Obama bans ... "Triangulation."

[Clio the Leo]

Posted at 8:39 AM ET, 12/24/2010

* It's good to see that Obama is so uninterested in the "triangulation" game that he's banned the word in the White House:

Despite all his time studying the Clinton administration, Mr. Obama told his aides that he had no intention of following the precise path of Mr. Clinton, who after the Democratic midterm election defeats of 1994 ordered a clearing of the decks inside the White House, installed competing teams of advisers and employed a centrist policy of triangulation. In fact, several advisers confirmed, the word "triangulation" has been banned by Mr. Obama because he does not believe it accurately describes his approach.

Triangulation just isn't Obama's style, and his scolding of liberals seems to be rooted in genuine frustration with them for disagreeing with him about what's politically possible, given today's realities. To whatever degree Obama is using his disagreement with the left for positioning purposes, it's more about temperament than ideology: He's casting himself as the voice of sanity trying to talk sense into uncompromising partisans on both sides. This just isn't Clintonian triangulation in any sense.

* Also in the above link, two very important points: The President, preparing to deal with a strengthened GOP, is studying how to maximize the powers of the executive branch. Keep an eye on that one.

http://voices.washingtonpost.com/plum-line/2010/12/christmas_eve_roundup.html

[Still a Democrat]

1. "disagreeing with him about what's politically possible"

That's the issue with the small portion of liberals that criticize him.

[mrdmk]

2. Excuse me, I cannot disagree with the President? N/T

:grr:

[Still a Democrat]

3. Sure, but what are you disagreeing about?

I think it's comes down to what's politically possible, he has to compromise to get anything done, and a small portion of liberals don't understand that. Then they consider him some kind of secret conservative or traitor.

[Xipe Totec]

4. In other words, power trumps principle. n/t

[Clio the Leo]

10. No, hungry bellies do. nt

[ZombieHorde]

49. Since the Bronze age. nt

[mrdmk]

6. You were asked a direct question about disagreeing with the President

and somehow you came to the conclusion that "...a small portion of liberals don't understand..." in your answer.

Give you life hint, 1) do not answer a question with a question, and 2) do not make a blanket statement about a "small" group of people because is reckless and distasteful!

I do, as an American Citizen reserve the right to disagree with my President and my government anytime I deem necessary!

[Still a Democrat]

15. Which I answered "sure" and asked one of my own

Of course you can disagree.

Because of political realities, Obama has compromised and, on the whole, done good things. You can argue he's a poor negotiator or even that he should have stuck to principles at the cost of doing some good. But the small portion of liberals that question his core beliefs as a result of those compromises don't seem to understand why it was done.

[mrdmk]

24. According to you, a small group of people must watch and accept

But here is the rub, Obama challenged supporters to 'hold his feet to the fire', for him to change public policy to their liking. Now people are informing him of their needs and in response, they are being told they are being unreasonable.

After being told one thing, then doing another is not going to go well in the long-run. Everything being accomplished up to this point is nothing but, short term political points. People understand more than what you give them credit for.

People voted for a President, a leader, not some sort of referee to throw a political football down the road. The real political reality is most common people in country do not see a positive future. To further the point, a close examination of Obama's public life was geared to maintaining the status quo. Now given the ultimate political office, Obama is turning further to the right in the name of compromise. Good-luck with that!!!

[Still a Democrat]

39. Obama did what most people want, including liberals

That's the point you keep missing. Most people, and most liberals, approve of the tax compromise. The notion he turned on his supporters or the people as a whole is unfounded.

[mrdmk]

40. Sadly, no he did not, your only fooling yourself with that opinion

[Still a Democrat]

45. Oh really?

Most Democrats in Congress as well as rank and file support him. You're in the minority of the party.

[niceypoo]

7. We will never know what was politically possible

Because Obama keeps punting on first down.

If you think only a 'small group of liberals' disagree with Obama becoming a supply sider you are fooling yourself.

