“Obama is the conservative reformist of my dreams. #ToryPOTUS” – Andrew Sullivan (via Twitter)
IF YOU have any remaining doubts about how far right the Democratic Party has been led under President Obama perhaps now you’re finally getting the picture.
Obama’s been aided by the wingnut right in falsely caricaturing him as a radical socialist, which is not only ironic, but a fitting punishment for the haters who’ll likely be stuck with Obama for another four years.
But if Obama is the Democratic Ronald Reagan, which Andrew Sullivan stipulates, by political standards it simply means he represents the moderate Republican in American politics today.
It’s important to remember that Andrew Sullivan’s praises for the President are coming from a conservative.
Progressives have been put down, with this point set to be driven home in Obama’s second term.
Over the weekend, President Bill Clinton on “Face the Nation” talked about the deal being “shopped” by Senator Dick Durbin on the fiscal cliff. This isn’t news.
The stage is set for the compromise of President Obama’s career, if he’s reelected, which today looks likely.
The progressive activist community, for which I have great respect, because I know the commitment behind how hard these people work, chose not to challenge Obama during his reelection on any policy area, even if he had earned it. It didn’t require a primary challenge, which would have ended in a trouncing, but could have effectively been a concentrated policy push for what progressive activists expected in Obama’s second term, with pressure put on Obama to either agree or not.
In rejecting that policy challenge to Obama, progressive activists now face a looming debacle on policy when President Obama and the Democratic Party come together with Republicans to reform entitlements as part of an austerity program that includes President Obama administering the lowest tax rates in his first term since Eisenhower.
The austerity steam has been building for months and it’s very doubtful if progressives can stop it now.
Deficit reduction is on the way and the conventional wisdom (CW) is that America wants to begin by reforming entitlements before doing anything on revenue, military spending, corporate welfare, Wall Street malfeasance or anything else. CW on entitlements permeates the media landscape and is now accepted, with there no way to change it now.
David Brooks proclaimed on “Meet the Press” that Republicans will agree to revenue, Democrats will agree to entitlement reform. The question is if the sacrifices will be equal, which is the least that should be demanded. But what power will progressives have in Obama’s second term to demand remains questionable. Can Senators Sherrod Brown and Bernie Sanders, joined by the progressive community, stir the masses to action? We don’t know the answer.
The stage is already set for President Obama to join hands with Republicans in a Ronald Reagan – Tip O’Neill type moment that would take the policies of F.D.R. that made the Democratic Party what it became in the 20th century into the 21st century. Obama proclaimed as the savior of F.D.R.’s legacy, but also the social safety net for all Americans, because the U.S. can no longer afford F.D.R.’s original.
It won’t be the end, but it will be diminished, offering an opening Republicans have wanted since F.D.R. created it, which can never again be closed.
We’ve seen the same carving up of unions, as well as teachers’ power through charter schools.
Welcome to the brave new world.
What’s being talked about under the radar this fall under an Obama second term is seen to be necessary, a message now woven into the American political narrative.
Behind the scene progressives are grousing and planning, much like what was heard before the health care debate and we all know how that turned out.
In second terms, presidents have a very narrow window, 18 months or so, before their lame duck status kicks in. It’s why the wheels are already churning. In Obama’s first term, Republicans wanted him to fail, with the word used to describe what they’ll do if Obama gets a second term will be to frustrate him. However, if Mitt Romney gets beat, which is the good bet, Republicans will be thrown so far back on their heels they’ll have to do something or risk further irrelevancy.
However you come down on the policy, we’re looking into history’s crystal ball with Andrew Sullivan and seeing a potential seminal moment in American politics, not only for President Obama, but for the efficacy of progressive activism itself.
But if President Obama is the Democratic Ronald Reagan that means the Democratic Party of F.D.R. and Harry S. Truman is dead. That doesn’t make Obama’s accomplishment any less, in fact, it means he’s ushered in a new Democratic era, accomplishing what his neoliberal godfather Bill Clinton only dreamed of doing.
Considering the GOP will also be dead if Mitt Romney loses, it could also mean a historic political realignment that will have wider repercussions than for just Democrats and Republicans.
Enough with Reagan, he’s more like Nixon without the psychosis.
Enough with this Reagan, Nixon republican BS, Obama is a continuation of Clinton without the down home spin that Clinton had.
