Has he lost his O-mentum?

December 5, 2009 8:49 AM

New York Magazine thinks the thrill is gone. True? Or just the latest meme? If true, what are the implications outside the Beltway? The 3-D chess references do seem thin on the ground these days.
posted by GrammarMoses (61 comments total)

Oh, FFS.

Back in the early nineties, this was such a meme with the Clinton Administration that Dave Barry used it in one of his columns. Obviously it couldn't have anything to do with a political opposition that would do anything to thwart or discredit a charismatic, intelligent Democratic chief executive, would it now? (Although I'm sure that New York magazine is giving itself extra credit for waiting this long.)
posted by Halloween Jack at 9:07 AM on December 5, 2009 [4 favorites]

the problem is congress - the article is critical of obama for turning over the recovery bill to congress, but he had no choice - nor does he have one on health care reform

still, he seems to be leading them rather passively - at some point he's going to have to start pushing people and risk failure if he wants to get something done
posted by pyramid termite at 9:15 AM on December 5, 2009

Anyone who's surprised that the mood in Washington isn't the same as it was on Inauguration Day has obviously never paid the slightest bit of attention to politics or history. By the same token, anyone who thinks Obama hasn't gotten anything done hasn't been paying attention, period.
posted by EarBucket at 9:17 AM on December 5, 2009 [17 favorites]

Amity Shlaes, a columnist for Bloomberg, suggests that his early losses may serve him well, as they did for Truman and Clinton. We'll have to wait and see if he gets a second term to turn things around.

At least Air Force One didn't buzz Manhattan on the way back from West Point. He is learning.
posted by Frank Grimes at 9:21 AM on December 5, 2009

Yes, yes... All of our presidents have been disappointing (when in office). Will we ever pick a good one?

Fsssh...

It no longer works politically but it's worth taking a moment to remember where we were 2, 5yrs ago.

I will evaluate O's performance in 2012. Until then, I will trust that he is working toward the goals that we agreed to when I helped elect him.

Those folk in congress? That's another story...
posted by MeatLightning at 9:36 AM on December 5, 2009 [1 favorite]

NY Mag should stick to covering this sort of thing.
posted by exogenous at 9:36 AM on December 5, 2009 [3 favorites]

*sticks fingers in ears* LALALALALASUPEREMECOURTNOMINATIONSLALALALALA
posted by The Whelk at 9:59 AM on December 5, 2009 [1 favorite]

Something about the tone of every New York magazine article makes me want to personally throttle the author. The entire magazine just seems to drip with a knowing, smug, self-satisfaction paired with a total lack of perspective.

It's like the whole New York media cliche exaggerated to the point of parody
posted by leotrotsky at 9:59 AM on December 5, 2009 [1 favorite]

It's like the whole New York media cliche exaggerated to the point of parody

I keep hoping its an kind of Kaufmanequse Landoverbapist test for absolute vapidity but no, they seem to mean it.
posted by The Whelk at 10:02 AM on December 5, 2009 [1 favorite]

That being said, I *ahem* know some people who write for the New York Post as if it was one huge joke to see what people will swallow. It makes them heavy drinkers
posted by The Whelk at 10:03 AM on December 5, 2009 [4 favorites]

I will evaluate O's performance in 2012. Until then, I will trust that he is working toward the goals that we agreed to when I helped elect him.

I hear this sentiment from pretty well every Democrat I talk to. The right, on the other hand, are constantly calling their representatives and yelling at them to get them to do what they want. That's why they win almost every time.

2012 is too late. And are you really going to vote Republican if Obama's performance continues to be completely substandard?

Trusting politicians is an intrinsically bad idea! Thousands of years of history and your daily newspapers all show this. Keep them honest - at least tell them if they are going in the wrong direction, don't just smugly assume that they'll read your mind and do the right thing.
posted by lupus_yonderboy at 10:23 AM on December 5, 2009 [4 favorites]

Obviously it couldn't have anything to do with a political opposition that would do anything to thwart or discredit a charismatic, intelligent Democratic chief executive, would it now?

How could they thwart him with just 40 senate votes and a house minority? In terms of actual power, the republicans have none if the democrats stick together. They don't. But you can't blame that on the republicans.

