Blame Obama First

[jefferson_dem]

Blame Obama First

Matt Taibbi has the latest in the endless series of articles and blog posts by everyone under the sun claiming everything in the world would be great if only Barack Obama were more left-wing. Taibbi is a much better writer than most people, so his contribution to this literature has a great deal more panache. That said, not only does his piece have the various factual problems noted by Tim Fernholz but it suffers from the same basic conceptual flaw as the vast majority of this literature—it ignores congress.

<SNIP>

He’s right — that is the question. Because the way it works is that all of these great-sounding reforms get whittled down bit by bit as they move through the committee markup process, until finally there’s nothing left but the exceptions. In one example, a measure that would have forced financial companies to be more accountable to shareholders by holding elections for their entire boards every year has already been watered down to preserve the current system of staggered votes. In other cases, this being the Senate, loopholes were inserted before the debate even began: The Dodd bill included the exemption for foreign-currency swaps — a gift to Wall Street that only appeared in the Frank bill during the course of hearings — from the very outset.

Having briefly zeroed-in on the problem, which is not Obama or his Wall Street crony advisors, but rather the members of congress who take okay ideas and make them worse, the very next sentence is “The White House’s refusal to push for real reform stands in stark contrast to what it should be doing.”

The implicit theory of political change here, that pivotal members of congress undermine reform proposals because of “the White House’s refusal to push for real reform” is just wrong. That’s not how things work. The fact of the matter is that Matt Taibbi is more liberal than I am, and I am more liberal than Larry Summers is, but Larry Summers is more liberal than Ben Nelson is. Replacing Summers with me, or with Taibbi, doesn’t change the fact that the only bills that pass the Senate are the bills that Ben Nelson votes for.

The problem here, to be clear, isn’t that lefties are being too mean to poor Barack Obama. The problem is that to accomplish the things I want to see accomplished, people who want change need to correctly identify the obstacles to change. If members of congress are replaced by less-liberal members in the midterms, then the prospects for changing the status quo will be diminished. By contrast, if members are replaced by more-liberal members (either via primaries or general elections) the prospects for changing the status will be improved. Back before the 2008 election, it would frequently happen that good bills passed congress and got vetoed by the president. Since Obama got elected, that doesn’t happen anymore. Now instead Obama proposes things that get watered down or killed in congress. That means focus needs to shift.

http://yglesias.thinkprogress.org/archives/2009/12/blame-obama-first.php?utm_source=feedburner&utm_medium=feed&utm_campaign=Feed%3A+matthewyglesias+%28Matthew+Yglesias%29&utm_content=Google+Reader

[OHdem10]

1. Excellent and on point. Liberals and Progressives are going to have

to work to change hearts and minds in the country. When Dr.Dean
was head of DNC, he had started work in every state. The 50 State
Approach.

We must work among the people and with state activists to change
the Image of Liberalism. For too long we have layed down and rolled
over for the Right. This is not a Center Right Country nor is it
a Lefty Country.

However we have not seen the CENTER in years and even now we
appear to continue to bow to the right as they blast forth with
their Center Right Message.

While we may not admire Goebbels, his theory on the "big lie"
works. The GOP have this method down pat. Repeat anything
over and over and if you repeat it often enough the Public will
buy anything.

Why are Republicans considered better on Foreign Policy. Repeat
the idea that GOP are strong on foreign policy often enough--guess
what the public bought it. Go back through History and you will
find many Democratic Liberal Successes. Progressives and Liberals
are going to have to step forward.

[Champion Jack]

2. K & R

[Pirate Smile]

3. The unrec crew is out in force tonight. My rec didn't get it back to 0.

[jefferson_dem]

5. One member of the goon squad hit this with an unrec within 20 seconds of me posting it.

To quote Oliver Willis: "Like Kryptonite to Stupid".

[elocs]

9. I imagine the goon squad finds it amusing that you bring their unrecs to everyone's attention.

They love that. How nice of you to make their days. :bounce:

[Window]

23. My thoughts exactly. Why not just ignore them and rec what

you think deserves a rec. They never win in the end anyway, but I wouldn't keep calling attention to them.