I wrote, but you missed it, I guess:
That doesn’t make Obama’s accomplishment any less, in fact, it means he’s ushered in a new Democratic era, accomplishing what his neoliberal godfather Bill Clinton only dreamed of doing.
Obama is a poor excuse for a president no matter what spin you put on it.
1) 23 million Americans are unemployed or under employed.
2) A 46% increase in the number Americans on Food Stamps (SNAP) since Obama took office.
3) A drop of 4.6% in median income since Obama took office.
4) When Obama took office gas was $1.83/gal. It’s now $3.84/gal.
5) The National Debt just exceeded $16 trillion.
6.) A failed Middle East foreign policy.
And you all want four more years of this?
He is the “Celebrity in Chief”, not the “Commander in Chief”.
It’s pathetic.
I think that I’ve told you before, all of those things are ‘noise’, the only things that matter are the ‘War on Women’ and ‘Voter Suppression’, (unless, of course, its the military votes or the votes of the bitter, clinger repugnantklan/teabagger/UberChristofascist/scarypeoplewithvalues
Oh, that’s right PWT, I’m on a different planet here.
) forgot about all those really important things, like abortion and condoms, and showing my picture to vote.
Celebrity-In-Chief? Yawn. Boring. And if your serious about laying 1 – 6 all on Obama, then HA! In fact, all that isn’t Bush’s fault. Nor Clinton’s. No Bush Sr. This is a systemic progression. Let’s break it down:
1. Oh there are jobs out there. And there has been sizable job creation. They are just lower playing, service based jobs represented many times by professional contracting companies like Kforce, TekSystems, Manpower, etc using sophisticated talent management software that emphasizes “soft skills”. Or they are very skilled white collar jobs in technology, science, etc. The complete decimation of higher paying manufacturing jobs that employed non-college educated is why we are hurting so bad. A chain reaction of cheap credit, speculation, willy nilly lending practices, willy nilly borrowing practices (consumer and business), real estate wildness, etc got us here.
2. See #1. Romney nor Obama have no idea how to take the lower educated, proud Americans, that used to make $25 – $35/hour in manufacturing and get them back into that. Well, you do have corporations who don’t want those times again due to their record productivity numbers and lower cost. Can’t blame ‘em, eh?
3. See #1 and #2. I didn’t know that Obama or Bush told HP to lay off almost 75% of HP North America from 2006 – 2011. And when I was part of that massive 2007 layoff, HP was in the black! But Bush gave them those orders? Yeah right. Or can’t forget Canon Fieldcrest. Making those wonderful sheets, pillowcases, and other textiles since the early 1900s. They are now in China. Etc…
4. We were the only country that enjoyed ridiculous low gas prices for so long. Now we are aligned with the rest of the world. Production is up but now it’s fully influenced by global crude prices. No more local goodies on the gas. And then, worldwide demand is up as more and more markets are getting into the gas wants/needs. More cars being made, not in the US because the ol’ American worker demands a solid wage and benefits (deservedly so). But it’s just SOOOOO much cheaper to do this in China, Malaysia, etc. U.S. Presidents have very little to do with those prices. A President Romney would be equally hamstrung.
5. Our fair nation’s steady march through Super Debtville. Yep, US Presidents can influence this number more. And Obama has failed to curb spending. But it needs to curbed with some smarts. Either way, he ain’t handling the debt right.
6. No U.S. President can make the Terrorist Radical Jubilee in the Middle East heel to the Glory of America. They spit at what we stand for. At how we live. They laugh at our freedoms. They are corrupted their own religion into a insane warrior code lacking all honor. They hate Obama and could care less. They hate Romney and could care less. They just don’t care. Until the Middle East have some a Martin Luther King, George Washington, Abraham Lincoln, Mahatma Ghandi, Mother Teresa, etc (aka visionary leaders) rise, that place will always be a maelstrom. We think our Chuck Norris skills matter to them. It does not. Protect our borders and call it a day.
And that ain’t pathetic!
Yes, T- Steele,
I am serious.
and I think it’s disgusting the way he runs around with all the hollywood nincompoops, when ‘according to some Iranians that World War 111 is about to erupt and the economy is in the state it’s in. Oh and did you watch 60 minutes last night???? That Scott Pelli was down right hostile to Romney and it was so easy to see he doesn’t like him. And there was Steve Croft, soft balling Obama, looking like was going to have an orgasm just talking to Obama. what a joke.