[Still a Democrat]

16. What, exactly, should have been done to extract a better deal?

And if getting a better deal still meant some compromise, would you be all in?

[niceypoo]

18. I would not make deals with them

I would call their bluff and make them own everything. I would have embarrassed them into extending unemployment benefits. I would not have extended ANY of the Bush tax cuts, I would have ended them retroactively in 2009, as Clinton did with Reaganomics in 1993. Had Obama done that, the budget would be balanced by 2012 according to the CBO. A balanced budget just over the horizon would be the best stimulus we could ever get. With Obama's extension they are now projecting balance by 2020, which means NEVER.

Start was passed by embarrassing the GOP publicly. The 911 responders bill was passed by embarrassing the GOP publicly. DADT was passed by the threat of a few days extra work for GOP congressmen. All you have to do is call their bluff. Their whole resistance was never anything more than phony bluster.

[Exilednight]

29. Yep, it just proves that Republicans are weak and easy to politically

intimidate. Sadly, Obama is even easier to politically intimidate.

[Still a Democrat]

38. Then I guess folks would have gone without extensions

and the middle and lower class would carry a heavier tax burden. Not to mention a fragile economy being deflated.

Could you link me to the CBO saying the repeal of the tax cuts now would balance the budget by 2012? Thanks.

[Skink]

32. Nicey nice.

I hadn't even thought about the fact that Obama is rapidly shedding his skin all the way down to his inner supply side.

[roguevalley]

13. fuck that. I remember when Dems got what they wanted because

they didn't mind cracking heads together. Go back and study the history of our party. Bullshit on compromise. He may ban the word but he does the practice. And that is why Moody is going to turn our rating into junk because Obama doesn't like to fight and rich people are going to bleed us dry. God almighty! I've seen dem presidents do more with less than he has, What *they* had was guts and they didn't give a shit what the other side or even THEIR side thought about them personally.

[Still a Democrat]

17. Good way to get nothing done

Fighting and cracking heads wouldn't wilt the opposition to capitulate to everything. It's a convenient thing to believe, but in real life there are hard choices.

[niceypoo]

19. Wilt the opposition?

They folded at the mere thought of having to work a few extra days. Everything about the GOP's resistance is fake meaningless bluster.

[Still a Democrat]

37. That was a dog whistle for the base

"The liberals hate Christmas and want to work through it."

If you really believe they would have rolled on everything at the threat of that you're pretty naive or believing what is convenient.

[niceypoo]

42. Their 'resistance' is pure bluster

The moment it becomes inconvenient to them, or becomes a political threat, they fold. That has always been the pattern with them and it always will be.

[Still a Democrat]

46. Being threatened politically will get the attention of either party

and the notion that inconvenience would cause them to fold is silly. So your post really didn't say a lot.

[roguevalley]

23. ah, you aren't very old. The new dems now are cowards. They

are as bought and sold as any pug. In the days when dems were dems, they kicked butts and made things happen. its history in more ways than one. I don't see dems being dems anymore. The Alan Graysons of this world are so fucking 'inconvenient'. Mustn't muss your manicure and save someone from despair. That might make the fakes across the aisle cry.

[Still a Democrat]

36. I voted for George McGovern for President

Does that make me old? Anyway, I wouldn't generalize based on age.

[Clio the Leo]

9. Of course you can...

.... whether the arguments of late have any merit (generally speaking) is the question. "Strain at a Gnat and Swallow a Camel" always comes to mind.

[mrdmk]

27. It could also be said, 'Saying one thing and doing another will get you labeled!'

Along those lines, being told, 'life is not always a beach' is an insult to my and any thinking persons intelligence...

[niceypoo]

5. The republicans in congress folded at the slightest resistance

They folded at the mere thought of extra work. Their whole resistance is pure bluster.

[Clio the Leo]

11. They folded because we gave up the omnibus. nt

[Armstead]

8. Um, "sanity" is in the eye of the beholder

"He's casting himself as the voice of sanity trying to talk sense into uncompromising partisans on both sides."

