Krugman: Whatever is going on inside the White House, from the outside it looks like moral collapse

[Newsjock]

Source: New York Times

After the Democratic “shellacking” in the midterm elections, everyone wondered how President Obama would respond. Would he show what he was made of? Would he stand firm for the values he believes in, even in the face of political adversity?

On Monday, we got the answer: he announced a pay freeze for federal workers. This was an announcement that had it all. It was transparently cynical; it was trivial in scale, but misguided in direction; and by making the announcement, Mr. Obama effectively conceded the policy argument to the very people who are seeking — successfully, it seems — to destroy him.

... The real question is what Mr. Obama and his inner circle are thinking. Do they really believe, after all this time, that gestures of appeasement to the G.O.P. will elicit a good-faith response?

What’s even more puzzling is the apparent indifference of the Obama team to the effect of such gestures on their supporters. One would have expected a candidate who rode the enthusiasm of activists to an upset victory in the Democratic primary to realize that this enthusiasm was an important asset. Instead, however, Mr. Obama almost seems as if he’s trying, systematically, to disappoint his once-fervent supporters, to convince the people who put him where he is that they made an embarrassing mistake.

Whatever is going on inside the White House, from the outside it looks like moral collapse — a complete failure of purpose and loss of direction.

Read more: http://www.nytimes.com/2010/12/03/opinion/03krugman.html?_r=1&partner=rssnyt&emc=rss

[leftstreet]

1. K&R

[gateley]

4. Great pic, and great sig line. nt

[SpiralHawk]

55. ditto

alas

[bdamomma]

126. yea, the hug of death.

:puke: I don't miss bush.

[orbitalman]

145. Et tu Brute ! n/t

[awoke_in_2003]

186. Whatever happened...

to the idea of men shaking hands? Why have we turned into such a "huggy" country. You see the French (and a few other countries) do it, but that seems natural to them. It looks forced when we do it (especially that pic- could you imagine hugging that piece of shit?)

[Bluebear]

234. great pic!

[daleo]

2. Maybe I am mis-remembering

But Bill clinton seemed to stick to his guns better than this after the 1994 election. Though that was plenty disappointing too.

[niceypoo]

125. Bill Clinton didn't hang the litte guy out to dry

That is the one line Bill Clinton refused to cross. Obama refuses to protect us from the sociopaths on the right. On the contrary, he enables them.

[Truth2Tell]

146. yes he did

nafta, bank deregulation, welfare "reform", media consolidation, etc etc

Clinton could hang little guys out to dry with the best of 'em

[lark]

151. FMLA - Bill's big little folks accomplishment

show me one thing that Obama has done that has helped the working class as much as fmla, because I certainly haven't seen it. Oh yeah, big increase in minimum wage was also one of Clinton's accomplishments and raising taxes on rich and balancing budget. Balancing budget isn't fair as a comparison, but on all the rest Clinton stood his ground where you can bet Obama would not have. Oh yeah, Clinton cut military spending, Obama keeps us in forever wars.

[TNLib]

162. Also we got the freedom of information act out of clinton as well as cutting military spending

He did some very good things and some bad. I'm waiting for Obama to do something very good and not just meh good.

[katandmoon]

164. And until repugs retook the house in 1994, Clinton's EO forced Fed abortion coverage

[karynnj]

184. The Family Leave Act was legislation that Chris Dodd wrote and

which GHWB vetoed. As soon as Clinton was President, it was passed again in both Houses and Bill Clinton signed it. Clinton gets credit for asking the Congress to pass it again and send it to him, but credit should go to the Congress which had pushed it for years, needing only a President who would sign it.

[StarsInHerHair]

204. then why doesn't Obama ask Congress to pass single payer

again so he could sign it? Or any of the things Campaign Obama claimed he stood for? I remember W's 2004 post-parties.... 14 of them costing at least a millions dollars........REAL DEMS HAVE A SPINE AND THEY STAND UP FOR THE BASIC CORE, wake up Obama!

[karynnj]

210. Because as Sanders said there were less than 10 Senators supporting it

The difference is that the Senate and House HAD passed family leave and GHWB vetoed it. Single payer has NEVER passed - in fact it was never voted on.

[Knight Hawk]

221. So right

Id vote for the Clintons to be Pres and VP tomorrow..........Either of the Clintons have twice the fight Obama has in him ..at least twice.

[mod mom]

181. exactly. He did MAJOR damage to this entire nation!

[abelenkpe]

193. +1 nt

[Carni]

200. No, he didn't

Don't care to expand, but Clinton had enough sense to dance with the ones who "brung him"

[Ken Burch]

220. Tell that to ANY woman who was raising her kids on AFDC in those years.

(And remember, those women had NO ALTERNATIVE but to stay on AFDC, because there weren't any jobs out there that would have let them have the flextime needed to take care of their kids, PLUS there was no real day-care for the kind of women who were trying to get back to work after being on benefits).

When Clinton signed the Rush Limbaugh Poor Law(I.E., "Welfare Reform")he officially pissed on Bobby Kennedy's grave.

[ProudDad]

155. Not really...

He got into high gear with signing DLC/republican shit...

Including the giveaway of media to conglomerates, PATRIOT Act I, GATT, killing hundreds of thousands of Iraqis, etc. etc. etc.

It was essentially the same as now except I think Clinton at least waited until the republicans were seated in their new Congress before caving in public...

[Ken Burch]

211. Bill Clinton STUCK TO HIS GUNS?

:eyes: :puke:

Two words: "Welfare Reform".

Clinton threw EVERY poor person and especially EVERY POOR WOMAN under the bus the day he signed Rush Limbaugh's wet dream of a Poor Law.
He NEVER did anything to make up for that. And he's NEVER apologized for it. Worst of all, it didn't even gain the guy any votes, since everyone who wanted people punished for being on welfare was right-wing on all other issues. There's no way he had to betray people with nothing just to get to 49%.

[unkachuck]

222. "...no way he had to betray people..."

....yep, then the corporatists shoveled all that 'welfare queen' loot (and more plus kickbacks) into the pentagons' pocket, wall street and a multitude of corporate coffers to save the country from the evil idle poor....

[ibegurpard]

3. spot fucking on!

he nails this one
it's what many have been saying for MONTHS!
and it's only puzzling if you assume he's on our side.

[kath]

34. "it's only puzzling if you assume he's on our side."

a-yup.
:cry:

[truedelphi]

167. PASS THAT KLEENIX.

I would cry even more than I do, if I let myself.

