managed to get nothing done in his first two years (or for that matter his later six years) that would establish him in the eyes of history as a truly effective progressive Presidential legislator. John F. Kennedy and Richard Nixon (!) were more effective at "working" Congress to pass liberal legislation, and they all fall well below the four true greats of the 20th Century: Roosevelt, Wilson, Roosevelt, and Johnson.

When Barack Obama came into office by contrast, with legislative majorities just a shade larger than those Clinton had had, confronted with the Blue Dogs having significantly consolidated their influence and the Republicans more unified in their determination to stonewall everything and anything that the Democrats might try to do than they ever had been in history, he still managed to forge a legislative legacy that will likely be judged by history to have been significant indeed. His political style of working with Congress may have been inelegant, at times almost painful to watch (it put a very heavy emphasis on trying to avoid the mistakes that Clinton had made, especially his heavy-handedness), but it produced some powerful results. The iniatives that it was successful in enacting resulted in a Stimulus Package that contained at least five seperate pieces of legislation that count as truly historic (the largest tax cuts for the middle class in history, and the largest investments in infrastructure, education, medical research, and clean energy in history), a Healthcare Bill that might have been painfully watered down but which will still move America closer to universal coverage than we have ever been before (as well as containing such useful things as the Patients Bill of Rights), a Financial Regulatory package that might be far less than we might have hoped for, but which still represents the most powerful steps toward economic regulation since the New Deal, as well as an assortment of lesser accomplishments including hate-crimes legislation, regulation of the tobacco companies, a "Credit Card Bill of Rights", further initiatives concerning education and the environment, and an assortment of other accomplishments that easily rival the historic significance of anything that was ever accomplished by Bill Clinton or Jimmy Carter. A note might also be made on the subject of taxes. Not only did Obama's initiatives bring about sweeping tax cuts in the ARRA, but he then went on to introduce numerous tax cuts over the ensuing eighteen months, arguably establishing himself as a contender for the title of "most effective tax-cutting President". Is this a good thing? Yes it is. Because as much as we would all like to see a return of the progressive marginal income tax rates of the 1950s and '60s, and some more support for the heavily progressive estate tax that Theodore Roosevelt originally called for at the beginning of the 20th Century, it is at the same time highly refreshing to see a return of basic Keynesian economics to the Executive branch - understanding that tax cuts can provide a certain level of economic stimulus as long as they are aimed at the middle class - which is precisely where President Obama, following in the footsteps of JFK and LBJ (whose collective achievement of the Revenue Act of 1964, which was proposed by Kennedy and enacted by Johnson, is the greatest example in history of a tax cut boosting economic performance) has been aiming his tax cuts. Ever since the 1980s, conservatives have been working to shift the tax burden away from the wealthy and onto the middle class. By reducing the tax burden of the latter, Obama's tax policies might thus far be addressing only half of the problem - but that is certainly far more of the problem than might have been addressed otherwise.

You pose the question of what in Obama's legislative record thus far can be held up as an equivalent of Lyndon Johnson forcing the Civil Rights Acts of 1964 and 1965 through Congress even though he suspected that they would ensure the losing of the South. Contrary to what you may have expected when you posed that question, I have an answer for you. When Obama made the decision that the centerpiece of his legislative efforts in the first half of his first term would consist of a push for a Healthcare reform bill, he predicted (accurately, and giving the lie to those who insist that the President lacks a political intellect) that the fight to get such a bill enacted would cost him fifteen points in the polls, and possibly compromise his chances of reelection. He predicted this, and then he went on to engage in that struggle anyway, because he believed (and at this point it is looking like he was correct about this too) that if he didn't pass a major Healthcare bill at the begining of his presidency, then he never would.

Some people might disagree, but the fact that the President made such a call continues to give me some hope and admiration for him.

Comic relief:

Obama sucks. Please listen to my radio show.

Wow. this President.
I voted for hope and change.
I didn't get too much change and I'm losing hope.

But I DO hope you will listen to

my radio show
from 6-9a EST Monday through Friday.

<...>

Edited to add a point about Cornel West.

[MBS]

1. thanks for this

And I totally agree that Krugman is trying to protect Clinton legacy

[geckosfeet]

2. I would argue that we should have been alarmed with his first cabinet appointments.

And that subsequent events have justified that alarm.