I guess believing that much more could have been done to truly reform healthcare for the betterment of everyone makes me insane. :crazy:

[displacedvermoter]

12. And filled with "Poutrage" don't you know!!!

"straining at gnats" what BS!

[Hello_Kitty]

41. Why, we're practically teabaggers for espousing such wild ideas! eom

[Laelth]

14. He banned the word?

I am not sure how to respond to that.

Here are my thoughts on Obama's political strategy: http://laelth.blogspot.com

-Laelth

[Clio the Leo]

20. I'm not sure I buy the story....

... he doesn't strike me as a member of the word police. But I thought the article was interesting.

[Laelth]

22. I am not sure I buy it either. n/t

-Laelth

[Laelth]

35. On second thought, I now think the story is likely true.

Sargent's source for this blog entry was an article in the New York Times: http://www.nytimes.com/2010/12/24/us/politics/24obama.html?_r=2&ref=politics.

-Laelth

[Go2Peace]

21. I think it is clear that Obama can fight hard *when he wants to*

We saw that recently and especially with the tax legislation.

Why he didn't come out and fight for the public option like that is beyond me. Because he would have won if he took the case forcefully to the public.

He seems to be learning though, and while he has been critisizing the "left" side of his base, he has also been affected by that fight and is making some changes such as involving labor and other progressive groups more access.

His stubborness has made him less effective than he could have been in his first term. Why didn't he "study how to maximize the powers of the executive branch" then? When he had majorities in both houses was the best time to push hard. The "arguments" about not having enough support were bullshit. Notice how he is turning it on *now* when he has less support (in congress), and we are finding that he can get things done despite it when he and the party use public pressure as a weapon.

[Clio the Leo]

31. Tell me how many times he spoke at campaign rallies this fall ....

.... and did NOT mention how important it was to end Bush's tax cuts for the wealthy? HOW often he did that? (remember, I saw all of them, I know the answer)

I'm sorry, I know the response, "he should have done it in prime time."

..... because that BP Oval Office address was SOOOO successful. Or that prime time press conference where he spent the entire time talking about the health care bill only to see the headlines the next day talk about the events that would lead to the "beer summit."

You know what message he ALSO never gave ... he never gave a prime time, all network speech about repealing DADT ... or the START Treaty. Crazy.

[phleshdef]

33. Yea. The fact is, all the prime time speeches in the world aren't going to change the minds...

...of those Senators that decided they are going to be enemies of the agenda. He could bully pulpit himself into oblivion and its still not breaking any filibusters.

[jenmito]

25. K&R. So many here would LOVE him to be a "triangulator." He's NOT. n/t

[Exilednight]

28. Sure he is. He just doesn't like being called one. n/t

[That Guy 888]

26. The ellipse is deceptive. He banned THE WORD

"...In fact, several advisers confirmed, the word "triangulation" has been banned by Mr. Obama because he does not believe it accurately describes his approach.

Just because he "casts himself" as the voice of "sanity" doesn't make it true.

Whatever my doubts about the President, I do sincerely hope I am wrong and the OP and the President's other enthusiastic supporters are right.

[Laelth]

30. You may be interested in my thoughts on this subject.

Expressed here: http://laelth.blogspot.com

-Laelth

[Hippo_Tron]

34. I think he's going to come out strong against cutting Social Security

And I think he's baiting the Republicans into leading the charge.

Yes I know somebody is inevitably going to respond to me with a crack about three dimensional chess.

[AtomicKitten]

43. I can see that.

I also think he'll glom onto the recommendation by the Debt Commission regarding the Public Option as a deficit-reducer.

[quakerboy]

44. I hope you are right

But that does not seem to fit the pattern so far.

[craigmatic]

47. He's banning the word not the action.

[ProgressOnTheMove]

48. That is very reassuring, looks like things are about to get very intersting.