cartoon_soldier
Member
Sullivan's long game argument is just a continuation of one of the most annoying Obama memes: that he's some master strategist who plays 11 dimensional chess, setting the board in his favor for the future. Yet most of what Obama has done has been reactionary or politically expedient. He is far more concerned with short term political victories than long term policy wins, especially if the victory is "bipartisan." Let's not forget this is the same guy who would have raised Medicare eligibility ages if Boehner's idiot caucus didn't torpedo the deal.
He may be a personal liberal. His background certainly suggests he cares deeply about the poor, disadvantaged/how government can help, race issues, etc. But from a governing perspective he's always been more interested in striking deals than being some ideologue or long-game player. To make matters worse, he treats government like it's the Harvard Law Review where allowing your conservative peers to have more articles in an issue might result in them working together with you in the future, networking, etc. He genuinely seems incapable of recognizing he's dealing with an opposition that does not want anything to do with him, and all the horse changing in the world won't change that. Personally I think this may be a glimpse into his personality and childhood.
This is a guy whose own father abandoned him, his mother was distant for much of his life as well. When you add in the racial identity confusion I think we're looking at a person who was not loved as a child to a level many children were by their parents, and has therefore attempted to find acceptance through joining close communities, always being the giver, constantly trying to impress or be accepted by others, etc. Boehner has taken advantage of that for four years, and Obama seems perfectly fine with it. The same could be said of Joe Lieberman and some other people anyone else would shitcan asap.
I have to completely disagree here, mainly because, did Obama have to compromise with Boehner? Yes. What instances? START Treaty not passing = bad bad bad, Debt Limit not hiked = meltdown, government shutdown not averted longterm = meltdown. And actually if you get into the details of some of these compromises you realize the end result was not as bad as the headline screamed. Really, would things have been better if we had ended 2010 with no START, no extension of UE benefits and other things but a repeal of ALL Bush tax cuts (not just for the wealthy)?
Should the Stimulus have been 1.2 trillion dollars? Yes. Is 800 billion Stimulus bad? No.
Should HCR have had Public Option? Yes. Well actually, Obama still supported the PO in his last speech to Congress but Nelson and Lieberman killed it in the Senate. Same, are we better of with HCR or with the same system that existed in 2008?
Sullivan has given great examples where Obama has let the Change not come from top-down because Republicans were toxic to anything Obama suggested. DADT is a perfect example of that.
Obama is out to please everybody to be accepted? That is just BS. If that was the case the deals with the Republican house would have been much much worse.