Oh, and speaking of douchbag centrists Max Baucus, probably one of the leading Healthcare Derailers Actually nominated his girlfriend to be U.S. Attorney, but she withdrew ... only because she decided to move to DC to live with him.

I will evaluate O's performance in 2012. Until then, I will trust that he is working toward the goals that we agreed to when I helped elect him.

So, you're not even actually paying attention?
posted by delmoi at 10:26 AM on December 5, 2009 [4 favorites]

Yes, yes... All of our presidents have been disappointing (when in office). Will we ever pick a good one?

not under the current system where everyone's beholden to the people who bought them.
posted by Mayor Curley at 10:31 AM on December 5, 2009 [2 favorites]

I hear this sentiment from pretty well every Democrat I talk to. The right, on the other hand, are constantly calling their representatives and yelling at them to get them to do what they want. That's why they win almost every time.

I'm not really sure that's accurate, in terms of who has more energy. It actually seems like liberals are much more likely to cut their leaders less slack then republicans, and that makes sense when you consider the authoritarian mindset (definitely read that e-book if you have the time, it provides a really compelling and well researched framework for understanding a lot of 'liberal'/'conservative' politics)

But I do think the democrats squandered a huge opportunity to harness the anger about the wallstreet bailouts, etc. The right, in particular the teabaggers have really taken ownership of the issue, while a lot of the democratic activist base has stayed silent on it because the Obama administration asked them to.
posted by delmoi at 10:32 AM on December 5, 2009

the democrats squandered a huge opportunity to harness the anger about the wallstreet bailouts, etc.

There's no real will for change among most of our mainstream representatives, because they are bought and paid for. That Obama is pursuing policies in Afghanistan and with regards to Wall Street that are virtually identical to the previous administration is difficult to deny (although I'm sure some here will).
posted by HP LaserJet P10006 at 11:00 AM on December 5, 2009 [2 favorites]

I feel like I'm the only one who's pretty satisfied with Obama so far. Not even 'considering the mess he inherited' satisfied, I mean 'doing a good job' satisfied.

More troops in A'stan? Exactly what I've said for years.
Healthcare bill? The best that could reasonably be expected to pass Congress.
Copenhagen? It's all international posturing anyway, we've got to meet China in the middle somewhere before anything will actually get done.
Bailout? Bush made the right call, Obama did too.
Gitmo? Mildly disappointed that it's taking so long but it's a complex issue.
Trials in NYC for terrorists? Bring it on.
Antitrusting Google and Monsanto? Sounds good to me.
Continuing some of Bush's secrecy? Sucks, I think it's a mistake.
DADT and other gay rights pushes? Again disappointed on the timing but I'm patient. I recognize that others have more pressing needs here and I respect that fully.
Energy policy? Farm policy? Still waiting.

The US is a pretty right wing place electorally; any motion to the left is either going to be slow sausage making or Shock and Awe that overreaches that are immediately reversed by the next guy. Look to the long term not the news cycle.
posted by Skorgu at 11:03 AM on December 5, 2009 [6 favorites]

Copenhagen? It's all international posturing anyway, we've got to meet China in the middle somewhere before anything will actually get done.

You seem to be making the strange argument that China and the U.S. have different views on global warming and what to do about it. As opposed to being two huge emitters who want to keep pumping a shitload of CO₂ into the atmosphere. In reality, it was the U.S, which was only overtaken by China in the past few years as the top emitter that was holding back most global work on greenhouse emissions (after all, why do anything if the top emitter won't?)

The U.S. still puts out 3-4x as much CO₂ per capita as China.
posted by delmoi at 11:08 AM on December 5, 2009 [1 favorite]

The problem with the Left (as compared with the Right) has been and always will be infighting, poor coalition building-skills, and, ultimately, lack of strategic vision.
posted by KokuRyu at 11:17 AM on December 5, 2009

But I do think the democrats squandered a huge opportunity to harness the anger about the wallstreet bailouts, etc. The right, in particular the teabaggers have really taken ownership of the issue, while a lot of the democratic activist base has stayed silent on it because the Obama administration asked them to.

I'm not sure if the Obama administration has anywhere that sort of influence.
posted by KokuRyu at 11:23 AM on December 5, 2009

The problem with the Left (as compared with the Right) has been and always will be infighting, poor coalition building-skills, and, ultimately, lack of strategic vision.

