David Sirota: The 'candidate vs. president' canard

[OhioChick]

Friday, December 18, 2009

Every now and then, an insider inadvertently exposes the hideous rationalizations that run the American political grotesquerie. The best known of these statements are memorialized on TV as "gaffes." But the ones that never become famous tend to reveal the ugliest assumptions of all.

Case in point is the comment the pharmaceutical industry recently let fly in the Washington Post. The newspaper this week examined how the Obama administration crushed legislation that would have allowed Americans to purchase lower-priced FDA-approved medicines from abroad - legislation that President Obama promised to support as a presidential candidate; legislation that would have reduced drug profiteering and saved the government and consumers $100 billion.

"It's about being a candidate as opposed to being president," said the drug industry's top lobbyist in defense of Obama's flip-flop.

This explanation is common among politicos - we last heard it when the New York Times' John Harwood quoted an administration aide attacking those demanding Obama fulfill his campaign pledges. Disenchanted activists, said the White House, "need to take off (their) pajamas, get dressed and realize that governing a closely divided country is complicated."

These "candidate versus president" idioms are standard among Beltway elites who belong to what New York University's Jay Rosen calls "The Church of the Savvy." Their catechism says that anyone demanding a president deliver on campaign promises is naive because, allegedly, there is an inherent difference between what a candidate can tell voters and what that candidate can support as president. Those rejecting this "savvy" interpretation are therefore lambasted as petulant children who refuse to "take off their pajamas" and "get dressed."

More: http://www.sfgate.com/cgi-bin/article.cgi?f=/c/a/2009/12/18/EDBO1B5SGT.DTL

[DJ13]

1. anyone demanding a president deliver on campaign promises is naive

So next election lets all just close our eyes and throw a dart to choose who we vote for since its obvious they're all liars.

[Vincardog]

2. I hope they Savvy their asses out onto the street

[Zodiak]

3. Did they really say the "pajamas" line?

Because if so, they are so far out of touch we are never going to bring them down to salvage this presidency.

Imagine Republicans saying this about their base?

No didn't think so....Republicans don't say it BECAUSE IT IS FUCKING STUPID AS FUCK TO MAKE FUN OF YOUR SUPPORTERS!!!!

This isn't chess...it's just stupid.

[dgibby]

4. And Tweety got the talking points.

On yesterday's show, he said that the Left aren't "real" Democrats, that we're just the netroots, we don't drive the car, we just sit in the backseat and whine.

I REALLY detest that pompous, stupid ass.

[Tutankhamun]

5. Then, a few minutes later, Tweety said, "I'm a liberal."

He just kinda threw it in really quickly and casually in conversation a half second before the commercial break.

[dgibby]

6. Tweety wouldn't recognize a real liberal if one of us

walked up to him and slapped him into next week! I almost choked when I heard him say that.

[Joe Chi Minh]

7. I think by 'candidate versus president', they mean 'truth versus lies.' Why don't

they just say it?

[Demeter]

8. What? Tell the Truth? When They Approve of Lying to Get Their Way?

Ain't gonna happen in real time.

[Joe Chi Minh]

9. Yes, even as a rhetorical device, it was a dopey question.

[Blue_Tires]

10. +1

[niyad]

11. can't rec, will kick-- saw that this morning, and spot on.

[Skittles]

12. flip flop? Let's call it what it is: CON JOB