[Bluebear]

232. :(

[peace frog]

87. HELLO

You got that right.

[Arctic Dave]

5. K&R

[me b zola]

6. K&R

[UrbScotty]

7. Thankfully, most liberal Democrats - 81%, according to Gallup - don't buy into this bullcrap.

http://www.gallup.com/poll/124922/Presidential-Approval-Center.aspx

[Mojorabbit]

39. If I am polled I will have

his back but not here where I can speak what I am thinking. I don't doubt there are many more like me.
I have a sister who is a pain in the ass and I can say that but no one outside my family better say it.

[JDPriestly]

41. I'm with you Mojorabbit.

[tclambert]

56. You know her sister?

[eridani]

58. Same here. I never diss any Dem in a public poll

I effing well diss many of their policies on DU, however.

[Enthusiast]

64. You are exactly correct, Majorabbit..

I wonder what the actual % of that 81% just don't want to hear TV Republicans crow about Obama's low approval in the polls.

[stillwaiting]

67. I'm with you too, and I'm furious at what's happened the past two years.

[nashville_brook]

89. that's exactly what we do. we get poll calls all the time, and we're careful with our answers

mostly they're either/or questions, so you're either "with 'em or against 'em" -- that's called a lousy instrument.

[Jackpine Radical]

173. It's an instrument that permits liberal unhappiness to be

coded as if it were unhappiness from the right, and therefore is an automatically biased device.

I always "support" Obama & his initiatives in polls too, for the same reason people upthread have suggested.

[nashville_brook]

189. eggactly -- i've actually stopped a couple of calls and told them i wouldn't be able to answer

they way they'd like me to.

[LiberalAndProud]

90. Exactly.

If I were ever to answer a Gallup phone call, (not likely, given caller id) I would unequivocally poll support for our President. As far as the pollsters go, he can do no wrong. And truth be told, I'll vote for him in 2012, less enthusiastically than in 2008 but vote nonetheless. In the end, my vote is a zero sum difference. Obama probably knows this about me.

But what he doesn't seem to know is that I convinced at least 4 other people to vote for him in 2008. That won't happen in 2012 because I no longer believe that this time will be different. I won't proselytize because I am no longer a believer. I thought we had found a Pol who was truly different. I find that what we have is just another Pol.

[lark]

153. Me too

I would never vote Repug, so have no choice but to vote Dem. If he doesn't just quit, I will vote for him next time, but will be holding my nose - will not donate any money to him or spend any time working for him - all things I did last election. If there's a progressive challenger, I will vote for him/her. If, however, Obama pushes a bill cutting social security, I don't think I can vote for him because he will have proven to be an enemy of working people, same as Repugs. That's my personal line in the sand.

[Bigmack]

108. Exactly how I feel...

I've defended Pres. Obama in LTTEs and blog posts and face-to-face, but here I feel I can say what I feel.

I will vote straight Democrat... as I have my entire life... but only because the Repubs are death to this country.

Third Party? I don't think so.

[brislington]

144. In the choice between Evil or Incompetance...

Reluctantly, I choose Incompetence, or Naivete, or Hopeless Optimism or whatever euphemism you want to put on spinelessness.

..but it's better than choosing Evil.

[ProudDad]

157. And what makes you think

that the actions of the Obama Admin are a display of "incompetence"?

From all indications and the history of its components, they are just doing what they believe in -- corporate and international evil...

[brislington]

172. Evil vs Incompetent Evil? I hope not...eot

[renate]

174. me too

Or I choose Need for Approval From Those Who Will Always Hate, or something like that... anything's better than Evil.

On a lighter note--welcome to DU! :hi:

[myrna minx]

116. Yep - same here. I keep my disgruntlement in the family, not aired in a poll, that's

why these much ballyhooed polls that are flapped around makes me chuckle and cry at the same time.

[Poboy]

118. This is the case for me as well. -nt

[frylock]

121. yep

[cilla4progress]

149. I can relate

Thank you for expressing what I didn't even know I was thinking

[Hello_Kitty]

169. Same here. I've been polled a few times and I'm always very pro-Democrat.

That said, 81% support from self-described Dems is not much to brag about. If it were a grade it would be a B-minus.

[awoke_in_2003]

187. Same here...

I will give the pukes nothing- but I can and will say my peace here.

[Bluebear]

235. exactly

[NewJeffCT]

49. That's not a great percentage of the supposed "base"

Bush got well over 90% of conservative Republic votes.

[Loge23]

63. ..which makes it even sadder (eom)

[muriel_volestrangler]

80. Down from 88% a month ago, though

We'll have to see what the figures are for the week of Nov 29th-Dec 5th. The trend is not good for Obama.

[Cherchez la Femme]

97. Read the Krugman comments

They are absolutely scathing. They make any criticisms at DU look like a constant Obama love-fest.

But keep on with that poll, I'm sure it will change so very many disaffected Democrat's minds. :sarcasm:

[Dr.Phool]

104. I don't know a liberal who likes him.

Methinks Gallup is full of shit.

[MissDeeds]

183. I agree completely

I don't know one liberal who supports him or is pleased with his leadership so far. Quite the opposite.

[Smashcut]

154. oh the gallup poll. THE GALLUP POLL!!!!!!111!!!

[liberation]

194. Yeah.... that Gallup poll

Funny how things "change," eh? What used to be bad is good now...

[ProudDad]

156. Deluded sheep

like many on DU... :eyes:

[sabrina 1]

202. You need to stop using that poll now. As mojorabbit says above

if any democrat is polled, they will not give a negative response on a democratic president. The real poll was the election.

[Bluebear]

229. indeed.

[ProSense]

8. Krugman's speculation is completely off base

<...>

But he didn’t. Instead, he apparently intended the pay freeze announcement as a peace gesture to Republicans the day before a bipartisan summit. At that meeting, Mr. Obama, who has faced two years of complete scorched-earth opposition, declared that he had failed to reach out sufficiently to his implacable enemies. He did not, as far as anyone knows, wear a sign on his back saying “Kick me,” although he might as well have.

<...>

First of all, the President has been making an issue of the deficit since day one. Secondly, he froze executive branch salaries last year. This had nothing to do with the tax cuts.

[tekisui]

10. He is quite on base:

(snip)

The truth is that America’s long-run deficit problem has nothing at all to do with overpaid federal workers. For one thing, those workers aren’t overpaid. Federal salaries are, on average, somewhat less than those of private-sector workers with equivalent qualifications. And, anyway, employee pay is only a small fraction of federal expenses; even cutting the payroll in half would reduce total spending less than 3 percent.