He is way out of his league in all aspects for the job he currently holds. And for the 3 ring celebrity circus that you all called the democratic national convention???? whoa!! It’s a cold day in hell when Scarrlett johanssen and Eva Longoria can stand up and influence how people vote. It is a cold day in hell here right now. It’s pathetic.
It’s really sad when a convention’s main message is based on people being able to get cheap abortions and free birth control. When last time I checked, it was already here.
Were you mad when the media was soft balling Bush? I’m of the school that the media should be hard on all the presidents no matter what party.
You obviously did not listen to the majority of the convention if all you think it was about was birth control and abortions. But hey, the Tea Party handed Obama this issue on a silver platter and he’s using it.
“It’s really sad when a convention’s main message is based on people being able to get cheap abortions and free birth control. When last time I checked, it was already here.”
It’s really sad when hacks reduce one parties attempts to deny basic constitutional rights to LARGE portions of the citizenry as just a message from a convention.
And how sweet you seem to think SOME folks opinions aren’t important…in your somewhat limited book anyway.
Suffice it to say…..bite me.
As long as we aren’t naive about only ONE party denying basic constitutional rights.
I only watched 20% of both conventions. And in the Democratic Convention talked about more than just cheap abortions and free birth control. Way more. So that response is just attack speak for emotional affect.
Once again you can’t tell us a reason to vote FOR Romney only against Obama. Anyway, the problem is that Romney is going to add 6 trillion to the debt immediately with his economic plans.
What is Romney’s plan to solve unemployment? More tax cuts for wealthy Americans. How did that work out the last time?
The reason people are on food stamps is at least here in GA with our Tea Party governor, the jobs that we are getting pay $8.00 and hour with no benefits. Do you have a solution for this? I don’t see that Romney has one. He seems to want more $8.00 an hour jobs but wants people to somehow live on that kind of pay.
We are never going to have cheap gas again. It went over $4.00 here in GA while Bush was in office. Did you blame him for the gas prices?
The middle eastern policy? He has not lied us into a trillion dollar quagmire like Bush did and Romney probably would. Actually foreign policy is one of the places where Obama actually scores well.
Blah,blah,sameoldshit,blah,blah,blah.
1) thru 3) are a result of Obama adhering to the same failed economics policies each of his last four predecessors did. Obama inherited a mess, and his failure has been to not clean it up. Nothing Romney promises is any different on that score. Only when DC finally gives up on Voodoo Economics will this change, and neither Obama nor Romney shows any sign of doing that.
4) We were complaining about $4/gal. gas during the Little Bush Administration. No one seems to remember that, but it’s true. No, I am not adding inflation to that price. Since then, gas prices have risen and fallen for reasons that generally have little to do with American policy, if you ignore our utter failure to invest seriously in energy conservation and alternative energy, which has been a bi-partisan effort. In fact, the GOP is even worse on this issue, so Romney will be no improvement.
5) Our debt isn’t substantially bigger as a percent of GDP than it was during the late Little Bush years, after he gave the rich their tax breaks and got us into two wars. Once again, the two major parties’ candidates offer what is essentially the same brain-dead solution – austerity. That will work about as well as bleeding an anemic patient, for similar reasons.
6) Obama’s policy hasn’t worked any worse than the previous few administrations’ have. Since Jimmy Carter left office, there has been next to no real progress here. Why Romney would be any better is a complete mystery to me.
“1) thru 3) are a result of Obama adhering to the same failed economics policies each of his last four predecessors did. Obama inherited a mess, and his failure has been to not clean it up. Nothing Romney promises is any different on that score. Only when DC finally gives up on Voodoo Economics will this change, and neither Obama nor Romney shows any sign of doing that.”
Exactly Cujo. Continuing failed policies is the norm. Which is why I never got emotionally invested in the Big 2 presidential candidates. Voodoo Economics is an easy game to play. The “BS shuffle”. And you 100% right. Why would Romney be better at Middle East Policy than Obama? Is it:
His stiffer upper lip?
His ability to conjure a Chuck Norris war machine to turn the Middle East into a smoking crater?
His money to buy them into peace? Well with the oil funds, they can buy Romney.
Romney’s religion of peace vs. their religion of peace?
His impeccable CEO hairdo?
His ability to morph into Optimus Prime from the Transformers?
