The right is exploding in indignation. As for the left, Tina Brown’s cover title, Why are Obama’s critics so dumb?, gets it right, even if Andrew Sullivan’s nervous writing on the subject gets it wrong. Anyone believing Pres. Obama would have a presidency any different than has manifested is dumb. However, it’s certainly not because Obama’s long game will outsmart his critics, as Sullivan posits.
It’s because there was nothing in Obama’s past that pointed to decisive progressive or F.D.R. leadership, which has resulted in many of his current critics on the left being disappointed and disillusioned. The media in ’08 never bothered to tell that story, with the very few who did, of which I was an early writer, being vilified for our efforts.
I have chronicled why since 2007, having interviewed and talked to some of the Chi-town crowd who saw Obama rise (in 2007) while following candidate Obama on the trail in early 2008. I outlined it further in my piece, “Not Disappointed in Pres. Obama.”
The Obama supporter in the video shown here is “not disappointed by Pres. Obama.”
I’m not either.
The difference is that I’m not as exhausted as this particular Obama supporter seems to be, because I don’t feel the need to defend him or attempt a pitch on his presidency that comes with no enthusiasm and gives lesser of two evils as the foundation. Watching the video is actually depressing instead of convincing.
I’m also not disappointed to say most of the things Pres. Obama has accomplished most any Democratic president would have also done, which may be part of the reason most die hard Obama fans always end up their arguments talking about the appalling choices on the right.
It’s what has led me to the view from a recovering partisan outlined in “The Party’s Over.”
The exhausted Obama supporter in Newsweek‘s case is the conservative who recently endorsed Ron Paul, Andrew Sullivan, whose rhetorical flailing can’t do anything but remind everyone of his convoluted and corrupt theories of intelligence and race, which is mixed in with his bankrupt C.S.I. ramblings on Sarah Palin paternity, which I chronicle in my book. But who can forget Sullivan’s main case for Pres. Obama in ’08, his face. Fan politics has never been so fully defined.
That Andrew Sullivan is for reforming entitlements, and fiscally conservative, is unlikely to be remembered in his case for Pres. Obama. There are few heartfelt endorsements coming from anywhere, with “Republicans are Worse” the main Obama reelect theme. Torture runs deep on pluses with Sullivan, as it should, and DADT is important, a policy who’s time had come, with activists the prime movers on this one. Sullivan’s certainly not concerned about the erosion of women’s individual freedoms, which exploded when Pres. Obama refused to make the economic case in 2010, handing legislatures across the country over to the right that led to an assault on unions, the middle class and a war on women’s rights. He seems unmoved by the Bush-Cheney neoconservatism in Pres. Obama’s foreign policy, including indefinite detention cloaked in the window dressing of an executive order that is more marketing than substance, because the un-American option remains a choice.
However, the real issue with Sullivan’s case on Barack Obama’s 8-year, long-haul case is that it is inarguably the worst Republican field in modern history. No one doubts Pres. Obama is beatable, but in order to do so you at least have to nominate someone for whom voting is a worthy exercise and viable option that doesn’t make you gag. That someone so unloved, barely respected, even vilified by conservatives, will be the Republican nominee proves that the challenger Pres. Obama will likely face is someone for whom conservatives can barely vote.
Mitt Romney is a one-percenter in an Occupy era who can’t even close with Republicans.
Sure he’s the best candidate among the field, but what does that even mean this year? Better than Rick Perry, who can’t remember three bullet points of his own philosophy? Better than big government conservative Rick Santorum who doesn’t believe in birth control, thinks gays are worse for children than an orphanage, neither stance embraceable by independents, and is a “pro-life” politician who has a blood lust for war? Jon Hunstman, the smartest man in the field— Oh, right. A better choice than the hypocritical Newt Gingrich, an ethics challenged, multi-married opportunistic, tantrum prone priss who would rather take his party down by challenging their core foundation with gas bag rhetoric based on lies to get it done?
Then there is Ron Paul, whom Sullivan endorsed recently. Paul is more anti-war than the once anti-Iraq war market-pitching, regime change, indefinite detention backing “Democratic” president. Paul also wants to take on the drug war, something that hits minorities more than any other policy, and honor civil liberties, which Sullivan conveniently ignores for the very reasons I just stated in the previous paragraph. He simply can’t vote for the Republican rabble. Paul also doesn’t have a path to win, so Obama’s the next best stop for Sullivan, an obvious lesser than other evils voter.
He’s not alone.
So, if Pres. Obama succeeds in beating Mitt Romney, assuming he prevails, is it really due to the President’s long term strategy? No, it’s not. It’s due to voters feeling they have no other choice, because it’s been obvious for some time the American electorate wants one, including Andrew Sullivan.
Amazing….we have come to a time in our nation’s history when BOTH political parties candidates are going to be someone BOTH parties voters are going to have to hold their noses to vote for…America…wadda country!!
Bingo, big guy, and it’s what’s going to eventually bring them both down, though how long that will take is another story.
Unless voters like yourself, Andrew Sullivan and many others refuse the “lesser of two evils” model it will take even longer, though no one understands how you feel more than me.