Obama's presidency is only a referendum on the "left" if one assumes that it is in any way representative of an actual left, rather than what it really is: an attempt by the center-right to re-capture the perceived glory of the Clinton years.
posted by HP LaserJet P10006 at 11:23 AM on December 5, 2009

I know we all want to forget Bush, but I had no idea some people's efforts would be so successful.
posted by kittens for breakfast at 11:33 AM on December 5, 2009 [6 favorites]

WHERE ARE THE UNICORNS?
posted by Artw at 11:41 AM on December 5, 2009 [1 favorite]

The "meet in the middle" was referring to exactly what you highlight:

the U.S, which was only overtaken by China in the past few years as the top emitter
The U.S. still puts out 3-4x as much CO2 per capita as China.

Which is more important? Current per-capita, current max or highest growth in the medium term? There are good arguments for both frankly, I don't think it's cut and dried but nothing at all is going to get done until this is settled in some way (IMO, I'm not even an amateur here).
posted by Skorgu at 11:48 AM on December 5, 2009

IRT the 60 seat majority etc etc etc. The Democratic party is much more of a coalition party then the Republican are. For that reason I actually would have very little objection if the Democrats actually had a 98 seat majority, there will always (at least at this point in history) be nay sayers and complainers in the D party. And that is how it should be. I don't object to the Republican party because it is the opposition and currently seems to be lined up as a particularly regressive political entity, I object to the Republican party because it doesn't allow much of any dissension in the ranks. There always should be some waffling along the edges, yeah some Ds cross over for this or that vote, but some Rs should as well. The republican party operates much more like the fabled Politburo or the Communist party of China then the Ds do, exactly because they are so friggen authoritarian and act in lock-step. This is seen as a strength, and actually is in the short to medium term. Where it is a weakness is in the long-term as populations shift, America get's less white and less fundamental.

Yeah, the Ds frustrate the hell out of me, but the current alternative is worse.

And why should I give a flying rats ass what some (essentially OP-ed) NY magazine thinks?
posted by edgeways at 12:04 PM on December 5, 2009

WHERE ARE THE UNICORNS?

HA HA IT'S FUNNY BECAUSE GOING TO THE DOCTOR IS ALSO MYTHICAL AND SO LUDICROUS FOR US TO EXPECT
posted by enn at 12:09 PM on December 5, 2009 [1 favorite]

Obama had many very young supporters. Is the fault with the childish expectation of instant cure after 8 long years of folly? Are his "supporters" actually fair weather friends?
posted by Cranberry at 12:15 PM on December 5, 2009 [2 favorites]

2012 is too late.

Trusting politicians is an intrinsically bad idea!

So, you're not even actually paying attention?

Look, there's a fine line between "paying attention" and micro-management. IMHO, the sentiments embodied in that article cross over into micro-management. It's not helping. I also happen to think Obama is doing a fine job given all the realities of his job.

I guess I also find those realities somewhat disappointing (maybe that's the crux of it?). So. Many. Complaints. So. Much. To. Complain. About.

I admire your passion. I probably share many of your views. But simply having a long list of grievances (updated hourly!) and the unrealistic expectation that they all be solved instantly does not make you a better citizen those anyone else.

Unless you harbor dreams of achieving utopia, you have to realize that someone will be screwed. How you reconcile that speaks to your character. Progress comes slow because it has to... because there are a lot of perspectives to accommodate, change, or suppress.

Yes, watch your reps like a hawk. Yes, take it to the streets if it so moves you. But do yourself and friends a favor: Take a step back and try to absorb the bigger picture every now and again.
posted by MeatLightning at 12:28 PM on December 5, 2009 [2 favorites]

(When is someone gonna come along here and tell me that I'm stupid for thinking there's any difference between the Ds and the Rs? I miss that guy.)
posted by Ron Thanagar at 12:54 PM on December 5, 2009

Queen to Queen's level 3.
posted by MrLint at 12:55 PM on December 5, 2009

Obama's presidency is only a referendum on the "left" if one assumes that it is in any way representative of an actual left, rather than what it really is: an attempt by the center-right to re-capture the perceived glory of the Clinton years.

