The New York Times has a story today (9/7/11) by Jeff Zeleny about how both sides are branding Obama:
The White House is in the midst of rebranding the president as a pragmatic problem solver prepared to set aside ideology to address a compelling need (see last week’s concession on ozone regulations), a reasonable man in an era dominated by extreme views.
I’m not sure that qualifies as “rebranding”–I think that’s been the Obama “brand” all along.
More worrisome is the notion of “pragmatism” here. It’s not clear whether the White House offered the ozone rule as evidence of Obama’s pragmatism, or if this is the Times‘ view. Either way, it doesn’t really make sense–unless you believe that there’s a “compelling need” for dirtier air, or that wanting fewer deaths from air pollution is an “extreme view.” Or, come to think of it, you define cleaner air as a “problem” that is “solved” by loosening pollution rules.
I would say Dear Misleader is “prepared to set aside” something other than ideology.
Like principles, humanity – that sort of thing.
But you have to possess them before you can set them aside, don’t you?
If businesses spent the money on stopping pollution instead of spending millions on highly paid lobbyists to gut regulations there wouldn’t be a problem. How is that for pragmatic?
We put scary pictures on cigarette packs to in the end, bring an end-to smoking.We load mandates and costs on production without a thought that the result may be the same.Actually the president realized this…..and voted it down.Was it a political decision?Pragmatic?Or does the president understand how close to the edge we are?Your call
Thinking through the politics here, this decision could have been made to try and strengthen support in some of the big carbon [and big EC] states like Ohio and Pennsylvania.
Pragmatism as used by our present gov’t is just a way of dismissing people’s fears at being sold out for things other than their very lives.
It’s endlessly unnerving watching the Corpress reimagining the President as a newly minted “pragmatist,” having discovered that being a liberal wasn’t going to move the freight forward (their Corporatist, anti-democratic world-view) in Washington. Mr. Obama has always been exactly what he is now–a cautious and conservative conciliator who happily will throw liberals and leftists under the bus, even before he does it to Rightists and conservatives. I’ts apparently easy to forget that Mr. Obama hired first Rahm Emmanuel and then William Daley–the former a man who despises liberals and the left, the second a wealty crony of Wall Street. No crazy Right-wing Senator or Congressman forced Mr. Obama to do this and many other telling things–he did it because he wanted to, beacause that’s who he is. Here’s a riddle: Who do Beltway Democrats and their toady press minions hate and fear more than right-wing Christer nutzoids? Actual, real, uncompromising liberals and leftists, that’s who. Those are the folks who have the gall to call out and criticize the Democrats (especially the honcho at the top) when they start acting like Republicons.
The result? We’re accused of being in league with the Cons, of not being team players, of helping to defeat the Dems when the rubber hits the road at the election cycle. I expect this utter depravity and complete abandonment of principles from the Republicons–there is literally no hope for them. But too often the so-called liberals and Democrats do precisely the same thing in defense of “winning” over everything. I expect better, and I have a few non-negotiable demands, just like the chumps and Baggers on the Right. I’ll stop criticizing the President and the Dems when they start acting like democrats, recognize their enemies (it ain’t me, you numbnutses), and stop with the constant palavering in front of people they should have nothing but deep contempt for.
Good blog Tim.You said you have demands.I think we in the tea party have been pretty clear about ours.What would you say are yours?
I thought TimN stated his demands: “I’ll stop criticizing the President and the Dems when they start acting like democrats, recognize their enemies (it ain’t me, you numbnutses), and stop with the constant palavering in front of people they should have nothing but deep contempt for.”
Am I missing something?
Follow up question talking around Tim…….And exactly what these days ideally constitutes a Dem ,or how one should act?Please give me their noble pledge
It’s all ve5ry simpel, and pols continue to mislead, skirt, and otherwise ignore what clean air is all about: Clean means just that, and the cleanest of the clean continues to be that which is part of an undeveloped landscape. In Idaho, where I sit right now, that means “forest.” For pols, especially those of the right-wing persuasion, clean air means air that’s OK as far as their campaign contributors think. Science? What science?