So freezing federal pay is cynical deficit-reduction theater. It’s a (literally) cheap trick that only sounds impressive to people who don’t know anything about budget realities. The actual savings, about $5 billion over two years, are chump change given the scale of the deficit.

Anyway, slashing federal spending at a time when the economy is depressed is exactly the wrong thing to do. Just ask Federal Reserve officials, who have lately been more or less pleading for some help in their efforts to promote faster job growth.

Meanwhile, there’s a real deficit issue on the table: whether tax cuts for the wealthy will, as Republicans demand, be extended. Just as a reminder, over the next 75 years the cost of making those tax cuts permanent would be roughly equal to the entire expected financial shortfall of Social Security. Mr. Obama’s pay ploy might, just might, have been justified if he had used the announcement of a freeze as an occasion to take a strong stand against Republican demands — to declare that at a time when deficits are an important issue, tax breaks for the wealthiest aren’t acceptable.

(snip)

[ProSense]

13. "whether tax cuts for the wealthy will, as Republicans demand, be extended. "

And he wrote this article about the freeze to point out that the President supports ending tax cuts for the rich?

Mr. Obama’s pay ploy might, just might, have been justified if he had used the announcement of a freeze as an occasion to take a strong stand against Republican demands — to declare that at a time when deficits are an important issue, tax breaks for the wealthiest aren’t acceptable.

How many times does he expect the President to make the point...in a day?

The freeze and the tax cuts only relation is the President's deficit cutting agenda.

[tekisui]

15. I think he wrote the article to critique the pay freeze.

Which was done on the claim that it will combat the deficit.

That one line that you quote doesn't effect the thrust of the argument. That line does not invalidate the points made about the pay freeze and its political and economic consequences.

[Demoiselle]

96. I expect the President to "make the point" several times a day, if necessary..

"Making the point" is his job.

[ProudDad]

159. Bookmarked for the day when Obama extends the tax cuts for the rich (n/t)

[Hannah Bell]

38. 2.5 billion a year v. 67 billion a year by letting the bush tax cuts for the rich expire.

jesus.

[niceypoo]

130. Or better yet

$4 trillion over ten years if ALL the Bush tax cuts expire, and a balanced budget according to the CBO

[dotymed]

94. President Obama

would have been much more effective if at the same time, he had announced pay freezes for the CEO's and increased taxes on the wealthy.
To imagine that we can overcome our economic disaster on the backs of the working poor is pure Republicanism and completely irrational.
There is nothing new I can say. I have said it all before.

Waylon Jennings- "Let's stop rolling down hill like a snowball headed for hell"......

[MannyGoldstein]

21. What do you mean that he froze Executive branch salaries last year?

That's what Obama announced on Monday, isn't it? Did he also freeze these same salaries a previous time? Or am I confused?

[dgibby]

136. He froze ALL fed civil service salaries this time.

He froze some ex. branch(his top paid staff) salaries last year.

[JDPriestly]

42. Nonsense.

[rhett o rick]

91. I agree. There is no evidence of a moral collapse. Maybe he is standing firm for the values

he believes in. What is the explanation for his continued capitulation to the republi-cons, even on issues he has the backing of the American people?

[AlbertCat]

112. What is the explanation for his continued capitulation to the republi-cons

I think he is being very badly served by his advisers.

Now of course the final decisions are with him, not advisers, but he needs to remember Johnson and Vietnam.... or something...

It all comes off like the Repugs are in charge, and Obama is like an indulgent parent being manipulated by spoiled Repug children.

Congress makes laws,not the Prez. But The House has done pretty well. It's supposed to be the "difficult" side of Congress. Pelosi is good. And she's on her own. Imagine if she had a strong, insistent powerful president behind her. The Senate is completely useless. Nicey-nice Reid with nicey-nice Obama behind him can't get anything done. Obama should ask Pelosi's people about how to act.

[rhett o rick]

199. I see only two possible reasons for Pres Obama to kowtow to the 'con's.

One, in spite of his rhetoric, he agrees with the 'con's, or
B) he is limited by a higher authority. And I dont mean God.

IMHO there is someone that has a lot of power in this country. Between 2000 and 2008 it sure as hell wasnt the idiots Bush or Cheeney. They couldnt figure out which hand to use to wipe their butts. someone was telling them, step by step what to do. Didnt you get suspicious when these two egomaniacs in 2007 decided to shut their faces and quietly bow out to a black man? It wasnt because they found Jesus. They were told exactly what to do and they did it. We also got a little demonstration on how easily the powers can crash the economy.

And IMHO this power has an effect on Pres Obama, either directly or indirectly.

And with all respect, Obama being badly served by his advisers is like Bush blaming the Iraq War on the CIA. Pres Obama knows exactly what he is doing. The question is why?

[DainBramaged]

143. Of course you disagree with any criticism, the flowers grow for you in sea water.

:eyes:

[rhett o rick]

228. Here, here.

[ProudDad]

158. People of PRINCIPLE, especially Progressives of principle...

don't just bend over, present their posterior orifice to the enemy and say, "Stick it here, please, sir!"

Anyway, the "deficit" is basically irrelevant...

It's smokescreen bullshit to cover over the constant subsidies for corporations and the real elephants in the room, the permanent war economy(tm) and the Long Emergency...

[HowHasItComeToThis]

9. IF THE REPULSIVES ARE NOT DESTROYED, THEY WILL KILL AMERICA

[lise]

31. LOL

Looks to me like the Dems don't need much help in this and are doing a pretty darn good job of it all by themselves.

JMO, obviously. But that's what it looks like to me today.

[rhett o rick]

95. Have you looked outside lately? American democracy is dead. We now live in

American Oligarchy.

[SOS]

106. Precisely

There are no "politics" in an oligarchy.
It's an illusion in service to some bygone society.
Laws, regulations, tax codes and bailouts are written by and for the oligarchs.
The "politics" are just a measure of the speed at which the average American is financially destroyed.
The destruction is faster under Republicans, a little slower under Democrats, but the direction of travel never changes.

Once this reality is accepted, the level of one's personal outrage diminishes to zero.
A dog barks. An oligarchy benefits the rich and shafts everyone else.
That's just the way it is.

[rhett o rick]

197. I agree. Someone is running the country and it sure the hell aint Pres Obama. nm

[Raksha]

225. As much as it pains me to say it...you're right.

I thought I was pretty realistic about accepting the brutal realities of the class war. But the brutal reality is that the class war is over...and we lost.