It's hardly inaccurate to say that Obama was elected by a broad-based coalition of Left-wing groups and interests.
posted by KokuRyu at 12:57 PM on December 5, 2009

I'm fairly happy and/or satisfied with the parts of the agenda to date, although I wish he'd put more of his personal mojo on health care -- it's already got his name to half the country.

I am getting seriously concerned about the slow rate of federal judgeship nominations. (The NYT also blames the Senate.) It's not just the legislation, it's changing the face of the federal bench for decades to come, it's building up the critical mass of at-least-center-left judges who will be available for promotion to higher courts. It's a bit like ceding half the civilian military posts to Republicans, as if Democrats couldn't possibly manage the jobs, which also has the effect of forgoing building up Democratic experience in these areas. If they don't step up the pace, this is going to hurt for years.
posted by dhartung at 1:26 PM on December 5, 2009 [1 favorite]

In late 1981, Reagan was having little success against what was then the worst economic downturn since the 30s, with worse yet to come in 1982. In late 1993, Clinton was just about to sign off on NAFTA, but was also in the thick of fighting for health care reform, which he'd eventually lose on very publicly. Both would go on to be re-elected handily.

LBJ, on the other hand, had a monster majority of 68 votes in the Senate in 1965, which helped him to accomplish more that year maybe than any president since. He withdrew from the race in 1968.
posted by gimonca at 1:33 PM on December 5, 2009

Also, not that I want to wallow in nostalgia or anything, but if LBJ were here today, he'd have Joe Lieberman's balls in a vice so tight he'd be crying for his mommy.
posted by gimonca at 1:36 PM on December 5, 2009 [5 favorites]

Oh, and speaking of douchbag centrists Max Baucus, probably one of the leading Healthcare Derailers Actually nominated his girlfriend to be U.S. Attorney...

Yeah ... and what needs to pointed out is that Baucus is married and she is really his 'mistress.'
posted by ericb at 1:45 PM on December 5, 2009

Esquire: Whaddaya Mean Obama Hasn't Done Anything?
posted by ericb at 1:48 PM on December 5, 2009 [2 favorites]

One year After His Election, What Has Obama Achieved?

90 Accomplishments of President Obama Which The Media Fails to Report.
posted by ericb at 1:57 PM on December 5, 2009 [2 favorites]

the democrats squandered a huge opportunity to harness the anger about the wallstreet bailouts

How perfectly diabolical. Hand over huge sums of cash to your corporate buddies, then get them into hot water for it!

On the other hand, I think this sort of turnabout would have been too much for even the American electorate to swallow.
posted by yath at 2:29 PM on December 5, 2009

LBJ, on the other hand, had a monster majority of 68 votes in the Senate in 1965, which helped him to accomplish more that year maybe than any president since. He withdrew from the race in 1968.

interestingly enough LBJ and obama now have something in common - they both escalated a questionable war
posted by pyramid termite at 2:57 PM on December 5, 2009 [1 favorite]

I think a lot of this stems from how most liberals perceive the first year or two of a transition from a Democratic president to a Republican one: massive shifts in executive policy towards the right.

Here's the thing, though: it's much easier to break something than it is to fix it, far simpler to benefit the few than the many. Give Barry some time.
posted by maus at 3:17 PM on December 5, 2009 [1 favorite]

Skorgu: Honestly, I'm perpetually amazed and frustrated at the ways in which America keeps pointing the fingers at China (or Japan when it comes to oceans) as an excuse to block progress on environmental treaties, in contrast to countries that are going ahead with environmental measures because they see the political and economic writing on the wall.
posted by KirkJobSluder at 3:22 PM on December 5, 2009

LBJ, on the other hand, had a monster majority of 68 votes in the Senate in 1965, which helped him to accomplish more that year maybe than any president since. He withdrew from the race in 1968.

interestingly enough LBJ and obama now have something in common - they both escalated a questionable war

I'd respectfully suggest that the Afghanistan war is slightly less questionable than Vietnam. This is not the same as this. You may think the war is being badly prosecuted or simply isn't worth it at this point, but that comparison does not, I think, stand examination. Obama's simultaneously trying to end another war, as well. LBJ only had the one.
And frankly, if Obama manages to get anything passed that's as important as this or this, I don't give a damn what he does otherwise, he'll have done more than anyone has any right to expect a president in this climate to manage.