[elocs]

29. I have seen DUers complain about UnRecs within minutes of an OP being posted

and it eventually goes on to have over 100 Recs and makes the Front Page, but the very first response is about an UnRec. Foolish. Stop obsessing about Recs because thread that deserve them will get plenty. Besides, Rec/UnRec is only good for 24 hours but kicking always brings the thread back up near the top of its forum.

[firedupdem]

4. K&R

Nelson and the rest of his crew continue to get a pass. I blow up his phone and send him numerous emails weekly letting him know he is not representing ME by rolling with the same people that screwed the country up in the first place.

[Cha]

6. They'd rather tilt at windmills.

[n2doc]

7. Yep, Obama is worthless and weak

:sarcasm:

Yet somehow * and Cheney could do what they wanted....

The Presidency is the most powerful position in America. Period. In all the ways that count. Obama is getting what he wants.

[treestar]

11. Obama is the Decider now?

[n2doc]

13. He has the same job.

To say he has less power would be to admit that he is a less effective, weaker president, who allows others to set the agenda. Since Biden is no Cheney, Obama should by all expectations be more powerful than his predecessor.

[patrice]

17. That IS the job and everyone knows that there are decisions and then there are decisions.

Why would we pretend that all decisions have the same qualities?

[patrice]

18. BTW: What is your intent with that particular picture in your sig?

Just what, exactly, are you trying to say with that choice?

[girl gone mad]

8. Tim Fernholz noted one fact that Taibbi got wrong.

The rest were just differing opinions, and Fernholz made a very large error of his own when he wrote:

"The legislation actually only allows federal regulators to use funds taxed from banks to assist them in a crisis; if they want to use taxpayer money, Congress can say no."

In pooint of fact, he House bill actually does give the Fed the ability to create and spend money to rescue any financial institution it deems to be “too big to fail”, up to $150B, without congressional approval.

Let me just add that this premise is completely absurd. The majority of Americans have been against the bailouts, but we were stuck with them anyhow. Obama has wasted quite a bit of political capital with his kid glove handling of Wall St. If Obama decided to take a stand and make the banking cartel clean up its act, he would have the support of the vast majority of the American people. It isn't even like he's being asked to push through an unpopular war, an expensive, questionable dug company subsidy or controversial tax cuts, all of which that dope Bush managed to do.

[patrice]

10. It ignores Congress because THAT'S what all this shit about Obama is about: 2010.

[showpan]

12. Our system is broken

Money and BS get elected while truth and honesty get pummeled by media monopolies controlled by corporate monopolies. The real voice of the people is hardly ever heard by the masses and once it is, you'll only hear it once as you'll hear how they are against us over and over and over again. Hell, we just elected a democratic neocon and never saw it coming. In the next couple of years, I predict that the neocons will have 99% control over most sources of alternative information and opinions such as youtube and google. It will all be censored, like google is becoming now. They only opinions to the contrary will be what they want us to hear. It's coming, it's too late to stop it and if you think you will elect enough honest people to represent us, sadly, you are denying yourself the truth of what our government has become...too big for u$.

[SeattleGirl]

19. A "democratic neocon"??

WTF is that?

[patrice]

14. Ask any of these "Liberals" on this board what they're willing to give up in order to get compliance

on whatever issue they are currently ranting about and they won't tell you, because to start laying out strategic quid-pro-quos would COST them what they are REALLY seeking, allies in opposition to Obama or whatever they're opposing, since prospective allies would find out what the alliance will COST them.

Everyone wants to pretend that all of the issues are completely discrete and all of us agree about the order of priorities. They aren't and we don't.

[demosincebirth]

20. Ditto!

[patrice]

21. Thanks. I started thinking about that the minute I heard about all of the "cross over" votes

candidate Obama was bringing. Looks like that didn't work out so well for us on Afghanistan, though Obama told us so from the first, but at least we're coming home from Iraq.

It's all of those other issues that are at play now behind the facade of opposing the troop increase for Afghanistan.