Krugman is right to call him out. Obama may appear progressive relative to the nutbag right wingers, but within historical context his policy has been overwhelmingly centrist on a relative measure.

Krugman mentions Clinton exactly once in today's column. Saying that there was surge in productivity and innovation and crediting Clinton policy vs Regan.

[ProSense]

4. "but within historical context his policy has been overwhelmingly centrist" Well,

I don't agree, and some of the President's earlier critics, dont' either.

Krugman might want to attach a label to Obama, but even he knows, and makes no pretense about it that health care reform was a huge step forward.

[geckosfeet]

6. Health care reform is - a huge gift to the health insurance industry.

Ten steps forward for insurance companies, and one step forward people who need health care.

One could argue that is good thing. But again, what is the relative measure.

[ProSense]

7. Then when you say you agree with Krugman

you really don't because he believes it was a "victory for America's soul."

[geckosfeet]

46. Thanks for clarifying my position for me.

I agree that the bill was better than nothing, or a poke in the eye. If that means I disagree with Krugman so be it.

Your OP simply misrepresents his column.

[JamesA1102]

26. The gift to the health insurance industry would have been the Public Option

then they would be able to dump their most expensive customers on to the government plan.

[geckosfeet]

48. So? Then they would have coverage that the insurers would deny or limit.

What's your point? That insurance companies are in it to make money?

[JamesA1102]

55. The point is the insurance companies wanted the public option

so they could dump their most expensive customers on to the government. The current healthcare reform plan is no gift to them.

[geckosfeet]

123. I don't get that logic. Everyone gets the public option. Not just the people

the insurance companies don't want to cover.

What's more important, people who are not presently covered, or that the insurance companies will not cover, for whatever reasons, will have an option. Right now they don't.

And, insurance companies have a guaranteed revenue stream. This was literally a gift for them. A concession of the largest order. Guaranteed customers. They go ahead and cancel certain types of coverage that the government said that they can't deny. They will take that PR hit and move on.

I am however thankful that we are not required to enroll in the federal plan like we are required in Massachusetts.

[JamesA1102]

139. Everyone would not get the public option.

Only those who are not insured by their employers or couldn't afford private coverage. Thus, the insurance companies could have dumped high risk, expensive customers on to the public plan. Now they are obligated to insure those people which is not a gift to them.

[geckosfeet]

144. One very important group is the group (millions) who are not presently covered.

Also - even though I have insurance and am traveling out of state where my insurance has all kinds of restrictions, I would/should be able to avail myself of public health care. This would be more a nuance of any public option law as written. I would expect that a truly public option would be available to everyone at anytime.

But, there are many right now who the insurance companies will not provide service for by way of making insurance far too expensive. This is a de facto denial of service even under current law. As I understand the current law, insurance companies can still raise rates to their hearts content. Federal rate capping kicks-in in 2014. Outside of federal caps, some states have been using their own mechanisms to deal with the gouging.

[Peregrine Took]

11. From the very getgo he started turning me off. Time after time he maintained

the status quo or went right. Fool me once...

[Name removed]

3. Deleted message

Message removed by moderator. Click here to review the message board rules.

[Name removed]

5. Deleted message

Message removed by moderator. Click here to review the message board rules.

[Radical Activist]

15. When Obama made the Reagan statement

it was obvious that he believed Reagan's change was negative. In fact, he said so specifically. He said he wanted to change the trajectory of American politics in the opposite direction.
Why aren't you aware of that? Maybe you spend too much time swallowing someone's spin about Obama's words without actually listening to him for yourself.

[Radical Activist]

8. Those sort of comments make it difficult to take Krugman seriously.

It's obvious that Obama's point about Reagan isn't what Kurgman claims. In fact, those of us who paid attention to Obama's platform saw that it was even more progressive than the rhetoric.

Claiming that Obama holds a right-wing worldview make it obvious that Krugman has strong personal biases which make it difficult for him to objectively interpret Obama and his actions.

[JamesA1102]

25. Well said nt

[TheKentuckian]

30. Obama is yesterday's conservative and in some areas regressive.

Obama really and truly got 90% or better of what he wanted. He appointed they top spots as he wished (minus Daschle).

He cut his deals long before Lieberman and friends ran the interference to justify the bullshit.