His…*giggle*… his… *snort*… his… *guffaw*… TOUGH TALK?!?!? Like the Extremist Jubilee gives a f–k about tough American talk? They don’t give a rat’s furry behind about military action.
start quote:
His…*giggle*… his… *snort*… his… *guffaw*… TOUGH TALK?!?!? Like the Extremist Jubilee gives a f–k about tough American talk? They don’t give a rat’s furry behind about military action.
end quote
Yes, I’m amazed that anyone posits such things seriously, yet here we are. For some reason, it never seems to occur to them that religious fanatics aren’t typically going to be cowed by such talk, and people who are already seeing their friends and family killed won’t, either.
In your world the crash of 2008 never happened!
In your world it’s the ER doctor who is held responsible for every gunshot victim that comes through the door.
First off, if you hold out Andrew Sullivan to be a “conservative”, then I can justifiably hold Obama out to be a flaming socialist. These are equally hyperbolic party-centric labels, not ideological.
Sullivan, is on paper, a libertarian…..which is obviously never a distinction lefties are capable of making when using the term “conservative”.
So, when Sullivan claims a mantle of “conservative” in its unsegmented form, he is disingenuous. But, he seems to relish his role as the lefties go-to conservative whenever it is convenient for the lefties to make a disingenuous point of their own.
If Sullivan spent his time actually talking about libertarianism, I would give him some respect and, no doubt, so “social” conservatives as well.
Nor can I give Sullivan any respect for holding Obama out to be a “conservative reformist”. Obama does not represent conservative reform as an ideology, rather, Obama only arguably gets there for failing to deliver liberal reform. It is Obama’s weakness showing, not Obama’s goal being achieved.
Sullivan labels himself a “conservative,” as well as libertarian, so your beef is actually with him, not me.
It’s actually appropriate considering people call themselves “conservative,” but insist on the state/federal government having jurisdiction over a woman’s self-determination.
As for “disingenuous,” that’s being kind, but I’ve taken him apart on multiple occasions, including in my book re: his reprehensible claims about Sarah Palin and Trig.
The column he wrote, however, is a good jumping off point for the larger points I raise.
That I so enjoy Tina Brown’s talent for twisting these things is well known around here.
You obviously know nothing of Sullivan’s endorsement of Bush for years. He only broke from Bush due to the gay bashing campaign Bush did back in 2004. Sullivan is a Reaganite through and through.
Most “libertarians” are simply republicans who want to smoke pot….Sullivan is a republican who wants to smoke pole. Big deal.
HA! ho-boy… love that, sec.
Thankyou, thankyouvermuch….please remember your wait staff!
I feel vindicated. Sad.
start quote:
However you come down on the policy, we’re looking into history’s crystal ball with Andrew Sullivan and seeing a potential seminal moment in American politics, not only for President Obama, but for the efficacy of progressive activism itself.
end quote
Yes, but Andrew Sullivan isn’t really a libertarian, so whatever he says doesn’t count [/sarcasm].
Actually, this is a time when progressives ought to be asking themselves how they want to get out of this mess we’re in. Neither major party is going to do it. The GOP is more likely to become a rump party of the truly crazy than a new home for progressives. The Democrats aren’t going to do anything progressive, because that’s not where the money is, and progressives aren’t willing to demand that they do.
So, if we’re not willing to demand that either party do what we want, and voting third party is only for immature wankers who just want to throw tantrums, how do we get it? I have yet to hear or read a sensible answer to that question.
They way I see it Cujo is that a third party candidate has to win the Presidency. Folks can call us immature wankers all they want but until the Big 2 gets beat, there won’t be much happening. In fact, maybe the easier road is third party wins for Congress. Get enough of them in there, oh things will be a bit more interesting.
Personally I think we’re lining up for real The Crying and Hurting Times. Sports teams going bankrupt, sickly high fuel prices, high grocery prices, civil unrest at times, etc. Seems like we have to hit rock bottom in order to dust ourselves off and try again, the right way.
“They way I see it Cujo is that a third party candidate has to win the Presidency.”
Do I hear the song “In the year 2525″ floating on the wind?
It makes absolutely no sense to me that Anthony Weiner was drummed out of office and yet, Sully, 1000 x more vile and dangerous to whole swaths of men, remains employed and taken seriously as a voice of “reason” on anything.