There are no "politics" in an oligarchy. I'm going to remember that.

[Blue_Tires]

11. ttt

[treestar]

12. Oh the drama!

Fanning! Pearl clutching!

[laughingliberal]

29. Oh, the capitulation!

Fawning, bowing!

[liberation]

44. How come some Dems spine only seems to appear...

... when it comes to address criticism from their own base via passive aggressive condescension?

[femrap]

107. Very good question...

yea, call the repugnants f*cking retards....or better yet Professional Corporate Cocks*ckers.

Those are the kind of words Rahm uses.

[myrna minx]

120. No kidding.

:hi:

[Hello_Kitty]

170. Because they're elitists and they despise us.

The professional class of the left (not to be confused with the Professional Left) shares the same contempt for the American working class as their counterparts on the right.

[rhett o rick]

230. Drama, I'll give you drama. When we get down to it, who's side are you on treestar?

You continually favor the oppressors. Seems you've choosen sides and it aint with the people.

[benfranklin1776]

14. K and R hugely.

Mr Krugman is spot on. I never thought I would live to see the day where my party, the party of FDR, the greatest President ever who famously said:


We had to struggle with the old enemies of peace--business and financial monopoly, speculation, reckless banking, class antagonism, sectionalism, war profiteering.

They had begun to consider the Government of the United States as a mere appendage to their own affairs. We know now that Government by organized money is just as dangerous as Government by organized mob.

Never before in all our history have these forces been so united against one candidate as they stand today. They are unanimous in their hate for me--and I welcome their hatred.


is now headed by someone who is apparently so terrified of offending the rabid Rethuglicans, who hate his guts and have done nothing but obstruct him at every turn, that he is too afraid to make the basic moral case to the American people that the Rethuglicans act of cutting off unemployment benefits completely near Christmas time which will quite literally result in hundreds of thousands of people going hungry and potentially starving or committing suicide from despair and hopelessness is in and of itself, an act of heinous moral depravity, but to do so simply so that tax cuts for millionaires and billionaires can be preserved is the depth of craven, sociopathic immorality. As Krugman said: "a complete failure of purpose and loss of direction" indeed. It is as repellent and painful as watching an abused spouse return again and again to be beaten into a bloody pulp.

[snagglepuss]

20. Well said. nt

[JDPriestly]

43. Thank you, benfranklin1776

[olegramps]

68. Can't agree more. It makes one wonder what they have on him.

It is truly puzzling. They tell him the hate him and he says when can we do lunch. This administration makes Alice in Wonderland appear to the epitome of good government. The Mad Hatter's Tea Party makes more sense than how this administration has reacted.

[BlueIris]

82. It does make one wonder.

But I don't wonder why he is doing this. It is about trying to get the GOP to back off those rumored investigations. Even the possibility of that happening is a major thread to him.

[a2liberal]

71. Thank you

I love that speech! (it's in my sig). It could so accurately describe our situation today. We need someone like FDR to use the bully pulpit and criticize the "organized mob"

[Nordmadr]

84. Yes. N/T

[byrok]

98. As usual,

I wish I could rec a reply.

Very well said BF.

[ArcticFox]

109. Thank you

[femrap]

111. Remember the Black woman

who asked Obama at one of his folksy little Town Hall meetings, 'How long will I have to defend you?' She had tears in her eyes...remember her?

She was laid off last week...I heard it on the news last week.

I remember Obama's response....it started with a LAUGH.

Now....our nation sits in a Power Vacuum....sheeple waiting for some 'hero.' Scary shit.

The True Progressives of this nation better find a populist 'hero/heroine' damn quick. Grayson? He has time on his hands now.

Ted Strickland? He has time on his hands as well.

We need a FDR-type to step up unafraid to FIGHT these evil, greedy bastards.

[bdamomma]

131. I sometimes wish those with that greed could choke on it.

[femrap]

135. i'd like to see them

have to eat their money....and then choke on that! What a picture that would be. Someone with good photo-shopping skills could do this. Show the CEO of Goldman Sucks choking on his $100 bills. And then put it on a t-shirt!!!! Copyright!!!!

[Raster]

114. Thank you, Ben!

:kick:

[Poboy]

129. excellent post franklin1776.

[peace frog]

132. More than repellant and painful: tragic

if done by design rather than by happenstance, it sounds the death knell for the republic. Farewell America.

[DontTreadOnMe]

16. Krugman is correct again

He spells it out so clearly for everyone to see... except the chess players.

[tiris171a]

133. agree

[Name removed]

17. Deleted message

Sub-thread removed by moderator. Click here to review the message board rules.

[gratuitous]

18. Oh, what are you going to believe?

The subtle nuances of the 12-level Vulcan chess game that you can't possibly comprehend, or your lying eyes?

[liberation]

45. I was told "Parcheesi" is Klingon for "chess"

no?

[Individualist]

19. K&R

[MannyGoldstein]

22. It looks like a Republican wet dream

We need to do something. This is getting surreal.

[DeSwiss]

23. K&R

Excerpt from 'http://www.joebageant.com/joe/2008/04/the-audacity-of.html">The Audacity of Depression'

"Lately though, I don't hear so much outrage. In fact, the readers seem to be suffering from what someone aptly called "rage fatigue." Which is another way of saying the bastards have simply worn us out. And it's true.

I am not kidding when I say rage fatigue victims have fallen into an ongoing mid-level depression. (Looks to me like the whole country has, but then I'm no mental health expert.) The less depressed victims can be found lurking near the edges of the Obama cult, consoling themselves that a soothing and/or charismatic orator is better than nothing. Obama may yet be borne through the White House portico by a Democratic host of seraphim, but he cannot do much without the consent of a bought and paid for Congress. Only George Bush can do that, and we can only hope God broke the mold after he made George. And like whoever else wins the presidency, Obama can never acknowledge any significant truth, such as that the nation is waaaaay beyond being just broke, and is even a net debtor nation to Mexico, or that the greatest touch-me-not in the U.S. political flower garden, the "American lifestyle," is toast. But then, we really do not expect political truth, but rather entertainment in a system where, as Frank Zappa said, politics is merely "the entertainment branch of industry."

Still, millions of Americans do grasp at The Audacity of Hope, a meaningless marketing slogan of the publishing industry if ever there was one. At least it has the word Audacity in it, something millions of folks are having trouble conjuring up the least shred of these days. And there is good old fashioned "Hope" of course -- that murky, undefined belief that some unknown force or magical unseen power will reverse the national condition -- will deliver us from what every bit of evidence indicates is irreversible, if not politically, then economically and ecologically: Collapse.