/rant
posted by AdamCSnider at 3:25 PM on December 5, 2009 [1 favorite]

But this is pretty much the same as this.
posted by Burhanistan at 3:29 PM on December 5, 2009

What a coincidence that Baucus' misbehavior is coming to light at the same time as the Senate health care bill. Hmm.
posted by kathrineg at 3:33 PM on December 5, 2009

But this is pretty much the same as this.
posted by Burhanistan at 3:29 PM on December 5

Okay, I'd put that under badly prosecuted, then. I assume you're talking about the civilian deaths. I thought pyramid termite was using questionable in the sense of "questionable origins,." Perhaps I misunderstood him. Certainly I'd say this is definitely "doing it wrong."
posted by AdamCSnider at 3:41 PM on December 5, 2009

The problem with the Left (as compared with the Right) has been and always will be infighting, poor coalition building-skills, and, ultimately, lack of strategic vision.

The problem with the Left is that it contains a diversity of opinion and a tendency to examine information and ideas such that its members don't tend to blindly accept talking points from a talk-show host. It makes the process of coalition more unwieldy, but I prefer it to the alternative.

While I am generally interested in what Obama is doing and what he is trying to accomplish, I get that the process of government does not have the same turnaround as cable news, that the effect of policy can really only be judged over the longer term, that the President's individual power is more limited than most people assume, and that he's having to deal with a complex set of issues in which even the most reasonable experts disagree on the appropriate solutions. Plus, I didn't vote for someone with the capacity for rational thought just so I could look over his shoulder the whole time.
posted by troybob at 5:01 PM on December 5, 2009 [2 favorites]

That Obama is pursuing policies in Afghanistan and with regards to Wall Street that are virtually identical to the previous administration is difficult to deny (although I'm sure some here will).

Bush completely dropped the ball on Afghanistan, letting Osama bin Laden escape at Tora Bora, so he could get his war on in Iraq. Obama's applying a similar approach in Afghanistan that Bush did in Iraq (too late, IMO), but their Afghanistan policies are almost opposite.

One year After His Election, What Has Obama Achieved?

It's been 13 months since he was elected, but less than 10 months since he took office.
posted by kirkaracha at 5:09 PM on December 5, 2009 [2 favorites]

But do yourself and friends a favor: Take a step back and try to absorb the bigger picture every now and again.

Please do not talk down to us, OK? Has it occurred to you that we might, in fact, look at the bigger picture and feel sick?

The US has been at war continuously for over 70 years - and we have yet another war President who's continuing to stoke the US war machine, expanding one war while failing to withdraw in another, sending dozens of missile strikes into yet another country that we aren't even at war with.

We had trillions taken out the Treasury and given to the investment bankers with no oversight and no conditions - with the result that the banks are seeing record profits while conditions are dire for almost everyone else. You'd think it'd be obvious to any fool that major changes would be required in Wall St - we've seen nothing. Obama's economic team is even more full of Wall Street than Bush's.

The whole health care issue was handled with maximum possible ineptness. Single-payer, the only system that has been successful in other comparable countries, was touted during Obama's early candidacy, but wasn't even allowed to be mentioned after the election (doctors and nurses who attempted to peacefully protest the lack of mention of single payer were arrested!) Tell me, what sort of negotiator gives away a key point before negotiations even start?

Obama made a deal - a secret deal - with the pharmaceutical companies that allows them to double their charges over the next ten years, and we get... the fact that they won't raise their rates even more than that.

When Obama promised to close Guantanamo, who guessed that he meant, "Many of the men imprisoned there will never get any trial at all"? When Obama the candidate mocked the Bush administration's depositions claiming that the rule of law didn't hold in Guantanamo, who guessed that Obama the President would make almost word-for-word identical arguments about Bagram?

You know - we're grown-ups - we didn't expect huge change, we didn't expect it overnight. But we expected some sort of change. And we didn't get it. We got business as usual, and we the "progressive" wing got laughed at and mocked by the very Democratic party we gave our all to support.
posted by lupus_yonderboy at 5:48 PM on December 5, 2009 [6 favorites]

I keep thinking back to election night, and to the thing that Obama said that I trusted most -- his admission that "listen, all the changes we want are going to take a while." Because -- he was absolutely right.

