Democratic Underground Latest Greatest Lobby Journals Search Options Help Login
Google

Obama Is Suffering Because of His Achievements, Not Despite Them

Printer-friendly format Printer-friendly format
Printer-friendly format Email this thread to a friend
Printer-friendly format Bookmark this thread
This topic is archived.
Home » Discuss » General Discussion: Presidency Donate to DU
 
babylonsister Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Thu Dec-23-10 10:31 AM
Original message
Obama Is Suffering Because of His Achievements, Not Despite Them
Edited on Thu Dec-23-10 10:33 AM by babylonsister
Obama Is Suffering Because of His Achievements, Not Despite Them
by Todd S. Purdum
December 20, 2010, 4:45 PM


President Obama in the Oval Office, December 18, 2010. Official White House photo by Pete Souza.


With this weekend’s decisive Senate repeal of the military’s “Don’t Ask, Don’t Tell” policy for gay service members, can anyone seriously doubt Barack Obama’s patient willingness to play the long game? Or his remarkable success in doing so? In less than two years in office—often against the odds and the smart money’s predictions at any given moment—Obama has managed to achieve a landmark overhaul of the nation’s health insurance system; the most sweeping change in the financial regulatory system since the Great Depression; the stabilization of the domestic auto industry; and the repeal of a once well-intended policy that even the military itself had come to see as unnecessary and unfair.

So why isn’t his political standing higher?

Precisely because of the raft of legislative victories he’s achieved. Obama has pushed through large and complicated new government initiatives at a time of record-low public trust in government (and in institutions of any sort, for that matter), and he has suffered not because he hasn’t “done” anything but because he’s done so much—way, way too much in the eyes of his most conservative critics. With each victory, Obama’s opponents grow more frustrated, filling the airwaves and what passes for political discourse with fulminations about some supposed sin or another. Is it any wonder the guy is bleeding a bit? For his part, Obama resists the pugilistic impulse. To him, the merit of all these programs has been self-evident, and he has been the first to acknowledge that he has not always done all he could to explain them, sensibly and simply, to the American public.

But Obama is nowhere near so politically maladroit as his frustrated liberal supporters—or implacable right-wing opponents—like to claim.
He proved as much, if nothing else, with his embrace of the one policy choice he surely loathed: his agreement to extend the Bush-era income tax cuts for wealthy people who don’t need and don’t deserve them. That broke one of the president’s signature campaign promises and enraged the Democratic base and many members of his own party in Congress. But it was a cool-eyed reflection of political reality: The midterm election results guaranteed that negotiations would only get tougher next month, and a delay in resolving the issue would have forced tax increases for virtually everyone on January 1—creating nothing but uncertainty for taxpayers and accountants alike. Obama saw no point in trying to score political debating points in an argument he knew he had no chance of winning.

Moreover, as The Washington Post’s conservative columnist Charles Krauthammer bitterly noted, Obama’s agreement to the tax deal amounted to a second economic stimulus measure—one that he could never otherwise have persuaded Congressional Republicans to support. Krauthammer denounced it as the “swindle of the year,” and suggested that only Democrats could possibly be self-defeating enough to reject it. In the end, of course, they did not.

more...

http://www.vanityfair.com/online/daily/2010/12/obama-is-suffering-because-of-his-achievements-not-despite-them.html
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
CaliforniaPeggy Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Thu Dec-23-10 10:37 AM
Response to Original message
1. That's an interesting, clear-eyed take on things...
I hadn't seen it before.

It's good to have someone outside DU critique what's going on with Obama and the opposition.

Recommended.

Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
vaberella Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Thu Dec-23-10 10:37 AM
Response to Original message
2. As my mum said, when he became President. This man will be the David Dinkins of America.
Because he's a Black man. David Dinkins, as the first and so far last Black Mayor of New York, did a lot of good for New York, but was listed as a failure of a Mayor in New York.

Unfortunately, for Obama, he's getting it not from one side but both ends of the spectrum. I like this article but it doesn't really touch on the full scope of obstacles he's faced, is facing and will continue to face during his time in office.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
pocoloco Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Thu Dec-23-10 10:43 AM
Response to Reply #2
4. Well then, I guess the good news is he won't have to
face these "obstacles" after 2012.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
vaberella Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Thu Dec-23-10 12:01 PM
Response to Reply #4
20. Nope...since people hate him so much. Not that it means much, I love you Mr. President. n/t
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
dkf Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Thu Dec-23-10 10:42 AM
Response to Original message
3. Nice piece
I was thinking yesterday that Obama is really kicking butt lately.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
Still a Democrat Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Thu Dec-23-10 10:43 AM
Response to Original message
5. Liberals love Obama by a large majority
He's not unpopular with them.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
vaberella Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Thu Dec-23-10 12:02 PM
Response to Reply #5
21. DU says otherwise and so does much of the media. n/t
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
Laelth Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Thu Dec-23-10 10:48 AM
Response to Original message
6. That's laughable.
Obama could have eliminated DADT with the stroke of a pen. He's Commander-in-Chief. He could have just eliminated it.

