Mark Halperin (cc photo: David Shankbone)
Time‘s Mark Halperin (12/27/10) joins his punditry colleagues in cheering Barack Obama’s wealthy-friendly tax plan as a great way for the president to end a rough year:
But by ending the year with a bipartisan-compromise tax deal, Obama showed he is capable of delivering the kind of change that was supposed to be the hallmark of his administration.
Indeed—I bet a lot of people watching Obama during the 2008 campaign were thinking, “I hope he doesn’t mean it when he says he’ll get rid of those tax breaks for the wealthy.”
More Halperinian analysis:
To avoid seeing the economy stall again, the president needs to demonstrate that he has a strategy for centrist governance when Republicans take control of the House of Representatives in January. Political nihilists on the right and left may find the notion of swallowing something that their opponents want antithetical to their mind-set. But Obama’s ability to compromise will prove crucial. Here’s a simple rule for him: If a proposal is denounced by both Nancy Pelosi and Sarah Palin, it will probably find support in the center of the electorate.
Here’s a simple test for that simple rule: What kinds of policy ideas would result from applying the Palin/Pelosi principle? Torturing puppies would apparently be a sure-fire electoral winner—since Pelosi and Palin would presumably both denounce this.
Of course, defining the “center” in this way is absurd; repealing Don’t Ask Don’t Tell is broadly popular, for instance, but it outrages Palinesque Republicans. So it’s not centrist, according to the Halperin rule. Unfortunately, a lot of Beltway journalists see the world this way.
Palin and puppies … maybe.
Palin and polar bears … ?
And to be fair, you really could say the same for the soon-to-be ex-Speaker, couldn’t you just?
Well we know that Pelosi isn’t a Liberal or she would have been behind impeachment of the last president and VP for war crimes. But its like our president today. He won’t attack the previous regime because he now too is guilty of war crimes by not handing them over. He is complicit now.
The hell with puppies and polar bears.Pelosi and BAM blew it.We will see if Palin and the new Rs can do better.Onward and upward
I am not optimistic about this onward and upward… The Rs best game in the Senate has been to block aid for 9/11 first responders, and for a tax bill that extended everyone’s tax cuts, then topped it off with 700 billion in benefits to the richest 2% and a cut in tax credits to the working poor. If this is what they get when they are in the minority, what will they want when they are in control of the House again?
Well, tishado, strap it all down, because the biggest collection of religious nuts, dimwits, angry tea-flakes, and just plain old-fashioned assholes are about to try to run the Congress into the ground. Expect the new Speaker to melt down into an alcoholic, jabbering, wailing, sobbing pile of self-pity by mid-May. There’s an old saying in the business world–“If you don’t have a plan, you’re planning to fail.” There’s another old saying too, much less felicitous but no less accurate: “Those assholes couldn’t pour piss out of a boot if the instructions were stamped on the heel.” Yes, LBJ was referring to the reactionaries of his day. Some things never change.
We are neither in an LBJ era nor a “bully pulpit” era. The internet and media (especially TV) have given the political process a whole new twist. I respect most of the opinions given on this site, but none come from those who are more intelligent or better informed than President Obama. Two lousy years is hardly enough to turn around a years-long-developing tax-economic mess. I’m hangin’ in there for at least 2 more years. At least. // Jean Clelland-Morin
@Jean Clelland-Morin
You seem to be missing the whole point. The question is not whether it is realistic to expect Obama to resolve within 2 years a problem that has been in the making for years. The problem is that he has caved-in under republican pressure and reneged on or watered down almost all of his campaign promises. He failed and continues to fail to even put up a fight for what we elected him to do. In my book he is a one term president. I would much rather vote for that ignorant, immoral, lying, hypocritical slattern, Sarah Palin….at least she is the “devil” I know.
Trouble with the “center” is that it has kept moving to the right for the last 30 years. [“the center does not hold…]
However, anyone who has been in the down and dirty of politics knows the meaning of old sayings like “politics is the art of the possible,” and “half a loaf is better than no bread.” But the naive who sit on the sidelines don’t know these things, but, gee, their hands are clean and their hearts are pure. And by the way, when a candidate for elected office promises things, their fulfulment is contingent on her/his having enough power to be able to deliver. With the rule of the minority in the US senate, the party of Hell No, it’s a wonder anything got done in this fading Congress. And a lot did get done.
