I have to say that my thoughts are deeply divided about Obama's compromise deal with the GOP leaders to extend all the Bush tax cuts for 2 years in exchange for a 13 month extension of unemployment benefits, plus some other goodies (like a 2% one-year cut in social security tax and some more tax incentives to encourage job creation).
The deciding factor for me would have to be knowing whether he could have gotten a better deal. Like all my progressive friends, I would like to think that he could by being a bold leader and using his bully pulpit to denounce Republican greed for what it is. But no one knows that for sure.
The other side is that middle class taxes would go up and there would be no jobless benefits -- and then we'd be into January and Republican control of the House and virtual control of the Senate on anything that matters.
Then it would at least be very clear who were the villains. Now, it puts Obama in that role with not just progressive Democrats but, for example, conservative Democrat Mary Landrieu as well, who called it "almost morally corrupt."
What I need Obama to explain is why it is that he always has to be the one to give in to their key issues in order to get something. Why can't he play his cards so that they have to give in once in a while? His defense is to lash out at "hostage-taking Republicans." Steney Hoyer says we had "to pay the ransom."
But if "tax cuts for billionaires" doesn't have any traction with the American people (and we know it does) -- then you're just conceding that Repubs play the game better than we do.
I don't like it. I agree that it seems morally corrupt.
But what would have been the alternative? I just don't know.
Ralph
[This is Richard's cue to come in and tell us for certain that he knows Obama could have gotten a better deal -- or at least someone, if not Obama, could have. And maybe he's right]
Subscribe to:
Post Comments (Atom)
And now to add insult to injury, it's announced that the US has abandoned the demand that Israel temporarily freeze any new West Bank settlements, saying it just hasn't worked.
ReplyDeleteWhen is there going to be a news story about our standing firm and making something work? Why can't the Obama administration stand up to anyone and win?
Especially when we have such a good moral case to make on just about all these issues?
I'm tired of losing out to the bad guys.
You baiting me there Ralph? I hope your recovery is going well, by the way.
ReplyDeleteNo one knows if O could've gotten a better deal. But we can all agree that he should have at least tried to get a better deal before capitulating.
I think it would have played very well with the public if he stood up every day, in a different state, with a group of unemployed people standing with him telling their stories. Day after day, calling out the Republicans. Demanding unemployment benefits not be coupled with tax breaks for billionaires, hammering home $700 billion for the rich vs. $60 billion for those who lost their jobs. The Repubs would've blinked. I honestly believe that.
You can win the public debate. You can win the narrative. But you have to be willing to step up and speak out.
You can't do it if you are constantly on your knees, kissing the asses of the people who publicly disrespect and demean you.
That's why O is unelectable in 2012. People who didn't like Reagan's policies voted for him because they at least felt he was strong and stood up for what he believed.
O has publicly humiliated himself over and over. Do you think Will I Am is going to make another Yes We Can video for him? I cannot tell you how many staunch O apologists have now given up on him because of this tax deal - and we all know it won't 'run out' in 2 years, because who will vote to kill it during an election year?
The Progressive base will not return because we don't feel we can trust him, and nothing he says is going to change that. African-Americans, a lot of them, are embarassed by his grovelling behavior towards the Republicans. The Independents have already quit, and these are the 'surfer' voters. They give you one chance. You don't cut it, they move on. They don't return to the past.
He has been as big a disaster as Carter.
richard
Richard, I haven't given up on Obama as completely as you have, but my loyalty has now been stretched to the near-breaking point. I hope this bad compromise fails to pass and that many Democrats help it fail.
ReplyDeleteI don't know what the next step is, but maybe that is the only wake up call that Obama will heed -- rebelling from his own party.
I think the answer is pretty clear -- being a community organizer and a mediator has it's place, but the presidency requires bold leadership. Obama needs to learn when the one is appropriate and when the other is necessary.
I see a close parallel in a lesson we psychoanalysts have a hard time learning. Our professional clinical work depends on open-minded acceptance, ability to see things from different points of view, being able to hold contradictory ideas in mind and wait a long time for resolution, etc.
ReplyDeleteBut then when a psychoanalyst assumes a position of organizational leadership, it is absolutely necessary to become an administrator, exert leadership, and make tough decisions that aren't going to please everyone.
These are two completely different skills and our organizations suffer badly when we try to administer like a shrink.