We're supposed to celebrate his "playing the long game" on policies that he could have eliminated without any delay at all? That's just silly.

-Laelth
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
SpartanDem Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Thu Dec-23-10 10:51 AM
Response to Reply #6
7. DADT was a law so not it could not
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
AtomicKitten Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Thu Dec-23-10 11:00 AM
Response to Reply #7
10. Not clear why some people have a tough time understanding that. nt
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
Laelth Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Thu Dec-23-10 11:14 AM
Response to Reply #7
14. It is a law, and it has been challenged in the Courts because it is unconstitutional.
Congress is not authorized by the Constitution to set military policy. They can only determine military funding. The C-in-C sets military policy, and that's Obama.

He could have changed this immediately, if he wanted to really fight for it.

I give him no "long game" credit on this one.

-Laelth
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
ProSense Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Thu Dec-23-10 11:22 AM
Response to Reply #14
15. What?
"Congress is not authorized by the Constitution to set military policy. They can only determine military funding.

He could have changed this immediately, if he wanted to really fight for it."

So you're suggesting Clinton could have simply ignored DADT?

Congress is the legislative branch. They write the laws. When these laws are challenged, the courts determine their constitutionality.

Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
ElboRuum Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Fri Dec-24-10 01:11 AM
Response to Reply #15
28. This argument shows up on DU from time to time...
I guess Bush trained everyone to start thinking of the President as some sort of elected king with powers far greater than the Constitution allows. Obama seems to be of the impression that this is a bad thing and prefers to do things according to what powers the Constitution actually states belong to the Executive, leaving what is for the Congress and SCOTUS for what is for Congress and SCOTUS. I am with him on this one.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
SpartanDem Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Thu Dec-23-10 11:30 AM
Response to Reply #14
17. Congress can't set military policy?
Edited on Thu Dec-23-10 11:36 AM by SpartanDem
What the hell are you smoking? Ever hear of Title 10? The Uniform Code of Military Justice part the the US Code. Article I, Section 8 of the Constituion The Congress shall have the power to...To make rules for the government and regulation of the land and naval forces. So you wanna try that answer again?



TITLE 10—ARMED FORCES
http://www.law.cornell.edu/uscode/uscode10/usc_sup_01_10.html
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
vaberella Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Thu Dec-23-10 12:06 PM
Response to Reply #17
23. The poster you're responding to is obviously a...
civics scholar and constitutional lawyer.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
Number23 Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Fri Dec-24-10 12:07 AM
Response to Reply #14
27. There is not one thing in your post that is correct.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
Fruittree Donating Member (488 posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Fri Dec-24-10 06:42 AM
Response to Reply #14
30. And the challenges would have gone back and forth
giving no security to the enlisted people trying to decide what to do. Now, with the legislative victory there's conclusion to the whole issue. It's amazing how some people are so determined to see only negative in Pres.Obama. What exactly do you want??
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
AtomicKitten Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Thu Dec-23-10 11:02 AM
Response to Reply #6
11. Ah, another civics scholar.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
ProSense Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Thu Dec-23-10 11:04 AM
Response to Reply #6
12. First, the stroke of a pen is not repealing a law, it's a band-aid.
Edited on Thu Dec-23-10 11:05 AM by ProSense
Second, this action doesn't simply repeal DADT and return to the way things were. This is about getting rid of the ban on gays in the military for good, a significant civil rights moment.

Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
phleshdef Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Thu Dec-23-10 11:27 AM
Response to Reply #6
16. That lie has been thoroughly debunked by Rachel Maddow and others.
No, he could not have achieved any stable repeal by executive order. And allowing the courts to wrangle with it would have presented even more instability.

He did it HIS way, which was the right way, the way that makes the repeal as close to permanent as one can get short of a constitutional amendment of some sort.

And he was successful doing it his way and not your way.

And history will give him credit as the President that fought for 2 years to end DADT and it will report that he was triumphant.

Thats what will be in the history books and theres nothing you can do to change that.

I know that pains you, but you will get over it.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
Historic NY Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Thu Dec-23-10 11:30 AM
Response to Reply #16
18. +100
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
MadMaddie Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Thu Dec-23-10 11:45 AM
Response to Reply #6
19. Sigh....
So instead of doing it the correct way, your sollution is the stroke of the pen. Well the stroke of the pen would have been temporary at best. Meaning when the next Republican president came in with a stroke of the pen those rights could be taken away.

Just because you can achieve success in the short term doesn't mean that it's the best thing.

The House and the Senate are the ones that passed DADT in the first place during Clintons years and it had to be the House and the Senate to repeal the law.

Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
vaberella Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Thu Dec-23-10 12:04 PM
Response to Reply #6
22. That is 100% false. A law is not ELIMINATED by a "stroke of a pen." n/t
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
meow mix Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Thu Dec-23-10 10:53 AM
Response to Original message
8. ostriches are flocking to the river nile
and thier promotion of the idea that "everything is fine" is the greatest threat to the party, currently
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
treestar Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Thu Dec-23-10 10:59 AM
Response to Original message
9. Rec'd.
Though I wonder what they mean by his "political standing." Is there a score card for that?
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
lillypaddle Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Thu Dec-23-10 11:07 AM
Response to Original message
13. Kick, rec
I love my President.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
Politicub Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Thu Dec-23-10 12:39 PM
Response to Original message
24. His strategy for approaching the repeal of DADT was stunning in its success
And I'm sorry I doubted him on that. The way he handled building the case and making the decision bulletproof was amazing.

