Occupy the Internet
The Chamber of Politics U.S. Politics President O-Bow-Ma O-Bow-Ma? Is it still a question?
THINQon is a platform for a more intelligent web. It aims to replace the ruling paradigm of the web – that of sharing and gathering information – with a sharing and achieving of understanding. Instead of the Q&A model it offers an experience. A platform for discovery of ideas, people, and yourself.     Continue >
O-Bow-Ma? Is it still a question?
Jessie Lee asked:
"Here's my question to you fellow Americans across the political spectrum: What does it mean that Obama's legacy is, essentially, becoming one of deference?
Where is the statesman we elected? Who replaced him with President
O-BOW-ma?"

Is this still even a question? No matter the evidence the newspaper people keep making excuses for him.
Paul Krugman, a staunch Obama supporter doesn't give up hope, again and again. A couple of days ago he wrote:
"Yes, letting taxes go up would be politically risky. But giving in would be risky, too — especially for a president whom voters are starting to write off as a man too timid to take a stand. Now is the time for him to prove them wrong."
Well, I guess not this time. Maybe next time.
Though as people are pointing out, he is taking some kind of stand, a stand against the democrats, calling to support the republican bill, or a "compromise" as he tries to call it.
"Raising the direst alarm yet, the Obama administration warned fellow Democrats on Wednesday that if they defeat the big tax-cut compromise detested by many liberals, they could jolt the nation back into recession."

“I think it’s tempting not to negotiate with hostage-takers, unless the hostage gets harmed,” Mr. Obama said at his news conference on Tuesday.
The US, supposedly, doesn't deal with Terrorists. Has Obama by this conference come out and said that he would negotiate and give in to any demand terrorists might have? Of course hostages could get hurt!
Besides, was there really a negotiation this time, or a giving in to most of their demands?

(I will say as a side note that who are these hostages he is talking about? The people who in droves voted for the republicans, and are even more likely given his actions to vote for then the next time?)

As Mr. Krugman wisely states:
"Last but not least: if Democrats give in to the blackmailers now, they’ll just face more demands in the future. As long as Republicans believe that Mr. Obama will do anything to avoid short-term pain, they’ll have every incentive to keep taking hostages. If the president will endanger America’s fiscal future to avoid a tax increase, what will he give to avoid a government shutdown?"
This of course has been going on this entire administration, even when the democrats controlled both houses.

And yet, while writing this I can't stop and think that perhaps he is right. That perhaps deference and bowing to the people he calls terrorists is the thing to do? No, not this time.
I've read a lot of commentary in which people state the obvious, that Obama is a huge disappointment who has sold out his base and lacks the temperament to undertake bold initiatives or play hardball politics, and then conclude with something like "there's still time for Obama to change course"! Don't these people get it? Obama isn't going to change. He is what he is, which is to say an instinctive centrist who is in deep, deep denial about the nature of his political opponents and who clearly believed that once elected he could govern from the centre while relying on his considerable personal charisma to hold on to the left wing of his party, although the latter assumption is clearly turning out to be a massive miscalculation.

I'm beginning to think that the Democratic party itself is in danger of splitting between its left and centre wings. People are already talking about a primary challenge to Obama in 2012. It probably won't amount to anything but it's still extraordinary to even consider a challenge to a sitting president and it shows how deep disaffection runs among some Democratic constituencies. Also, Obama still has two years to work on further alienating his base, and given everything that has already happened I'm very sure he's going to make the most of it!

In response to Emma Brock
We'll see what he is made of in the spring. When the republicans pull out the government shutdown card, he'll either take a stand or bend over.
I don't agree that he has "given in" to the Republicans. Let's remember that the original  Republican position was to make the "Bush tax cuts," including the tax cuts for the very wealthy, permanent. They didn't get that. The Democrats had all along agreed to extend the tax cuts for the bottom 98%, so Obama wasn't "giving in" on that point. He did give in on extending the tax cuts for the wealthy for two more years. And he loosened the terms of the estate tax, when the Republicans wanted to repeal it permanently.

What did he get in return? The extension of nearly all the "Obama tax cuts" from 2009, including the strengthened earned income tax credits, the education benefits, the increased child tax credit, and a variety of other smaller tax benefits. He also got the extension of unemployment insurance for the next 13 months, so we won't have to fight about that for at least a year, and the 2% reduction in FICA payroll taxes, which will pump money into the economy right away, as people's paychecks are increased. All he didn't get was the "Pay for Work" tax credits of $400 for individuals and $800 for families, which, unfortunately, hurts the very poor, people making less than $20,000 for individuals and $40,000 for families.

So almost all the income tax provisions will stay the same, meaning no hit to the economy, and we're going to have a sizable economic stimulus. They say the package will mean 2.2 million new jobs. I wish he could have got more, but I don't believe he could. The Republicans gave up a whole lot -- almost $770 billion to get a measly $130 billion in tax cuts for the very wealthy. And don't forget that their starting position was no tax revenue from the estate tax at all, so you can cut that $130 billion down by whatever the estate tax brings in.

What I do worry about is that this is all going to involve deficit spending and go right onto the debt. I believe that now is not the time for the federal government to be cutting back (I don't, for example, think the President was right to freeze federal workers' pay.), but rather that the federal government should be doing more to fill the gaps in the budgets of the states, so they won't have to balance their books at the expense of city, county, and other local budgets. But I hate to see us borrow more money from China and the Saudis.

I understand the desire for the President to rear up on his hind legs and come down on the throats of the Republicans. That would be viscerally satisfying. I just don't think that is the way to get things done. And this president has shown over and over that he believes in what Harry Truman said: "You can get a lot done, if you're not worried about who gets the credit."

Well, I think we should give President Obama some credit.



'
Join the Community
Full Name:
Your Email:
New Password:
I Am:
By registering at THINQon.com, you agree to our Terms of Service and Privacy Policy.
This topic has the following siblings:

President O-Bow-Ma - President O-Bow-Ma

Discussion info
Latest Post: December 13, 2010 at 8:31 AM
Number of posts: 6
Spans 5 days

  
Searching
No results found.