Having trouble taking a person that is more often correct than those whose words you hang on is a personal failing.

[ProSense]

31. In what area's is he "yesterday's conservative" and "regressive"

Examples?

[Radical Activist]

32. Perhaps more clean energy, more regulation of corporations, and a more progressive tax code

are his ideas of regressive?

[bluedigger]

9. That is a ridiculous amount of refutation for a four to six paragraph commentary.

So much so, that I doubt you understood Krugman's point in the first place.:shrug:

[ProSense]

10. Stomp. n/t

[Peregrine Took]

13. Succinct is good, blah blah is not. Too long. n/t

[Catherina]

130. +1 n/t

[Name removed]

12. Deleted message

Message removed by moderator. Click here to review the message board rules.

[Radical Activist]

17. Bush wanted more government oversight over every sector of the economy?

Wow. I missed that.

[ProSense]

19. Don't you know

this was Bush's idea: President Obama Signs Executive Order Widening Government Transparency

[katandmoon]

22. What a crock.

[ProSense]

23. Rebuttals that repeat

"He sucks"

Offer substance.

[katandmoon]

37. The substance of Obama fail is all around you. His defense of hisTSA's useless and shockingly

invasive and humiliating attack on travelers' privacy, health, and dignity is the latest example of Obama's attempts to have it both ways -- to out-Bush Bush when it comes to destroying the Constitution, and to try to make it sound like he actually cares, when he is simply incapable of it.

[ProSense]

40. So the fail is based on the TSA?

You just decided he failed yesterday?

[katandmoon]

21. Now that I have your attention, why did Obama appoint two SS foes to head the catfood commission?

[ProSense]

27. You will never know until you

have his decision. What doesn't seem to matter to anyone is that he has repeated stated his position on protecting Social Security.

[katandmoon]

33. Why are his words at odds with his ACTIONS at appointing to SS foes?

[ProSense]

36. Maybe he had a reason

that doesn't change his stated position.

[katandmoon]

41. That makes him sound even worse, actually. But then I already knew he had NO convictions at all.

[ProSense]

47. No,

it makes his critics unsure of what his intentions were, but it doesn't change his stated position, which is exactly the thing many of the commissions critics advocate.

Senator Sanders:

BURLINGTON, Vt., Nov. 10 – U.S. Sen. Bernie Sanders (I-Vt.) today issued the following statement in response to a proposal by the co-chairmen of a White House deficit commission, Erskine Bowles and former Sen. Alan Simpson:

“The Simpson-Bowles deficit reduction plan is extremely disappointing and something that should be vigorously opposed by the American people. The huge increase in the national debt in recent years was caused by two unpaid wars, tax breaks for the wealthy, a Medicare prescription drug bill written by the pharmaceutical industry, and the Wall Street bailout. Unlike Social Security, none of these proposals were paid for. Not only has Social Security not contributed a dime to the deficit, it has a $2.6 trillion surplus.

“It is reprehensible to ask working people, including many who do physically-demanding labor, to work until they are 69 years of age. It also is totally impractical. As they compete for jobs with 25-year-olds, many older workers will go unemployed and have virtually no income. Frankly, there will not be too much demand within the construction industry for 69-year-old bricklayers.

“Despite all of the right-wing rhetoric, Social Security is not going bankrupt. According to the Congressional Budget Office, Social Security can pay every nickel owed to every eligible American for the next 29 years and after that about 80 percent of benefits.

“If we are serious about making Social Security strong and solvent for the next 75 years, President Obama has the right solution. On October 14, 2010, he restated a long-held position that the cap on income subject to Social Security payroll taxes, now at $106,800, should be raised. As the president has long stated, it is absurd that billionaires pay the same amount into the system as someone who earns $106,800.

“With the richest people in this country getting richer and the middle class in decline, it is absurd that billionaires pay the same amount into the Social Security system as someone who earns $106,800.”

[rury]

114. He's asked them to study and come up with recommendations

He has not acted on ANYTHING YET AND HAS SAID HE WILL PROTECT SOCIAL SECURITY!!!!
Damn...listen!!

[MannyGoldstein]

141. When has Obama pledged to not slash Social Security?

A link would be useful, thanks.