At the time, a year ago, there were nay-sayers all over the blue talking about "oh, you Obama-maniacs, you think he's going to wave his magic fairy wand and give you EEEEEEEEVerything you want" -- and there was, actually, a grain of truth to that. The Obamamania was getting pretty carried away with speculating about what Obama was capable of.

Which is why I really, really respected Obama saying that -- because he wasn't falling for his own hype. He was enough of a realist to say, "look, this just plain isn't going to be instantaneous. these kind of changes aren't." He didn't flat-out say "don't get all carried away, now," but that was definitely the subtext of what he was trying to say. And the fact that he was realistic about things is what made me trust him the most.

Big changes always take a while. Obama always knew that, and that is precisely why I like him.
posted by EmpressCallipygos at 8:25 PM on December 5, 2009 [3 favorites]

Please do not talk down to us, OK

apologies. That was not my intent.
posted by MeatLightning at 8:41 PM on December 5, 2009

Yeah ... and what needs to pointed out is that Baucus is married and she is really his 'mistress.'

No baucus divorced in April, and he nominated her in "spring", according to marcy wheeler's timeline. It sounds like they may have been having an affair before the divorce, though.
posted by delmoi at 9:44 PM on December 5, 2009

Nation appalled at Obama's flagging pace - wish he would finish eating bucket of shit bush handed him already
posted by tehloki at 10:51 PM on December 5, 2009 [4 favorites]

not to worry, there are other thrilling things to ponder.
posted by krautland at 1:30 AM on December 6, 2009

EC: Well, the other side of the coin is that stereotype of impatient leftists who want everything right now always seems to get trotted out any time someone starts to consider what forms of citizen activism (the kind supported by Obama) is necessary to keep things rolling. Recognition that the process takes time isn't an argument for citizen disengagement from the process.
posted by KirkJobSluder at 10:00 AM on December 6, 2009 [2 favorites]

Thanks for the civilized tone of this dialog.

I'd also add that this "things must happen slowly" meme does not appear to be supported by the facts. Generally, Presidents tend to be able to get big things done more easily at the start of their terms when they are popular and have lots of political capital to spend than later when they're enmired in the real world.

Take for example FDR. By March in his first year he'd closed all the banks and reopened them. By May he'd proposed the New Deal, a staggering transformation of American society that
created a new social contract that lasted 50 years until Reagan rescinded it.

I might add that there was never any question where FDR stood on any topic - but I have little or no idea what Mr. Obama's actual position is on many key questions. For example, what's Mr. Obama's stance on health care? For or against single payer? I don't rightly know.

Health care does seem to exemplify all the grave disappointments I have with the current Administration. Mr. Obama seems curiously uninterested in the whole issue: I was very surprised that the Administration chose not to present their own bill but handed the issue to a bipartisan committee, and also surprised that they made zero attempt to either gather information from their supporters or to disseminate information to their supporters about what they were trying to achieve. The speech that Mr. Obama finally made was short on details, and seemed to anticipate that much of the work would be accomplished by the "free market" in the form of an "insurance exchange" - it was a speech designed to offend no one which meant it didn't seem to offer very much either.
posted by lupus_yonderboy at 2:12 PM on December 6, 2009

"For or against single payer? I don't rightly know."

Oops, make that "for or against the public option".

I know he's resolutely against single payer to the point that this idea wasn't even allowed to be discussed - though I have no idea why, as single payer seems to have worked very well in other countries. Nor do I have the faintest idea why he'd concede this point for free before he even started negotiating.

(I realize I'm being disingenuous here. In my heart, I fear there's a simple reason for all of this - he's sold us out to the health industry in exchange for the massive campaign contributions that we can all see occurring, and thus he's actually doing just the right thing to prevent any significant change from occurring. But that's just too sad...)
posted by lupus_yonderboy at 2:19 PM on December 6, 2009

?? Uninterested in the issue?

Obama has sent out lots of information about what he's trying to achieve with health care. Are you on his email list? If not, get on it. He has done commercials, raised money for lobbying activities, and surely you noticed the town halls he attended.

Remember the town hall where that guy came with a pistol and a sign about watering the tree of liberty? Obama showed up for that one, where someone was practically threatening his life. So no, I don't think uninterested in the issue is an accurate assessment.