Compounding everything is the fact that it is quite human and even pragmatic to passively accept reality as it is. Until it's too late to do anything. As my late friend Virgil the philosophical backhoe operator summed it up: "If we fucked everything up so bad tryin' to do our best, maybe we oughtta just leave'er be for a while. Quit thinking about it so much."

~ Joe Bageant, April 2008

Someone recently http://www.commondreams.org/view/2010/11/12-4">remarked: "At this point I see our society and its political system as akin to a child that has been told multiple times not to perform the act that is going to harm it, and is about to do that very thing. Sometimes you just have to let it happen in order for things to change."

- Yeah.

[Lorien]

24. Of course he's systematically trying to disappoint us. From his pre-midterm

behavior it's been pretty clear that he wants to see the GOP in charge. There's no possible way that Obama is as naive or stupid as some seem to think he is. He's simply not on our side. Maybe he never was.

[DeSwiss]

25. I agree. n/t

[chriscruzan]

224. Floating Hope on a Sea of Need

He's got something for everybody- DEVO

[SammyWinstonJack]

124. I'd go with 'maybe he never was'. It seem crystal clear.

[bluetrain]

26. This belongs in the Editorial Forum.

[tekisui]

66. No it doesn't. It is an editorial, but of a general subject.

It is right where it belongs. Perhaps you should post a question in the Ask the Admins forum on forum protocol.

[awoke_in_2003]

188. oh my...

they finally caught up with the self-appointed GD police :)

[laughingliberal]

27. K & R nt

[gateley]

28. I think this is a pretty spot-on article, and I can't argue with most of Krugman's

points.

This, though, is what I just don't GET:

It’s hard to escape the impression that Republicans have taken Mr. Obama’s measure — that they’re calling his bluff in the belief that he can be counted on to fold. And it’s also hard to escape the impression that they’re right.

He doesn't seem to me the kind of guy who would fold, he seems to be strong but fold he does, repeatedly. :shrug:

I want So Bad for him to rise up start mowing them down. It's so hard for me to give up my belief in him - I think he can do just so much fucking good. :banghead:

Edit: misspelled Krugman's name. Oops.

[Frisbee]

175. "I think he can do just so much fucking good."

I used to believe that. But I don't anymore. The repukes are now like great white sharks that smell blood in the water and have begun a feeding frenzy. What really scares me is it would appear we have two choices: 6 more years of this, or 2 more, followed by repukes for who knows how long.

Edited to add quotes

[gateley]

231. Great analogy about the sharks. I'd much rather have 6 more years of this than

have the repukes gain the WH.

[BlueCheese]

30. It's really astonishing...

... how weak the party leadership is. Democrats still have a vise grip on Congress and the White House for the next three weeks, and everyone already knows its a foregone conclusion that the high-income tax cuts will be extended. If we can't win on this slam-dunk--extend tax breaks on income less than $250,000 but not on those above--while we have big majorities, what on earth are we ever going to get done?

It's like being a French soldier right now. You and your battalion can stand up in the face of the German assault all you want, but your generals don't have the stomach for a fight and are already trying to negotiate some favorable terms of surrender.

[lise]

32. I'll tell you

what's *really* wierd:

The Dems have had a "vise grip" on both the House AND the Senate *SINCE 2007* and yet...here we are.

Since 2007. Think about that.

[SHRED]

62. I'll explain

The corporate Blue Dog DLC wing of the Democratic Party have been in control.
The Kucinich, Feingold, Grayson, Sanders (I know Bernie is an "independent") side of the party have always been the minority.

The media loves to equate the Democratic Party as a whole with the word "liberal" to which I say, "nonsense".

---

[ProudDad]

160. You're absolutely right...

There's nothing in the Constitution that would allow the republicans to hold the Senate hostage...

51 votes could change the rules...

But they haven't...

There are probably just a handful of Progressives, a few "liberals" (Dog preserve me from "liberals") and the vast majority blue-dog republicans and real republicans...

[AndrewP]

76. Very good analogy. Exactly right.

[Name removed]

33. Deleted message

Sub-thread removed by moderator. Click here to review the message board rules.

[Marr]

35. Krugman's an intelligent man. I'm sure he's not as confused as he let on.

Obama's also very intelligent, and no one gets to the White House if they're a complete wimp. That excuse never made any sense.

When Obama moves right, it's because he wants to. He doesn't expect the GOP to suddenly be his friend. He's not a moron-- he's just a Wall Street-vetted blue dog who believes societies exist to service their elites.

[TBF]

60. +1000. nt

[zipplewrath]

122. Ding ding ding!!!!

I've become aware for some time that he is vastly more comfortable with the blue dogs, the conservative democrats, and the DLC types than anything truly "left". The vast majority of the "compromises" we've seen in the last 2 years are him moving towards positions with which he basically agrees.

[ProudDad]

161. That was the case when he was at Harvard Law...

The leopard didn't change his spots...

:shrug:

[emilyg]

36. K/R

[Greyhound]

37. K&Rugman. "trivial in scale, but misguided in direction".

Pretty much sums this administration up in one line.
:kick: & R

[coalition_unwilling]

127. Shakespeare said it better, imho: "A tale told by an idiot, full of sound and fury,

signifying nothing" (Macbeth).

[Danmel]

40. He is like Charlie Brown

Ever so hopeful that Lucy will change he runs up to the football every single time and lands on his back. Stop running up to the football, Mr. President.

[liberation]

46. I dunno...

... no one reaches the office of the presidency by being either so naive, or such a slow learner, or so politically tone deaf.

Me thinks we may be Charlie Brown actually... that would suck.

[stillwaiting]

72. I'm not Charlie Brown. I damn well know not to trust Lucy. I'd make her play MY game.

Lucy = Democratic Leadership unfortunately

I feel like a majority of DU'ers at this point are not Charlie Brown too. We know the score.

[Demeter]

47. You Have to HAVE Morals to Have a "Moral Collapse"

What we are witnessing is a complete collapse of the false front which won the hearts and minds of America.