[Radical Activist]

29. To get a few Senate Republicans on board with progressive policies

that would be included in a compromise, such as cutting defense spending and a tax hike.

[katandmoon]

34. Bwahahahahahahahaha!!!! Thanks, I needed a good laugh.

[Radical Activist]

38. It's the most logical, reasonable answer.

It's in line with his other efforts to get a few Republicans on board, as he did successfully with reforms of Wall Street, the lending industry, credit cards and the stimulus.

It takes a lot of illogical acrobatics and conspiratorial thinking to believe its Obama's secret, evil plot to do the opposite of what he says he wants.

[katandmoon]

42. And all those "reforms" fell far short of what they needed to be. They were small band

aids on big gaping wounds. Wall Street is still sitting pretty, Main Street is still hemorrhaging. The stimulus was too limited and its effects are just about over. Obama is a master at claiming credit for reforms that are nothing but window dressing. Republicans are salivating to privatize SS and Obama has given them a huge opening. With his past consistent history of caving to the right, he is biw poised to do what even Bush couldn't do to SS. It's very straightfoward. Obama's actions speak loudly for themselves. No acrobatic or conspiratorial thinking necessary.

[Radical Activist]

45. So when you lose an argument

you change the subject to rattle off the usual pre-programmed list of cliche talking point complaints you learned from Cenk or some blogger. That's what my conservative talk radio friends do whey they're losing an argument too.

The Senate watered down much of what Obama proposed. Blaming all of that on Obama shows a basic lack of understanding about how the three branches of government work.

[Autumn]

14. Krugman makes sense to me

:shrug: I find myself agreeing with him a lot.

[mix]

16. Krugman nails it again. Obama is a neoliberal defender of the

conservative status quo. His policy failures--war, health care, education, the economy, poverty--speak for themselves.

The country has been on the decline for decades. That is why it is so disheartening to see Obama cling to the failed policies of Reagan et al.

[BzaDem]

51. Krugman ENTHUSIASTICALLY backed healthcare. Nice try though. nt

[mix]

57. "Enthusiastically"?

Typical hyperbole.

Krugman would have preferred "Medicare for all."

When will Team Obama realize that trickle-down neoliberalism doesn't work?

[ProSense]

66. "Typical hyperbole." No, Krugman

on health care: here, here and here. (All from the OP)

In fact, Krugman believes it was a "."

[mix]

80. So which is it? Is Krugman a critic or supporter of Obama?

It is clear he's pleased with the political defeat of the Republicans on the issue--the "victory for America's soul" is a victory over republican fear-mongering. But he's quite murky when it comes to the content of the bill itself, admitting that it will in theory help the less fortunate. However, he would have preferred "Medicare for all."

Krugman also predicted that the passage of the healthcare reform bill would help the Democrats in Nov. It did not.

Your links clearly express that.

What's Krugman say about the bill now, its effects, and its political results?

[Bluenorthwest]

18. Cornell West, is a man who I recently heard shill for 'Bishop'

Eddie Long, whom he called brother. This took him down a few notches in my book, and now much of his rhetoric seems to sound like a piece of toast buttered on both sides, falling to a floor made of royalites.
The rest boils down to this: Reagan was the worst President of all time. A monster. In history, he will be seen as an ignorant hate merchant and dawdling fool. The only Democrat I have heard praise him is Obama. Ever in history. Barf-o-rama. Insert blue link to barf-o-rama.com press release here.

[Mass]

20. Is the factual point Krugman makes true or not?

(the one about Obama saying FDR waited six months). Yes, some people express their disappointment stronger than others. But be sure that the disappointment is there, not only that things did not get done (as you say, every Democratic president had the same problems. For those who dont believe it, reread Zinn's History of the American People), but also that Obama would use RW memes when he talks, or continues this "compromises" talk in the face of the GOP laughing at him.

So, and I ask this not knowing the answer, what the complaint correct or not? If yes, why did Obama use this framing?

[ProSense]

24. No, it's not

as I point out in the OP, the statement in context does not imply that. Krugman could have researched the comment instead of using it to make launch his broad condemnation. The fact is that even those at the Roosevelt Insititute appear to understand the contraints, though they never attached context, related to the point Obama was making to the bloggers.

[JamesA1102]

28. Great post. Krugman has little credibility left.

Like Jane Hamsher and Arianna, he seems dedicated to bash the President with little or no factual support.