Interestingly, John McCain gave a quick insight into the real thinking, if we can call it that, of the right wing obstructionists. He referred to a measure meant to provide healthcare for sick Ground Zero vets as “wasting time with New York.” What a hypocrite! Trouble with being a liar and a hypocrite is trying to keep all your lies and flip-flop positions in some kind of order.
Well done, Mr. President. Well done, Madam Speaker!
Obama doesn’t compromise–he caves in like a rotten roof.
When Obama was elected I thought he was elected in outrage over Republican mismanagement of so many things.The world was turning on its head and the Rs were in the hot seat.His faults and lack of qualification were tossed aside and many force fit him into their own mold and hoped.He was always a good amount of jello so the mold fit…for a time.I always new that when his policies saw the light of day America would erupt and shut him down.Then he could play to his most radical base or try a little rope a dope.He tried the latter.It wont work,and few are happy with him.He cant get left enough for the left- and the right has seen the color of his spots.So now what?Well he is done. Barring some unforeseen happening the conservative coalition will be moving in after election day.Does that mean Palin or Romney.?..Who knows.But we will see if they are able to hit the switch on this economy.I am a tea party member.We will be watching to see that the constitution and other unimportant rags are raised back to their rightful place.We will be doing A little bit of refereeing between two out of control parties.The market will respond.Employment and job creation will explode with a conservative ticket.But we have a long way to go.And we have lost two plus years.
Welcome to the Corporate States of America. I seriously doubt the republican party will do anything better for the country than they did during eight years of Bush. Corporations will continue sending their work overseas where the employees work for dirt. If you sincerely believe this will help America, there’s something in your tea.
Dave I could not agree with you more that i am dubious the republican party can be trusted to do the hard work that will help this country rebound.I of course feel the corporate line is so much huff.That aside they will be better than this lot.The tea party has simple ideals .When you see them enumerated,very few Americans on either side could really be against it.The rest is pure politics of personality.People like Sarah Palin agree with those ideals.That does not mean the tea party necessarily agrees with Sarah Palin.It is not a symbiotic or parasitic relationship as in the Republican or Dem parties.We are simply the keepers of the flame.The referees.Welcoming all who play by the rules….as laid down in the constitution of the united states.
My main frustrations with Obama — like many fellow lefties — are:
1.) He talked a generally progressive (if not left) game, with “change” as his byword.
2.) After he took office, he IMMEDIATELY began disappointing people by appointing many
of the very same assholes who created the economic problems. He QUICKLY moved right
when he got in office, way sooner than any principled progressive would have been
expected to do even with the Grand Obstructionist Party voting against everything. He
DID have a majority in the House & Senate after all – – – he COULD have called the
Republican’s bluff on the filibusters in the Senate. MAKE them talk hour for weeks on
end while you as president go before the people and point out how these obstructionists
are stopping ANYTHING from happening. Recall what happened when Gingrich & friends
tried to stop Congress from functioning… they lost big in the next election.
3.) Looking back, there was obviously a HUGE opportunity for someone in Obama’s position to
actually MAKE some real changes. Much of the US populace was economically scared and
hurting and they had (rightfully) dumped the party responsible for it and had voted in the
Dems in all 3 branches of government. It’s truly disgusting how he blew this golden
opportunity. The ‘Cowardly Lion’ looks heroic next to Obama.
But what worries me for the future is the sullied impression this will leave on the 30-40%
of the electorate that barely pays attention to politics. They will (with the help of the Reich-
wing media like O’Reilly/Limbaugh/et al) associate Obama with ‘the left/progressive’ wing of
politics and will recall his horribly ineffectual administration, so they’ll be even more reluctant
to vote for a TRUE, principled progressive candidate should he/she run. The current Republicans
are strictly a party of cant and can’t, so all of our problems — big and small — global / national
/ local may well just continue festering, getting worse, until the only solutions available
are ‘nasty’ ones.
Big em
First the republican party was not able to obstruct ANYTHING.That is a huge lie.All things that happened or did not -were do to Democratic rangling.Did rs agree with his policies?No of course not.Polls indicate most of the country did not.But obama did not need the country or the republicans.They were not players in this game at all.It was all Ds…….100%.
Obama failed because the people were aware of his progressive beliefs (and what that really meant)and pulled the rug from under him.Putting pressure on his legislative minions as a counterweight to Maddam speakers pressure.You are right that great anger was felt against Bush because things went south in the last months of his presidency.Hey the buck stops there.And obama talked a good game,ran a good race.BUT he wasnt in ten minutes when America said “Hold on thar Bob-a-looey”thats not what we signed on for.As a conservative i felt to turn all losses around we only had to nail his jello to the wall.Make him actually accountable for his actions.Well mission accomplished.