Republicans seem to be leading on who is more likely to transform first, if only out of necessity, though I’d bet they’ll go back to get to the future (see Jeb or Reagan Democrat slayer Chris Christie).
As a liberal I still believe we need outside avenues to challenge the doddering big two, neither of which will be capable of enlightened movement. We have to get beyond the convention nomination process and buying of the presidency.
The only sort of surprise in all of this is how bad the Republican field is.
Obama being Obama is no surprise at all. He is consistent. I still feel a bit sorry for the young people who jumped into their first political experience with such enthusiasm.
Perhaps a system designed for 13 states; a system designed when there were no cars, no phones, no military industrial complex; a system designed when black people were slaves, only the rich and white and male could vote, a system designed, at first, with no Bill of Rights; a system designed for a million people that now has 300 million people of varied religious and ethnic heritage which have needs and desires all their own; a system that has now been overwhelmed by super fast communication and high tech overload , just doesn’t work anymore.
First, you know I agree with you.
Second, for some, it’s the fact that it was the all but sainted Founding Fathers who put the basics of this system together that makes it all but sacrilegious to question it. And somehow that includes the two major parties as they exist today.
So basically what Andrew Sullivan is saying, is: “It’s not me, it you” .
The second I got wind of Mr. Sullivan’s Newsweek article my first thought was, Taylor and her Marshans are going to go ape shit! Being the insomniac that I am, I was online when the article hit the Daily Beast website. I was so pleasantly surprised at how fair the article was to the President I read it twice and I saved it. Not only was Mr. Sullivan’s assessment of the President’s record fair but his critique of the President’s detractors both on the left and on the right was spot on! Obama2012
Oh, the irony.
It’s always edifying when Obama fans applaud pro Obama writing, even when it comes from a conservative Ronald Reagan Republican.
Pro Obama writing? Now that is funny!
TM NOTE: The section below has been crossed-over because unfounded charges of bigotry and/or racism are not allowed.
Try as you may, you simply will never be able to take away President Obama’s accomplishments. You can also try to belittle his supporters by constantly referring to us as his “fans” but again you will fail. The more you trash him the smaller you look. I actually think that I will take more satisfaction out of watching him being re-elected later this year than I did out of watching him being elected in 2008.
Seeing President Obama in all his quiet dignity face-down all the bigots both on the left and the right is a thing to behold.So you believe the simple fact that Andrew Sullivan in a conservative automatically makes him wrong?
Doesn’t really matter. The fact that he is equally reckless, with his opinions and his personal ads, makes him irrelevant.
Sure he is!
Solo 17 January 2012 at 2:19 am
So you believe the simple fact that Andrew Sullivan in a conservative automatically makes him wrong?
Obama fans deserve the label, because you don’t offer criticism when it’s due. Supporters are people utilizing a politician for policy implementation’s sake and deserve respect. Fan politics fluffers do not.
This comment above proves that Obama fans are uninterested in the conservatism of Barack Obama, which is destroying the Democratic brand along with the policy prescriptions that would make a difference. His fans revel simply in the flattery, no matter the source.
That I have to explain that the Democratic Party president shouldn’t be beloved by a Ron Paul endorsing conservative Reagan Republican simply bolsters everything I’ve written the past 5 years.
As for Pres. Obama’s accomplishments, they are the minimal that must be expected from a Democratic leader. However, considering the energy he came into office wielding, backed up by a majority in Congress, he never utilized his full power. This was proven when with historic revulsion of his first 2 years, made possible by no Democratic economic case made, aided by two initial years of mediocrity, so that historic gains by the right yielded an assault on the middle class, unions and a war on women.
Your argument would hold more water if your profile picture wasn’t an image of Hillary Clinton!
So basically what Andrew Sullivan is saying, is: “It’s not me, it you”
And more significantly he has been saying essentially that for the last solid 3 years running. In January, 2009 he wrote a long post delineating the reasons why he personally refused to be identified as either a Republican or a conservative. So, it never ceases to amaze me why bloggers who theoretically trade on the implication of their political analysis skills continue to utilize his writings as somehow representative of Republican attitude. If you are familiar with his ideological reasons, you would realize he has indeed been a Paulist all along while fooling the liberal blogosphere into thinking he largely reflects the bulk of Republican voter sentiments.
While math is boring and only Nate Silver can generate blog hits with it, the upcoming election is simply this……Bush beat Kerry 51 to 49 and Obama beat McCain 53 to 46. So, all Romney has to do is reclaim 5% of voters to beat Obama.
Adjusting for first time D voters, I’ll wager that those who actually represent that 5% R to D swing have never read Andrew Sullivan nor post on any political blog you have ever come across. What they’re thinking at the moment is unknown, but I’m certain it is anything but trying to decide how they’re going to vote 10 months from now.
Everyone knows this will be a margin election. That 5% is why Obama reelect is not taking one single voter for granted (even if his fan base is).
Reading through the post and the responses, I’m still trying looking for all the Marshans who are going ape shit….
heh-heh… Point to ladywalker68.