[Phx_Dem]

64. +1000.

[rury]

115. +1,000,000,000,000

[w4rma]

150. - 1,000,000,001,000 (nt)

:hi:

[Name removed]

136. Deleted message

Message removed by moderator. Click here to review the message board rules.

[JamesA1102]

138. Or critical thinkers. nt

[vi5]

35. Yeah, I think I'll trust the credibility...

of the Nobel prize winning economist over the guy who thought Larry Summers, Ben Bernake, and Tim Geitner were the most qualified men to run the country's economy.

[ProSense]

39. Yeah, but on quantitative easing

many trust Matt Taibbi over a Nobel prize winning economist.

[vi5]

43. I'd trust a drunk throwing darts at financial information on a board

before I'd trust Summers, Bernake, and Geitner.

[ProSense]

44. Your prerogative. n/t

[JamesA1102]

58. So you're admitting that you have a closed mind

And I always thought that liberals were defined by having open minds.

[vi5]

65. I go by evidence and experience....

If someone shows consistent evidence of getting things wrong and for prioritizing certain people's interest over others, yes until they prove otherwise my mind is closed.

If someone has no record or no history of being either right or wrong I always keep an open mind. But when someone or a certain group is so regularly wrong and so regularly shown to be on the side of certain groups of people then it's gullible and stupid to continue to give them more chances.

The drunk at the bar has no record one way or the other of being a complete corporate beholden stooge obsessed with still believing that trickle down economics is not a load of shit. So I'll keep an open mind of his chances of getting things right.

[JamesA1102]

67. So what evidence and experience are you going on? nt

[vi5]

70. None. You are right....

The economy is doing wonderfully, unemployment is down, Wall Street has been humbled and the middle and working classes stock is rising in our society. I don't know what I was thinking. And the 3 men I mentioned had/have virtually no power or influence over any of that.

And someone delusional enough to believe that the Insurance industry wanted the public option probably believes that is true, so.......enjoy the sky in your world. It must be a wonderful shade of blue.

[JamesA1102]

98. So you're saying that because they didn't fix everything in less than 2 years

that took decades to break then you're the delusional one.

[niceypoo]

148. Institutionalizing the problem is no solution

[Catherina]

132. Ouch. Point well made. n/t

[Lost-in-FL]

151. +1,000 x 1,000

[kentuck]

49. Perhaps Obama is not a Democrat or Republican??

Perhaps he is a non-partisan? Perhaps he thought he could persuade people to do what needs to be done without regard to Party affiliation?

Perhaps the left and the right have been judging this President all wrong?

But we all have political biases. This President is not a socialist. If anything, he leans to the right, as with his comments about Ronald Reagan, and his inclination to support taxcuts as solution to most of our economic problems, and, healthcare notwithstanding, his support for the military and vocal support for reducing the deficits.

The left is confused by this President. Why? Because he is not a leftist. He is a pragmatic non-partisan.

His goals are admirable. He wants to do what is best for the country, regardless of Party. He continues to stick with this rock-solid belief.

But, in the end, he will find himself alone and without allies on either side. The left will not support someone they believe not to be supportive of their principles. And the President refuses to give them an inch of support. They are left to wonder where he stands?

The truth may be that this President is not a Democrat? Perhaps he believes himself to be beyond partisan politics?

[ProSense]

50. "But, in the end, he will find himself alone and without allies on either side. "

The President has plenty of allies, and in the end he will have accomplished more progress for this country than it has seen in decades.

[Name removed]

52. Deleted message

Message removed by moderator. Click here to review the message board rules.

[ProSense]

54. Obama is the President. He doesn't need my defense

I can still have an opinion. Do you agree?

[mix]

128. Opinion or the party line? nt

[niceypoo]

149. Party line, of course

Opinions require a modicum of reflection

[leeroysphitz]

53. TL;DR N/T

[Canuckistanian]

99. I wish people would learn the art of summarization

A few choice quotes, a few lines of analysis and you're good to go.

[Catherina]

133. Not if the goal is obfuscation. n/t

[Odin2005]

56. *YAWN*

[ProSense]

60. Wake up! n/t

[Odin2005]

61. Quit talking about yourself.

[ProSense]

62. LOL! n/t

[Jakes Progress]

59. Actually. Krugman got it right again.

On the whole, had Obama been listening to Krugman about the country more than the people he pays to tell him stuff, we would all be better off.