[demosincebirth]

25. he talked about Afghanistan and what he

was going to do, and he's doing just that. Now, all these lefties are saying that they have been betrayed. Ho Hum. You could have a perfect government in place, and guess what? they'd find something to complain about. I guess they would feel better if McCain was pres and republicans had control of congress. Oh wait... we had that before and look at the mess they got us into.

I think Obama is doing just would he said he would try to do. The economy is improving slightly and layoffs are subsiding, which is good. Hell of a job for being in office for just a year.

[patrice]

26. They may or may not be real Lefties. One thing we can count on in this situation is

that whoever they are (Lefties, Libertarians, Republicans, LaRouchies, Green Party et al) THEY WANT POWER and bitching about Obama at this particular moment gives them a crack at some congressional races in 2010. Too bad for us if that ends up costing us whatever real HCR that is possible under the circumstances, or delays climate action until more damage is done, or keeps us in Afghanistan past 2011, or ruins the Employee Free Choice Act.

[ima_sinnic]

37. who is "us"? wishy-washy, easily compromised, fence-sitting, payola-grubbing "centrists"?

since you have waved off a good segment of voters who MIGHT vote for truly progressive and visionary candidates, good luck with electing anyone of substance, integrity, or sincerity. All you seem to care about is a D after someone's name. Even Ben Nelson has one of those. They're pretty easy to attach, no commitment to anything at all required.
Sad that you hold your "elected public servants" to such low, even nonexistent, standards.

[demosincebirth]

57. self delete

[quiet.american]

15. K&R nt

[NYC_SKP]

16. Thank you, jefferson_dem, Matthew Yglesias, and thank you thinkprogress. n/t

[boppers]

22. Horse trading in congress IS the issue.

We're not a dictatorship.

[Ken Burch]

24. I don't think anytone is really saying things would be different if only OBAMA was more progressive

Obviously Congress needs to be changed as well.

But it doesn't help matters to have the STARTING point on policies be centrist. Were the proposals further left to begin with, that would help create more space to preserve the progressive character of the legislation in whatever form emerged in the end product.

Also, it would help to have the entire party leadership actually defending the idea that government intervention in various forms is a GOOD thing. There's still a reflexive pattern of assuming that the right can't be fought equally and that all you can do is simply try to ride out their assault. That didn't work in the postwar Red Scare, it didn't work in the Sixties, it didn't work under Carter OR Clinton. Why would anyone think it could work NOW?

[patrice]

27. 1+

[DWilliamsamh]

50. I think you are forgetting something about this particular President...

On Health Care reform (and other major Legislation) he did not have his team craft a comprehensive proposal and send it to congress for them to convert into a bill. He made the calculation ( I think correctly) that doing what President Clinton did, was sure invitation to the exact process that killed HCR in the early '90s. He decided that he couldn't be the decider, that he couldn't allow critics the additional ammunition of " WHO DOES THIS PRESIDENT THINK HE IS?? HE CAN'T TELL CONGRESS WHAT TO DO!" So the President sent over a list of elements he wanted in the final bill, and left it to congress to produce the actual bill.

It was the congressional leadership that decided to start with a centrist bill, and didn't give single payer (for instance) a second thought. Remember when we were all correctly bitching last summer about the shut out of single payer advocates from the hearings that would produce the various committee bills?

That the proposals are centrist reflect the congress - literally - a center left body of legislators. And we are ALL to aware that one of the major differences between the Democratic Party and the Republican Party, Democrats don't do lock step. As frustrating as the result of that difference is sometimes, it is one I am proud of.

I DO wish that the President had used the bully pulpit to put more pressure on congress through the process to make the bills LESS watered down, but they WOULD be watered down, no matter what the President says or doesn't say.

[davidpdx]

28. Everything would be better if we just fired Obama

:sarcasm:

[Mithreal]

30. Nice meme, just like Blame America First. We should use it often

against Republicans.

Maybe our President would take less heat if he wasn't essentially the leader of the Democratic Party.

The President has a bully pulpit, for goodness sake. He and Rahm are notorious for beating the heads of Blue Dogs and Conservadems with it, am I right? And the White House never negotiated anything away or used pressure to change language in a harmful way.

Lots of blame to go around even for we the people.