I think things like HCR and many other pieces of legislation are going to bear out a positive legacy that will reverberate and improve for decades.

And to top it off, he said he's rethinking his position on gay marriage. While I wish he would have come out swinging for full marriage rights instead of civil unions, I appreciate when people have a change of heart. His spot at the top of the perch may have given him more of an appreciation of what GLBT Americans go through.

I believe his heart was in the right place with civil unions. But the realization that our gay families are now mainstream, but hidden, is important.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
FiveGoodMen Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Thu Dec-23-10 06:53 PM
Response to Reply #24
25. Stunning.
He made sure to do it in a way that would allow him to give huge tax breaks to the rich in return.

100-dimensional chess at least!
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
Number23 Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Fri Dec-24-10 12:02 AM
Response to Original message
26. This paragraph sums it all up
"But Obama is nowhere near so politically maladroit as his frustrated liberal supporters—or implacable right-wing opponents—like to claim. He proved as much, if nothing else, with his embrace of the one policy choice he surely loathed: his agreement to extend the Bush-era income tax cuts for wealthy people who don’t need and don’t deserve them. That broke one of the president’s signature campaign promises and enraged the Democratic base and many members of his own party in Congress. But it was a cool-eyed reflection of political reality: The midterm election results guaranteed that negotiations would only get tougher next month, and a delay in resolving the issue would have forced tax increases for virtually everyone on January 1—creating nothing but uncertainty for taxpayers and accountants alike. Obama saw no point in trying to score political debating points in an argument he knew he had no chance of winning."

Happy to rec
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
Exilednight Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Fri Dec-24-10 08:06 AM
Response to Reply #26
32. Except for the very last sentence.
"Obama saw no point in trying to score political debating points in an argument he knew he had no chance of winning."

He could of won, but that would of required him to put a real fight.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
Number23 Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Fri Dec-24-10 03:08 PM
Response to Reply #32
33. I'll take the author's word over yours, thanks
And that applies to just about everything.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
Exilednight Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Fri Dec-24-10 05:07 PM
Response to Reply #33
34. LOL, alright. But I will take Bill Clinton's word over yours ........
Clinton said (in reference to Purdum): "He's a really dishonest reporter...and I haven't read (the article). There's just five or six blatant lies in there. But he's a real slimy guy." When Fowler reminded Clinton that Purdum is married to his former press secretary, he responded: "That's all right - he's still a scumbag" and later added "He's just a dishonest guy - can't help it."
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
eridani Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Fri Dec-24-10 04:43 AM
Response to Original message
29. Attacking Social Security is not an accomplishment
Nor is raising taxes on 51 million of our lowest income earners.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
Clio the Leo Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Fri Dec-24-10 07:59 AM
Response to Original message
31. It's that old Biblical axiom...
Edited on Fri Dec-24-10 07:59 AM by Clio the Leo
"For unto whomsoever much is given, of him shall be much required: and to whom men have committed much, of him they will ask the more." (Luke 12:48)

What we GAVE him were unusually high expectations. We thought we were sending Superman to the White House...

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=kVFdAJRVm94

... but we sent a human, with frailties. And perhaps his GREATEST handicap ... is the United States Congress.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
Exilednight Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Fri Dec-24-10 05:25 PM
Response to Reply #31
35. His GREATEST handicap is the ability to overpromise. n/t
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
Liberal_Stalwart71 Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Sat Dec-25-10 02:54 PM
Response to Original message
36. And yet, the Republicans are always rewarded when they and/or obstruct!
Stupid Democrats fall into that trap. Rather than blame Republicans, we turn on one another. The good news is that Democrats typically care about and are expected to govern. Republicans are never held accountable for their recalcitrance. Never expected to play by the rules, be bipartisan, or gets things done right. It's a sad reality.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
DU AdBot (1000+ posts) Click to send private message to this author Click to view 
this author's profile Click to add 
this author to your buddy list Click to add 
this author to your Ignore list Wed Apr 24th 2024, 07:00 PM
Response to Original message
Advertisements [?]
 Top

Home » Discuss » General Discussion: Presidency Donate to DU

Powered by DCForum+ Version 1.1 Copyright 1997-2002 DCScripts.com
Software has been extensively modified by the DU administrators


Important Notices: By participating on this discussion board, visitors agree to abide by the rules outlined on our Rules page. Messages posted on the Democratic Underground Discussion Forums are the opinions of the individuals who post them, and do not necessarily represent the opinions of Democratic Underground, LLC.

Home  |  Discussion Forums  |  Journals |  Store  |  Donate

About DU  |  Contact Us  |  Privacy Policy

Got a message for Democratic Underground? Click here to send us a message.

© 2001 - 2011 Democratic Underground, LLC