(You get a freebie from me. I was going to unrec, but hit the wrong button. So one rec from me.)

[Phx_Dem]

63. Krugman has lost it. No one in their right mind can say this President is conservative.

Just because he's not the socialist Krugman wishes he were, hardly makes him conservative.

[Odin2005]

68. He is a conservative, like all DLC "Centrists"

[ProSense]

69. Bayh is a "centrist"

He thinks the President is too liberal and he doesn't agree with Obama's positions.

So you're wrong.

[vi5]

71. So anyone to Bayh's left must be a liberal?

That's some staggering logic, right there.

[ProSense]

73. Is anyone

to Obama's right a Republican?

Here's a fact: Bernie Sanders agrees with Obama more often than Lieberman and Bayh.

[Odin2005]

78. Bayh is a RW nut is blue clothes.

[ProSense]

82. Again,

is anyone to Obama's right a Republican?

The fact is that Bernie Sanders agrees with Obama more often than Lieberman and Bayh.

[ClarkUSA]

72. Obama is not nor has ever been a member of the DLC, unlike Bayh & the Clintons.

In fact, both Bayh and Bubba were DLC Chairmen in their heyday while Hillary is a former Republican Goldwater Girl-turned-DLC stalwart.

[Milo_Bloom]

75. Don't have to be a "member" to enact DLC friendly policies.

As Obama has shown.

[ClarkUSA]

87. So Dennis Kucinich voted for "DLC friendly policies" when he voted for HCR?

And Russ Feingold voted for GOP friendly policies when he voted with Republicans on legislation last year?

:crazy:

[Milo_Bloom]

95. Yes.

[Odin2005]

79. No, he's not officially a member, but he said that he was a "New Democrat".

[ClarkUSA]

88. Quote him directly, please. I'd like something that's not from unnamed sources via Politico.

I'd like a direct quote, not some secondhand nonsense from biased sources.

Because it's a fact that Barack Obama rejected DLC membership years before he ever ran for president.

[Phx_Dem]

77. lol

:crazy:

[Milo_Bloom]

74. The Power Spin Cycle!

I LOVE the false equivalents this OP always tries to create.

The idea that Krugman could have supported passage of ANY health care bill can't exist in the same world with Krugman critizing Obama's lack of effective action on the economy and failure to enact REAL... EFFECTIVE... CHANGE.

No one is blaming Obama for failing where other presidents of the last 3 decades have succeeding... they are blaming Obama for not being enourmously different than the presidents of the last 3 decades... especially in how he sees the economy and the problems that face it.

[ProSense]

76. Hmmm?

"The idea that Krugman could have supported passage of ANY health care bill can't exist in the same world with Krugman critizing Obama's lack of effective action"

Krugman on health care: here, here and here. (All from the OP)

"And I’ve been really impressed by the passion and energy of this guy Barack Obama. Where was he last year?" (from the last link)

In fact, Krugman believes it was a "."

[Milo_Bloom]

81. So?

This is part of the spin. You can like his stance on one subject and feel he has embraced a completely different world view on another.

It's call created a false equivalent. Something done by the OP quite often.

[ProSense]

83. So? Speaking of spin.

"This is part of the spin. You can like his stance on one subject and feel he has embraced a completely different world view on another."

The point you made wasn't about "world view." It was about "Obama's lack of effective action"

As I pointed out, Krugman: "And I’ve been really impressed by the passion and energy of this guy Barack Obama. Where was he last year?"

[Milo_Bloom]

86. You're joking right?

You do understand two different issues can be talked about differently, right?

[ProSense]

90. No, I not joking

Do you understand the difference between "world view" and "effective action"?

[Milo_Bloom]

94. Irrelevant.

As usual, a completely irrelevant point to distract from the caught attempt at spin.

[ProSense]

97. Do you understand the difference between "world view" and "effective action"?

No, it's relevant. Care to answer?

[Milo_Bloom]

100. Still irrelevant.

You SAYING it is relevant doesn't make it so.

[ProSense]

101. Why do you post things you can't defend?

Why can't you answer the question?