Publicly fund elections or bust.

What's the point of holding our leaders accountable for anything until we fix that? It's like trying to hold back a wave with a single hand.

[Armstead]

31. The good Congresspeople should be getting more cover and support from Obama

Yes there are some pain in the ass congresspeople who are obstacles to progress. Too many of them.

But I do believe that if Obama really wanted to lead "change we can believe in" he could be doing a lot more to support the good people in Congress, and putting the pressure on the bad ones.

Instead, Obama seems distressingly disengaged at best, and is kowtowing to the ConservaDems while helping to marginalize the progressive and liberal members of Congress at worst.

I don't know if that is his intent and if he is a DLCer at heart...or if he is just not using his position effectively.

If he wanted he could be publicly giving his support to those legislators who really are trying to get good reforms passed. And he could also be working with them to put the screws to the "Democrat in name only" obstructionists.

As it stands, the liberal and progressive Democrats are not getting the support they need to overcome the psuedo dems, and instead are being hung out to try.

[SandWalker1984]

32. Did you bother to read the actual story? I did

Rollingstone.com

Obama's Big Sellout
Matt Taibbi

The president has packed his economic team with Wall Street insiders intent on turning the bailout into an all-out giveaway

Barack Obama ran for president as a man of the people, standing up to Wall Street as the global economy melted down in that fateful fall of 2008. He pushed a tax plan to soak the rich, ripped NAFTA for hurting the middle class and tore into John McCain for supporting a bankruptcy bill that sided with wealthy bankers "at the expense of hardworking Americans."

- snip -

Then he got elected.

What's taken place in the year since Obama won the presidency has turned out to be one of the most dramatic political about-faces in our history. Elected in the midst of a crushing economic crisis brought on by a decade of orgiastic deregulation and unchecked greed, Obama had a clear mandate to rein in Wall Street and remake the entire structure of the American economy. What he did instead was ship even his most marginally progressive campaign advisers off to various bureaucratic Siberias, while packing the key economic positions in his White House with the very people who caused the crisis in the first place. This new team of bubble-fattened ex-bankers and laissez-faire intellectuals then proceeded to sell us all out, instituting a massive, trickle-up bailout and systematically gutting regulatory reform from the inside.

- snip -

How did we get here? It started just moments after the election — and almost nobody noticed.

It's worth reading the rest of the story at:
http://www.rollingstone.com/politics/story/31234647/obamas_big_sellout



Taibbi has also recently written an excellent, fact filled story exposing the white underbelly of Goldman Sachs.

In my opinion, some here are trying to discredit the messenger because they don't like the message this time around.

[rpannier]

34. +1

For some it's easier to read the critique of what someone writes than read the article themselves

[ima_sinnic]

38. +++1

apparently many don't care who knifes them as long as the knifer has a D after his or her name.

[jefferson_dem]

41. Yes.

Did you bother to consider Yglesias's and Fernholz's critiques?

In my opinion, they are correct that Taibbi, and a handful of other supposedly progressive journos, have ignored reality, twisted facts, and shamefully reduced the political game to one of "Blame Obama First".

[impik]

33. Hallelujah! Voice of reason!

Thank god.

[cornermouse]

35. The buck stops at his desk just like it stopped at Bush's desk.

Consistency establishes credibility.

[jefferson_dem]

36. Obviously, he should be held accountable

for not delivering in the way that we want.

The point is...he should NOT be held accountable (or blamed) for not delivering on things that he cannot possibly deliver on based on realities of the current political system. Let's not ignore those, eh.

[ima_sinnic]

39. I expect him to fight for things for people other than bankers, CEOs, and war mongering weapons mfrs

even if he can't "do everything single-handedly," the president of the USA is the most powerful person in the world, and he is supposed to be able to know how to work with members of Congress to work on his issues his way. The results we are getting are what he has put in motion, either by failing to use his power effectively, or by using it in a way to benefit his wealthy string-pullers. I choose to believe the latter until proven wrong. You may continue in your delusion that he gives a rat's ass about We The Little People.