[hourglass1]

205. EXACTLY! Moral Collapse?

mr. obama rightly identified and craftily utilized his countrymen's desperate hope for change, yet has since systematically crushed it and his supporters underfoot for his masters since ... in out-campaigning and fundraising hillary for the nomination, president obama proved to wall street he was electable and the telecommunications and defense/security/war industries he was their man with fisa.

the excuses and justifications for obama's betrayals have run the gamut from "just wait, he's playing 4-dimensional chess and since george the lesser we are only playing checkers" to his recent assurances that he "learned his lesson" from the 2010 "shellacking" and will play more rodney king in future in the hopes he isn't personally bankrupted by the legal challenges he will face (frivolous or not) from relentless witch-hunting scheduled for early next year.

americans have a "one party" good-cop/bad-cop political system. one only has to live overseas a couple of years to realize that americans haven't been allowed to have a real "for the people" democratic candidate since jfk. and don't cite clinton, like obama, he never was a progressive - welfare reform, repeal of glass-steagall, nafta, balkan wars ...

none of this is an accident. it is the natural order of things when you worship at the altar of greed and avarice and mass murder - the working class and working poor always pay for the sins of the owners and rulers ...

[FlyByNight]

48. Presidential politics and morality...

...have nothing to do with one another. Just ask the people in Cuba, Central America, Chile, Iran, Indonesia/East Timor, Iraq, Afghanistan, etc. (and that's just the foreign policy side).

Domestically, thirty years of varying degrees of Friedmanite economics have decimated the middle and working classes. Obama doesn't seem to care. To be fair, he realizes that in the wake of Citizens United, corporate money flowing into Dem (DLC) coffers IS WHAT MATTERS.

Appointing Summers and Geithner didn't help either. If I didn't know better, all of this looks like a slow-motion, DLC-sponsored shock doctrine.

:mad:

[glitch]

105. "all of this looks like a slow-motion, DLC-sponsored shock doctrine."

What do you know better? (not being snarky, I'd really like to know better too, I'd sleep easier. :))

[area51]

50. Obama = DINO. n/t

[BlueJac]

51. Obama's true colors are shining bright......

as everything focus's on the White House the curtain is being pulled back for all to see!

[Bluebear]

52. Donnie McClurkin was just the opening act for this Administration. nt

[Raster]

117. No shit. One thing after another. I have come to the conclusion that the...

...Presidential Titan we thought we had elected, perhaps padded his resume. Barrack Obama comes not to save America, but to help usher it into it's new age of decline and mediocrity.

[DeSwiss]

137. +1

[Name removed]

140. Deleted message

Message removed by moderator. Click here to review the message board rules.

[Bluebear]

168. Oh yes, I wanted McCain to win. And Palin. And the unabomber,

Quelle idiot.

[xchrom]

53. Recommend

[mstinamotorcity]

54. All the church

say Amen. The President is supposed to change Washington D.C. culture. How have we changed????

[crikkett]

57. They just keep slinging sh*t and hope something sticks

"if you say it enough it becomes true"

:eyes:

[prodigals0n]

59. It's time for us to all come to the realization that we may have elected a republican president

"It’s hard to escape the impression that Republicans have taken Mr. Obama’s measure — that they’re calling his bluff in the belief that he can be counted on to fold. And it’s also hard to escape the impression that they’re right."

I no longer believe President Obama is folding. I'm beginning to believe he is doing exactly what he intended to do right from the start of his campaign.

I wish I had voted for Hillary.

[cate94]

61. Unfortunately

I have no choice but to K & R. I really have no desire to see this President fail and yet that is what he seems intent on doing.

Every day there seems to be a new reason to say WTF?

[4dsc]

65. I wish President Obama would LEAD and not be LED.

eom..

[jefferson_dem]

69. Provocative column by Krugman.

A bit overstated but still good.

[TomClash]

70. The most interesting paragraph is the last one

"It would be much easier, of course, for Democrats to draw a line if Mr. Obama would do his part. But all indications are that the party will have to look elsewhere for the leadership it needs."

This seems like a call for the President to be primaried.

[spicegal]

73. I don't know what to think anymore. I keep hoping that

Obama has some sort of "stealth plan", and that maybe behind the scenes there's a strategy. Maybe he's drawing the Republicans out. I was glad to see the Dems force a vote on the tax cuts for millionaires. How difficult can it be to name and shame the GOP? They're on the wrong side of every issue. They have no plan except tax cuts, tax cuts, and more tax cuts.

[BlueCheese]

83. That's not really fair to the GOP.

They also want more war.

[stillwaiting]

74. Obama has completely exposed himself in the wake of the midterms.

How can he possibly claim that he needs to improve on his bipartisanship after the first two years of his presidency. It fails to pass scrutiny, but underscores the agenda he WANTS to embark on over the next two years and that is to cooperate even MORE with Republicans over the next two years.

He's flat out engaging in psychological warfare now against his base. He is dead set on reinforcing the learned helplessness that both parties ruthlessly engage in together against liberals/progressives. He is not my ally.

[Poboy]

75. Recommend.

[Paper Roses]

77. One line says it all.

-a complete failure of purpose and loss of direction.

[AndrewP]

78. Good article

[Stuart G]

79. I think I understand it...but no one would believe it..

I think that Obama was blindsided by the huge loss at midterms..
He and his team totally underestimated what the results would be..

That underestimation, failure, and the resulting loss has thrown him into a depression..That depression,
explains his behavior.

He is human, and that is it. ..
.....quote Krugman... "--a complete failure of purpose and loss of direction

That is exactly what depression is..

He is acting like he...doesn't give a shit...and that is it too...
"How could the public act like it doesn't understand my purpose and all the work that I have done." " Why should I fight this"
.. Fuck it..
.. He could be thinking...

That is it too..

[Poboy]

128. Bullshit cop-out. His mouthpieces conveyed open contempt toward progressives.

Did he think we are just going to put up with this shit forever?

[Skittles]

191. LOL, please

he pissed on his base every chance he got

[Joe Chi Minh]

81. Perhaps he's close enough to the Republicans to have agreed to be a willing patsy,

to enable them to get back in power; giving the electorate a breather after Bush, and a push back into the loving care of the Republicans.

He's evidently a lot closer to the Republicans - even these ones - than to the electorate (the professional 'lefties') who voted him to power. Well, wasn't he financially-sponsored by Goldman Sachs? And maybe some more of Wall Street's finest.

[Kablooie]

85. It's like he's given up. The job is too hard for him.

[Stuart G]

123. See post 79...nt

[wildbilln864]

86. I have to k&r! nt

[Smarmie Doofus]

88. "Plan B" for 2012 has now officially become Plan A.

Far as I'm concerned, anyway.

[aquamarina]

92. Just one more opportunity to capitulate to the same group

that brought this economic mess down on us.

Pathetic.