Let me respond to this for you: "Still irrelevant."

[Milo_Bloom]

103. I am supposed to defend your misinterpretation and attempt to spin???

Sorry, not playing your little game.

Your question is your typical attempt to spin.. by asking an irrelevant question you attempt to draw attention away from the failure of the OP.

[ProSense]

106. OK, let's start over.

Question: Is there a difference between "world view" and "effective action"?

[Milo_Bloom]

107. Still irrelevant.

[ProSense]

108. .

:rofl:

[Milo_Bloom]

111. Figured.

The icons always come out when people refuse to play your little games.

[Beacool]

84. I have no problem with this.

"But Obama buys the right-wing smear.

More and more, it’s becoming clear that progressives who had their hearts set on Obama were engaged in a huge act of self-delusion. Once you got past the soaring rhetoric you noticed, if you actually paid attention to what he said, that he largely accepted the conservative storyline, a view of the world, including a mythological history, that bears little resemblance to the facts.

And confronted with a situation utterly at odds with that storyline … he stayed with the myth."

:shrug:

How many of us warned you that the most disappointed people would end up being the progressives? How many repeated until they were blue in the face that he's speeches were just that: speeches. Masterfully delivered, but still words, just words........

:eyes:

[ClarkUSA]

89. Quelle surprise. Do you have a problem with Krugman when he cheers on Obama's HCR accomplishment?

Or when he credits President Obama with saving the economy from a second Great Depression?

Contrary to your claims, polls show that a large majority of self-described liberals have always approved of President Obama's job performance while "the most disappointed people" during the past midterm election season are independent voters since they swung to favor Republicans this time around.

It is important to note that in Congress, it's Clintonian DLC Blue Dogs like Heath Shuler and Ben Nelson of Florida who are the loudest whiners against President Obama and Nancy Pelosi.

I see that happening outside of Congress as well. Quelle surprise. Not.

[golfguru]

85. We agree on Krugman...

He has history of making statements to get attention.

[ProSense]

91. The story behind top progressive organizing success of 2010

The story behind top progressive organizing success of 2010

by Chris Bowers

Over the last two years, those of us engaged in legislative fights in Congress repeatedly saw the Senate either water down the decent bills passed by the House (such as the stimulus, the housing bill, health care) or just block those bills entirely (such as the energy bill, or the series of measures collectively known as the second stimulus).

There was, however, one time when the Senate actually passed a stronger version of a piece of major legislation than House: the financial reform bill. Even with all of the shortcomings of the financial reform bill kept in mind, passing a stronger, more progressive version of a major piece of legislation through the 60-vote threshold of the Senate is a remarkable achievement.

As such, with Republicans about to take control of the House, and see their numbers significantly increase in the Senate, it's time for a review of the tactics that allowed for this success. There are many lessons we can learn from these tactics that will be of use in all legislative fights to come.

Here were the five keys to success:

more

[ProudDad]

92. You're ENTIRELY corret

Obama has been a corporate tool since college -- maybe before...

[Axrendale]

93. Very happy to see large quotes from my posts in there

Unhappy to see that even after I rec'd it, the net recommendation remains at zero. :(

I have enormous respect for Paul Krugman and his ideas. On both economics and general social issues, he is a true gem - always fantastic and enlightening to read.

His problem is simple: while there are probably only a few people alive who could match or surpass his understanding of economics, he is, to be blunt, politically illiterate, and it shows.

A telling parallel can be found in the presidency of Franklin Roosevelt - specifically a time in 1936 when he invited British economist John Maynard Keynes to the White House. After Keynes had left, FDR had this to say about him:

"You know, that man truly does have some brilliant ideas. But you can tell he doesn't know anything about politics. If I tried to do even a fraction of the things that he suggested to me, I'd be run out of town within a week!"

What so many, including such brilliant minds as those of Krugman and Keynes, fail to appreciate is that in politics the old sayings about sausages and bread loaves have to be taken seriously - or you end up with nothing. The fact that Obama pursued middle class tax cuts as a means of economic stimulus does not mean that he regards such a policy as being more efficient for spurring economic activity than Keynesian spending - it simply means that he had gotten all the spending out of Congress that he was going to, and added some tax cuts on top because they were all that he could get at that point (the same argument that was made by John F. Kennedy in 1962 and 1963).