I disagree with you (of course)that he is not left wing.I also disagree that he was ineffectual.Dems accomplished 75% of what they wanted going in.Problem is America disavowed 90% of that and Dems had to run from their record- not on it.
I also think you will see a re-invigorated R party, not a party of cant and cant.That due to being rode into the ground be the healthy influence of the Tea party.But you correctly surmise that this is the Rs come to Jesus moment.They to will stand or fall on results.As it should be.Progressivism?It is dead.Always was really.Does not fit American values and the freedom afforded by free market capitalism with all its faults.Hopefully if a Palin gets in….You will be pleasantly surprised at good results, and the avoidance of “nasty”problems.I know we all pray for that.
re: comment that Pelosi is no liberal because she would not impeach Dick and “W” for war crimes, etc.
Anyone who is or wants to be President is willing to accept the deaths of a few 10’s of thousands of innocent by-standers as part of the job.
Rich
I wont argue that she is a phony.Trust fund baby who never HAD to work a day in her life or much else…..And all her jobs were elected jobs in the outer limits of the washington insider belt(unlike say sarah Palin).But she is a “wacky”liberal at least.One of those who believes in the theory- but never experienced a moment of the real deal.She did not push for war crimes because visceral reactions aside… there was never an ounce of proof for such a thing legally.Though theoretically you ended with the real truth.Anybody who would want the job must be willing to accept that yoke on his back.And for that reason alone ….i do believe ALL those running for the job must in some way be touched.
Michael e., The House passed 420 bills that most of which have died in the Senate. This at the behest of that evil Nancy Pelosi, a very effective Speaker of the House. A record number of filibusters(over100)and cries of “We want our amendments.”With a lot of poisoning the well with amendments that were attached to bills that did things like give Viagra to pedophiles added to the main bill so that it could not be voted on, due to these types of additions.
Delay, obstruct and just be a regular pain in the ass by saying no to every bill, all this done by the Republicans. And now by saying that they are having bills thrust on them in the lame duck session, bills like the 9/11 responder health bill, which Anthony Weiner blew up about last July because Republicans were railing against procedures before they would have an up or down vote on this very bill. And holding up the START Treaty; there have been 10’s of committee meetings and several hearings on the START Treaty, it is nothing new, The Republicans kept wanting to delay any debate on the bill. They should be made to stay in session for the people until January 5, 2011. They, the Repubs haven’t worked for the last 2 years.
Most Americans do not know what has been accomplished legislatively and regretfully the Dems did not tell them the important issues that were addressed. Many Americans can’t even tell you who the US gained independence from in 1776. Nor can they show where Iraq or Afghanistan is on a map.
I must post this again due to its universal appeal:
Perhaps we are missing the point in a topic such as this. Could there be a more insidious fundamental problem?
“We hear about the democratic deficit all the time, but it is the epistemological deficit that is putting democracy at risk. Epistemology signifies the “science of knowing” and expresses a civilizational conviction that truth, objectivity, science, fact and reason are fundamentally different from opinion, subjectivity, prejudice, feeling and irrationality. The science of knowing insists on the fundamental distinction made by the Greeks between episteme (true knowledge) and doxa (opinion or prejudice, a root of our word “orthodoxy”). The Greeks understood that there is a potent difference between knowledge claims rooted in reason, or in facts that reflect some version of a real or objective world, and the subjective opinions by which we advertise our personal prejudices. We may not always be able to agree on what counts as real knowledge rather than mere prejudice, but we can and must agree on the criteria by which the distinction is made. Indeed, our science, our society and our democratic culture depend on the distinction.
Knowledge as episteme denotes claims that can be backed up by facts, good reasons and sound arguments. This doesn’t mean there is perfect truth, but it does mean there are good and bad argumentsâ┚¬”Âclaims that can be verified by empirical facts or rooted in logically demonstrable arguments and those that cannot be. Because democracy relies on words rather than force, reason rather than compulsion and an agreement about the value if not the substance of objectivity, it works only when we agree on the distinction between knowledge and opinion, between claims that can be verified by facts and validated by sound reasoning and subjective personal beliefs that, however deeply felt, are incapable of being corroborated or falsified.
There are those who will say that democracy is simply government by the people, smart or dumb, knowledgeable or ignorant. But democracy is government by citizens, and citizenship is defined by education, deliberation, judgment and the capacity to find common ground. This is the difference between democracy as mob rule and democracy as deliberative civic engagement. Mob rule asks only for the expression of prejudice and subjective opinion. Democracy demands deliberative judgment.