[jefferson_dem]

40. Well, I guess you are true to your user name.

That's ok. We'll agree to disagree in terms of Obama's commitment, principles, and motivations.

Hopefully, we'll both be more pleased than not in the end.

[liberation]

52. When all you have left is going around telling people to trust you and not their lying eyes...

... you gotta (at least in the very back of your mind) get the feeling the wrong turn was taken somewhere and you're too proud to stop and ask for questions.

[jefferson_dem]

54. Bullshit.

You make so many crazy assumptions in that small post, it's obvious you're beyond rational conversation on this topic.

[quaker bill]

42. Yes, but when the buck never gets to his desk....

[quaker bill]

43. Precisely on point

"The fact of the matter is that Matt Taibbi is more liberal than I am, and I am more liberal than Larry Summers is, but Larry Summers is more liberal than Ben Nelson is. Replacing Summers with me, or with Taibbi, doesn’t change the fact that the only bills that pass the Senate are the bills that Ben Nelson votes for."

Obama seems considerably more liberal than Ben Nelson as well. The one power the President is not expressly afforded, is the power to force the Senate to create a pass bills to his specification.

[BeyondGeography]

44. Maybe Obama's critics can point to that time in our history when Presidents could wave a magic wand

Meantime, here's Theodore Roosevelt still dead-on description of the presidency from page 230 of A Strenuous Life:

"It's one long experiment of checking one's own impulses with an iron hand and learning to subordinate one's own desires to what some hundreds of associates can be forced or cajoled or led into desiring."

[tomp]

45. but obama is taking conservative positions...

...thereby helping conservatives get elected. just ask arlen specter.

[Imagevision]

46. The President Democrat or Republican is nothing more then a spokesmsn for the 'group'

[nxylas]

47. I don't think Taibbi ignores Congress altogether

He's been saying for a while now that the whole rotten system is so corrupt that nothing short of a second American Revolution will fix it.

[Krashkopf]

48. Damn, Taibbi told the TRUTH . . . obviously a lot of DUers CAN'T HANDLE THE TRUTH!

President Obama was SWEPT into office by Democrats of all stripes. All he had to do was LEAD, and the Blue Dogs would have had no choice but to follow.

Does anyone think Ben Nelson would have had the balls to vote against a strong public option if President Obama had staked his career on it, and made it a non-negotiable part of HIS health care proposal.

Does anyone REALLY think President Obama was serious about re-regulating Wall Street when he dumped the PROGRESSIVE economists who guided his campaign, and replaced them with Geightner, and Summers, and the rest of the Rubinites, once he was elected?

Get real folks.

[GeorgeGist]

49. Coward

[liberation]

51. I love how you have a link to the official whitehouse site in your signature...

A fact free ad hominem pieces are all there is left, in less than one year after the elections... already running empty and scrapping at the bottom of the barrel of empty rhetoric trying to deflect the debate at any cost. LOL...

Why is it that the "hope and change" brigade are the ones so hell bent in defending the status quo, and go out of their way to sabotage anyone who perceive as being a conduit for actual change?

[bluestateboomer]

53. The President Shares Responsibilty

It is true that many of the things we need to accomplish are blocked by regressives in congress, but so many symbolic and substantive decisions made by President Obama place him on the corporate side of things. I challenge anyone to point out which progressive members of the Obama administration balance the corporatist tilt it seems to have. So far the only claim the Obama administration can make is he makes a better president than Bush was. But I think most anyone with a brain and a soul could make that claim. Obama is a smart guy, he could do far better than he is doing.

[depakid]

55. "If members of congress are replaced by less-liberal members in the midterms"

Yglesias (as usual) doesn't get it. He represents those who think- like Emanual does- that any Democrat is better than a Republican even if they decidedly oppose traditional Democratic values, and repeatedly undercut and thwart effective public policy.

Over the longer term- this is a recipe for decline (as we've seen) -it blurs the contrast between the parties- making Republicans seem reasonable (and Democrats weak and ineffectual). How some folks can't seem to grasp that fact after the past 18 years is beyond me.

[LWolf]

56. No.

Blame voters who elect centrist/corporatist/3rd way/new dems, and those who elect republicans, first.