Remember when he was pushing for a health care vote before the August recess? That was him trying to get things done early in his presidency. Oh yeah, and the stimulus package he put through in February:

In Denver, Obama said the stimulus package had received broad support in Washington and elsewhere, though Democrats pushed it to passage with only three Republican votes in the Senate and none in the House.

One of the biggest public spending programs since World War II, the new law is designed to create jobs in the short term and to boost consumer confidence to battle the worst economic crisis since the Great Depression. It also makes down payments on Obama's health care, energy and education goals.

Disagree with his health care plan, fine. But please take the time to be accurate instead of buying into the Obama does nothing, Obama is too bipartisan, Obama is a sell-out hype.
posted by kathrineg at 2:52 PM on December 6, 2009 [2 favorites]

katherineg: point granted on health care. I guess it's that I'm not at all convinced by the whole package but I have to grant there's certainly enough information there. My not buying it doesn't mean it doesn't exist though.

The stimulus package is exactly what I think is wrong with Mr. Obama's presidency so far, which is that it was the least possible thing that could be done.

Since Mr. Bush went off to a long-anticipated retirement, I've been waiting for Mr. Obama's speech where he explained to the American public what difficult straits we are in and how only dramatic action will allow the country to continue to grow and prosper into the future - and then talk about a huge stimulus package with massive long-term investments in America that will continue to pay dividends into the long future - money into education and public transportation, things that will pay for themselves surprisingly soon and then keep returning dividends forever after... to say things like, "We failed at building cars, so we're going to take all this American know-how and those unemployed autoworkers and build the best public transportation systems and sell them all over the world."

Don't say he couldn't have gotten it through - he could have gotten twice what he put in through if he'd terrified people enough with the absolute facts that were there. He had huge momentum, everyone wanted change, he ran on change, he could have pushed for change, but he didn't push for change but business as usual, accepting tiny incremental progress rather than going for the big points, points which he desperately needed early in the game because he started with the game rather stacked against him.


So he chickened out. We've gotten "everything's OK, back to business and the wars and everything will be fine." We got the least possible stimulus package, sent to all sorts of random things - a little bandage to fix things up.

But that isn't going to work. America has to transform itself. Where are all those autoworkers going to go, those newspaper people, all those middle managers, all those retailers at all levels? Defense industries never pay off for the average person, simply because the goods they make are consumed somewhere else in a place you wouldn't want to be. America has to do more than building prisons and selling mercenaries and weapons to itself.

There needs to be something game-changing, something new here, and we didn't get that from Obama. We got regular government things and a big dose of "more war" and "national security" to boot. I really really hope I'm wrong and things work out for us but I fear otherwise.
posted by lupus_yonderboy at 3:23 PM on December 6, 2009

Recognition that the process takes time isn't an argument for citizen disengagement from the process.

Oh, I'm not saying that, actually. I absolutely think people should still stay engaged. I'm only responding to the frustration that "we're all trying and things haven't come out of the shit yet!" But that's only because there's a lot of shit to get through, not because we aren't trying.
posted by EmpressCallipygos at 4:29 PM on December 6, 2009 [1 favorite]

EC: Oh, I know you didn't. I do think there is an idea out there that we should trust Obama's power of political Aikido and not express frustration regarding the slow pace of change, or call the administration out when it appears that momentum might me sacrificed for its political comfort.
posted by KirkJobSluder at 4:47 PM on December 6, 2009

Ah, gotcha. It may be a "your mileage may vary" kind of thing, actually, with how much of the slow pace being attributed to what being a matter of personal opinion.

And on a lighter note, in favor of Obama: his address this past Tuesday pre-empted what was supposed to have been the annual rebroadcast of A CHARLIE BROWN CHRISTMAS, and thus ABC is going to try running it again later this month. I hadn't known that that's when they intended to broadcast it, so I would have missed it for the first time EVER, breaking a streak I've maintained since I was two years old. So in some small way, Obama is helping me maintain a 38-year personal tradition, so at present I'm inclined to think favorably of the man. :-)
posted by EmpressCallipygos at 6:44 PM on December 6, 2009

I'm still thrilled I'm not wincing every time the POTUS opens his mouth; something I'll probably never take for granted again.
posted by BrotherCaine at 10:23 PM on December 6, 2009 [1 favorite]