Yet far too many Americans, including not just many of the new Tea Party politicians but established leaders like former President George W. Bush, honestly think the difference between, say, evolution and creationism is merely a matter of opinion: you think man is descended from the apes; I think he is a creature made by God. Two competing belief systems, two forms of personal conviction equally salient. Tolerance, to Bush, means we respect both views and acknowledge their common creditability, because, after all, we both feel deeply about the matterâ┚¬”Âwhich means, in turn, we teach both views in our schools.
* * *
The trouble is that when we merely feel and opine, persuaded that there is no possible way our opinion can be controverted or challenged, having an opinion is the same as being “right.” Being right quickly comes to trump being creditable and provable, and we lose the core democratic faculty of admitting that we might be wrong, and that our views must be judged by some criterion other than how deeply we hold them. Our polarized antidemocratic politics of personal prejudice is all about the certainty that we are right paired with the conviction that nothing can change our mind. Yet democracy is wholly contrary to such subjective certainty. To secure our liberty in a world of collectivity, we must remain endlessly sensitive to the possibility that we might be wrong. And hence to our reciprocal willingness to subject our opinions to corroborationâ┚¬”Âand to falsification. We teach evolution not because it is “true” in some absolute sense but because it is susceptible to falsification. Creationism is not, which is why evolution is science while creationism is subjective opinionâ┚¬”Âa fit candidate for belief but inappropriate to schooling.
Yet what has happened to American democracy is that we have substituted opinion and prejudice for science and reasonâ┚¬”Âor, worse still, no longer recognize the difference between them. Larry King can thus interview both bigger-than-life cosmologist Stephen Hawking and a psychic-for-hire who talks to the dead in a way that suggests there is no difference in their methods. Ghost stories can appear on the History Channel next to World War II documentaries. And candidates can say just about anything impulse dictates, confident that their constituents will have neither an authoritative basis on which to judge nor any reason to think they need one. As Obama learned, many Americans are likely to associate a call for “proof”â┚¬”Âfor epistemological authorityâ┚¬”Âwith “elitism” and suggest that pushing “knowledge” is less a common way to put ourselves in the service of reason than someone’s private way of announcing his own supposed superiority.
The great African-American author James Baldwin once said, “People who shut their eyes to reality simply invite their own destruction.” Many Americans seem to have turned reality itself into a set of television shows utterly detached from reality. Daniel Boorstin, a former Librarian of Congress, wrote, “We risk being the first people in history to have been able to make their illusions so vivid, so persuasive, so ‘realistic’ that they can live in them. We are the most illusioned people on earth.”
The tyranny most corrosive to democracy is not the tyranny of money but the tyranny of illusion. As Chris Hedges says in his book Empire of Illusion, “A populace deprived of the ability to separate lies from truth, that has become hostage to the fictional semblance of reality put forth by pseudo-events, is no longer capable of sustaining a free society.”
The November 2 elections were many things: a manifestation of anger and resentment, a tribute to citizen organization, a demonstration of protest politics, an invitation to polarization and a proof of the enduring role of money in politics. But they also offered distressing evidence of our emerging epistemological deficitâ┚¬”Âa long, destructive erosion of our Enlightenment faith in reason and reasoning and of our willingness to recognize that facts and good arguments must prevail if freedom is to survive. The elections sent a lot of politicians home, but the real loser was democracy.”
Benjamin R. Barber
Ray
Obama had a super majority.He needed not one republican for anything.He failed within his own party. Republicans never went along to get along with things they disagreed with all along.Good for them. Everything stopped was good for America as nothing Obama planned was.So whomever did it -deserves our praise.Now they(the Rs) must stop all legislation that would set the stage for coming years, ignoring the last vote that effectively removed the Democratic parties power to speak for the people.We shall await the arrival of the Calvary to move forward
“the last vote that effectively removed the Democratic parties power to speak for the people.”
uh, the Democrats will still control the Senate and the White House. Or don’t they count?
Absolutely they count.For a little more than two years.But Obama’s main corrosive power- the power to cripple this country with punitive taxes is over.Section7….All bills for raising revenue shall originate in the house of representatives;Next the Senate and the office of the presidency will feel the blow.Can they still cause damage?Absolutely. Vigilance will be the price against this regime.
“punitive taxes. “vigilance” “this regime” “cripple this country”
Thanks for continuing to swallow our bullsh*t and regurgitate it