[ProSense]

96. Thanks Axrendale.

Really enjoyed reading your posts. As always, excellent point.

[Major Hogwash]

102. Wow, this was a brilliant piece of work, ProSense! Bookmarked!!!

Outstanding!!

I only save the best for bookmarks, man.

[Major Hogwash]

104. This is also just yet 1 more example of why the "unrec" function should be tossed.

I'm really surprised that the admins here aren't using good logic or common sense to get rid of it.
I recommended this topic, but untold numbers of haters have voted to unrec it, so it will never see the greatest page.

Even in close basketball games they show the score for both teams.
If the admins continue to let haters operate in the shadows without showing the total number of recs and unrecs, then the function ceases to be a tool used to spread information and instead becomes a tool to hide information.

[Milo_Bloom]

105. Luckily, most people realize it is a load of spin.

[Major Hogwash]

109. Why don't you write your own piece.

And then the rest of us can see what a load you are.

[Milo_Bloom]

112. Well.. if you think this is good, you wouldn't like it.

I would use actual facts and not wild spin.

[ProSense]

113. How can you tell what most people realize? n/t

[Milo_Bloom]

116. Rec < 0

It's a load of bunk and they know it.

[ProSense]

117. Here

Rec = 0

Rec = 2

Rec's don't say anything about whether or not everyone thinks the content is bogus.

A thread could have 50 recs and 51 unrecs, and it would show up as zero.

What else are you basing your knowledge of what everyone thinks about the thread on?

[Milo_Bloom]

118. Most = More than half.

[ProSense]

120. It would register at 0 if 50-50

Irrelevant.

:)

What else you got?

[Milo_Bloom]

121. But it isn't.

[ProSense]

122. Proof?

You sure are spending a lot of time in a thread you think is irrelevant.

Why?

:rofl:

[Milo_Bloom]

124. Sure.

http://www.democraticunderground.com/discuss/duboard.php?az=show_mesg&forum=433&topic_id=529017&mesg_id=529463

Because you got an accidental rec from someone who thought your post was bunk. Meaning 0 = MOST.

I also never said the thread was irrelevant. I said the thread was SPIN. Your QUESTION was irrelevant.

[ProSense]

125. Are you joking? That's one comment.

Can you provide proof of how many people rec'd and unrec'd the thread?

[Milo_Bloom]

126. More than half thought it was bunk.

That's the only stat that matters.

Rec < 0

[ProSense]

110. Many thanks. n/t

[Vidar]

119. As usual, Krugman is right, but never mind.

[OhioBlue]

127. Excellent post Pro! thanks for pulling this all together.

I agree completely with the point you are making. President Obama has achieved many legislative victories that will indeed be transformative to our society for years to come.

We can disagree on aspects of the legislation, but I would hope as Democrats we can at least recognize and acknowledge those successes.

However, I think the piece that we are missing is messaging and a better communications strategy from not only the President, but Democratic leaders and Democratic activists.

I think the WH and Pres need to do a much better job at setting a vision for our Country. Dem leaders, Union leaders, Bloggers, media figures and dem activists need to push more and communicate more effectively on progressive goals with the public in general.

[Hardrada]

129. Unrec

Because it's the RIGHT thing to do.

[ProSense]

131. Thanks for your honesty. n/t

[Hardrada]

140. Don't mention it.

[Catherina]

134. Unrec. Profound nonsense. n/t

[ProSense]

135. Another three-word meaningless rebuttal. n/t

[Catherina]

137. If I embed it in blue next time, to a meaningless link, will that make it better? n/t

[MrsCorleone]

142. Rec'd & bookmarked! nt

[MadHound]

143. First you hate Krugman, then you love him, then you hate him again. . .

Don't you ever get tired of the game? Don't you ever get tired of the spin?

[ProSense]

145. When did disagreeing with someone become hating them?

I disagree with Krugman often, and I agree with him often.

"Don't you ever get tired of the game? Don't you ever get tired of the spin? "

Do you think having one's own opinion is a game?

[JNelson6563]

146. Lots of info, well done!

Thanks for taking the time to post all of that. I hope many take the time to read it!

Julie

[Name removed]

147. Deleted message

Message removed by moderator. Click here to review the message board rules.