[spanone]

93. with extreme sadness i must agree with mr krugman

[Waiting For Everyman]

99. Yes, moral collapse sure is the right term for it

and more importantly, it's killing the grassroots. Peoples' livelihoods are being wiped out in mass strokes, and nothing is being done to stop the corporatists' lawless pillaging of us every day in countless ways.

We need the laws that let them run wild over us, fixed. Instead, we get more of the same.

This recession won't end until (the foreclosures are replaced with modifications and) there is a lot more spending power at the bottom, but instead, we're being drained more and more. Almost every move that's been made is BACKWARDS - the opposite of what needs to be done - or at best marginal and ineffectual.

I can tell you (from the vantage point of being part of this movement myself) that eventually, the thousands of people who are fighting the foreclosures are inevitably going to trigger another big bank failure because the BBs haven't done ANYTHING legally, and a tsunami is building "out there" in the local and federal courts which will shut down the foreclosure machine and put all of these BBs into bankruptcy when their mass frauds are recognized, finally... where they should've been two years ago.

Actually, I think that tsunami happening is the only real hope we have. It just might bring about some positive change for everybody, and it might be the ONLY WAY we'll get any.

[Safetykitten]

100. Who is advising him? Surely no one from this planet.

[Upfront]

101. Bought and paid For.

Good lord, I have had enough of this blindness. Obama and most of the Democrats are bought and paid for like all Republicans. Quit wondering why and face the facts people.

[tavalon]

102. At the very least, flexible morality. Too flexible for the times.

[flyarm]

103. K&R ..spot on! eom

[Hosnon]

110. I think Obama is failing as an advocate on our behalf because he will be able to sleep better

knowing he tried to be bipartisan and exist above the fray.

Conciliation seems to be more important to him than advocacy.

[dgibby]

138. To be bipartisan, he would have to be working with BOTH parties.

So far, I've only seen him reach to one, and it isn't us.

[hay rick]

208. He would sleep better

if he tried to do the right thing. At some point, conciliation is simply surrender.

[Owl]

113. K&R! Excellent critique by Mr. Krugman.

[bhikkhu]

115. To Krugman, "moral collapse" is failure to follow his economic policy

I have to say I think the federal pay freeze is a good idea, even symbolically as the rest of the country struggles along, and the people in charge of economic policy were at least elected or appointed to their positions; Krugman is not. He has been a radical and often self-contradictory follower of Greenspan, one of the guys that "drove the car into the ditch", and has been milking his "contrarian economist in the spotlight" status for all its worth (which has been quite a bit$).

I wish people here would look at what and who they are following before they jump onto whatever bandwagon rolls by.

[dgibby]

139. So, following your logic,

you'd have no problem losing your job or going into foreclosure because the rest of the country is struggling? Astounding, just astounding!

[bhikkhu]

201. A pay freeze is different from getting fired.

If my boss had to freeze our pay because income was tight, no problem. That's actually been the situation for about a year now, and the thought of complaining has never occurred to me. Plenty of people I know are contractors out of work, and the idea of a pay freeze to them would sound great, if only they could get paid at all!

Without a pay freeze, you have pay increases. Given the difficulties faced by the tax base which would pay for those increases, I think it is better not to increase the burden, and I think most federal employees would agree.

[Bluebear]

166. 'before they jump onto whatever bandwagon rolls by' - like the Obama train. nt

[sulphurdunn]

196. Follow this and jump aboard

The wealthiest 13 hedge fund managers in America averaged about $3 billion each in income last year, a third again as much individually as the $2 billion that will be saved by freezing the salaries of all 2 million civilian federal employees. The median income for federal employees is about $50,000 a year. The individual $3 billion hedge fund income was taxed at 15%. The salaries of the 2 million federal workers are taxed at an average of 25%. Wall Street is expected to issue about $9 billion in bonuses this year, averaging about $1 million each. These bonuses are secured by federal bailout promises and will be taxed at 35% above $373,000. It is also ironic that you commit the band wagon fallacy when depreciating what others have to say after committing your own ad hominem attack against Paul Krugman. Please get real.

[bhikkhu]

203. "Real" is the median income of a working adult is about 40k

That's roughly, based on a 45k male, 35k female median wages. In my area its less, but in any case 50k is a good wage - about 20% higher than the national median. Freezing a good wage in troubled times is not going to put anyone into difficulty who is sensible with their money, and I would guess that federal employees are largely sensible with their money. Trying to fit hedge funds in there just confuses the issue.

on edit...I wouldn't think it necessary here to explain why I have issues with Krugman, but the very simplest way to put it is if you follow his career and read his work, Krugman consistently serves power. Not people.

[hay rick]

213. Median wages.

From Krugman's article: "Federal salaries are, on average, somewhat less than those of private-sector workers with equivalent qualifications."

Private sector median wages are dragged down by the huge number of low-paying service sector jobs. The Federal Government provides relatively few jobs that are comparable to working in a fast food establishment or a big box store. Using "qualifications" as a basis for comparison provides a fairer perspective on federal pay.

As for hedge fund compensation and the carried interest tax break, that would be part of what Krugman terms a "real deficit issue."

[bhikkhu]

216. Cook the numbers any way you like.

Yes, the federal employee wages are 20% higher than the median US wage-earner. They are also apparently "highly qualified", which is very good as their jobs are important. Nevertheless, this still puts them in a good position to endure a wage freeze. It would be entirely unfair to ask them to do so, except that their employers - the American public as a whole - has on average not seen a pay raise in a long time, and is in rather worse shape than they are.

I don't have a thing against federal employees and don't question their skill or begrudge them their good salaries, but given the circumstances I would say again that their employer - us - perhaps can't afford to give them raises for a little while while we try to work through our own financial difficulties.

To me, Obama has a sound grasp of finances in the way that Carter had a sound grasp of finances. In Carter's case it seriously rubbed people the wrong way too, and we wound up with another deficits-don't-matter guy who put us so far out on the wrong path we are still finding our way back.

[hay rick]

223. Our "financial difficulties"

are self-inflicted. GWB turned Clinton's surpluses into deficits via unfunded wars and tax cuts for his rich friends. I would not have much of a problem with freezing salaries of federal employees AFTER restoring higher tax rates for the rich. When I have a financial problem, I try to chase down the dollars before I go after the pennies. And if you can't go after the politically difficult, big-ticket items, you can't expect to be taken seriously or to be respected.

[bhikkhu]

227. Self inflicted, very real, and in need of much attention.

I would agree.

I too have little patience for the whole fiasco, while in DC they are seriously considering extending tax cuts for the wealthy. That we really can't afford, but the order of things is pretty well out my hands anyway.

And, to be fair, much as I disagree with his economic philosophy, Krugman at least is also opposed to extending the tax cuts.

[closeupready]

119. Amen.

n/t

[kestrel91316]

134. I dunno about the rest of you folks, but I am starting to get angry

with the failure of our elected Dems (pretty much ACROSS THE BOARD) to utilize their spines once again and stand up to the bullies. We hired you folks to enact liberal legislation and LEAD this country down a liberal path.

We did not hire ANYBODY to cave in to the RW.

[Still a Democrat]

141. Disappointing to see a knee jerk reaction like this from Krugman

This is a relatively minor modification of compensation based on the deficit issues and the momentum behind spending cuts.

[DainBramaged]

142. I agree completely

You can't be saved if you don't reach out for the hand offering you salvation.

[peace13]

147. This cracks me up!

Can you only imagine this headline 'Whatever is going on inside the White House, from the outside it looks like moral collapse' during the * administration! Where in the hell was this guy when the world needed him?

[Name removed]

148. Deleted message

Sub-thread removed by moderator. Click here to review the message board rules.

[defendandprotect]

150. Lesson here for Democratic voters: this is what Obama does with a huge mandate for change ...!!

Freezes salaries of federal workers -- !!

Let's give up on this and move on!!

2012 will come quickly --

[Amonester]

152. It's what Professional Losers do all the time...

I mean, Professional Losers of Election Rounds*, surely not Professional Losers when it comes to their own Personal Benefits...


* The most recent ones, and probably the next ones too (if they don't 'change' course ASAP).

[librechik]

163. ouch

[katandmoon]

165. K&R

[elocs]

171. Happy to give Rec #300 and I don't often do this at all. I'm about out of hope and demoralized. n/t

[BrklynLiberal]

176. I am so disappointed in what the President has been doing that I am almost numb with grief.

[truebrit71]

177. +1

"numb with grief" accurately decribes the feeling I have had all this week. I have finally had enough of the bullshit.

It's not that I didn't get the 'change' I wanted...and no I wasn't expecting a pony, it's the fact that we don't appear to have gotten any 'change' at all...

[russspeakeasy]

179. YOU are the best ! Thanks brklynliberal

[jillan]

207. Well said! Numb is an excellent adjective for how I am feeling.

[Time for change]

178. No doubt about it

We need a good primary challenge against Obama for 2012 - or failing that, a progressive 3rd Party challenge.

[sallyseven]

180. I find that the democrats we elected

in 08 were not really dems. Blue dogs are just insane BS artist. I despise all of the repuks and the blue dogs. Obama has gotten a lot done whether you agree or not. There have been many successful bills passed but this crowd is so nasty they refuse to see them. You people all run around screaming and bitching the sky is falling. How many contacted their reps and senators?
I'll bet not many. Grow the hell up. Krughman is in love with himself.

[Time for change]

209. What exactly do you disagree with that Krugman said in the above article

All I see in your response is a lot of generalities: "Obama got a lot done..." "You people run around bitching and screaming the sky is falling." "Grow the hell up". Very interesting way you have of discussing things.

[Skittles]

182. I'll say it: they are INCOMPETENT

[WillyT]

185. K & R !!!

:shrug:

:kick:

[Ramulux]

190. Nailed it

[somone]

192. There is no "failure of purpose and loss of direction"

Obama has been resolute and successful in his purpose and direction: Moving America to the right.

[bluerum]

195. Rec'd just for the subject line

[senseandsensibility]

198. Krugman is a truth teller, and I know that

it gives him no pleasure to write this. What's happening is a tragedy. No one, it seems, can get through to this administration. They're not interested in reason.

[Teacher in SC]

218. In Jan. we'll see the Rep. mafia take over just as they have been

planning all along. I won't be surprised just as Krugman won't. It really does feel like Obama's family is being held hostage and he has no other choice. That's the only excuse I'd buy. We better start looking for a Democrat with some fire in the belly. I'm about to get as sick of "intelligent" as I was of "stupid". Anyone with an inside track to Hillary? Just ask Bill if he thinks she could take on these thugs if she were president!

[cilla4progress]

206. I know. It's like that period of

he knows something we don't know...has come to and end.

Wierd, after Obama's brilliant Presidential run.


Krugman speaks truth to power.

[BREMPRO]

212. although Krugman overstates the capitulation- he has some good points

there is a lot of "political theater going on all over the place. The "freeze" although not really impacting the deficit is symbolic- and symbols are not without value. I think the more pressing issue is the tax cuts/unemployment beni's. We want our president to hold to his principle on the tax cuts for the wealthy (absolute no) and extension of unemployment benefits (absolutely yes) but he is by nature a negotiator/compromiser. He wants to show he can work with the other side to genuinely find compromise that satisfies everyone and helps the American people. I believe he actually does in care about us,believes that this is the best approach, but the bubble of the office has his desire for compromise undermines a principled hard line stand that is needed at this point. Problem is, as you all know, the other side doesn't give a shit about bipartisanship and is only playing a game for power, money and political points. The pukes play hardball. This doesn't suit his style. I've been a supporter of the president, but I think this is turning point and he needs to step up. If he can't use the power of the office and the bully pulpit to lobby for an issue that the American people overwhelming support, what good is the power we gave him to lead this country. We want a leader, not a negotiator. I wrote him as much last week.

The conventional wisdom in the talking heads political class is that he will temporarily extend all the cuts to get the middle class cuts and the unemployment benefits. I HOPE that he uses this opportunity to step up with the American people squarely behind him to take a stand, call their bluff, let them expire if he has to- hold to his promise.

[swilton]

214. The values that Obama believes in referred to by Krugman

are a myth - they weree a campaign strategy .and ended after the inauguration..

[Ruffhowse]

215. I no longer support Obama

This president is pathetic. I strongly supported him during the election and worked the phones to make it so, but he is no longer the man I believed in then. He is so non-confrontational it is ridiculous. I hate to use this word, but the man has turned into a wimp. So sad, he had such potential. I'm moving on and concentrating on supporting someone who will take him on in the primaries for 2012. Someone who is an actual fighter for the people.

[BrklynLiberal]

217. You are not alone...

[Bette Noir]

219. I emailed Mr. President yesterday, and told him that, from here on in,

I consider him a Republican.

[bertman]

226. Nicely said, Mr. Krugman. You nailed it again. Rec. nt

[yurbud]

233. kick

[Stuart G]

236. kick