• We’re currently investigating an issue related to the forum theme and styling that is impacting page layout and visual formatting. The problem has been identified, and we are actively working on a resolution. There is no impact to user data or functionality, this is strictly a front-end display issue. We’ll post an update once the fix has been deployed. Thanks for your patience while we get this sorted.

Interesting article on the first months of Obama's presidency.

fskimospy

Elite Member
http://www.newyorker.com/reporting/2012/01/30/120130fa_fact_lizza


I found a few things about this particularly interesting, first was just how wrong Obama's political calculus was in the early months of his administration. He appears to have genuinely believed he could work with the Republicans in a post partisan manner, which was in retrospect laughably naive. It was also interesting to see that Obama's team was worried about deficits causing bond rates to go up, the same argument many on here have used. An argument that also turned out to be laughably false.

Related to that, there were some interesting passages about the increasing polarization of Congress, in particular the radicalization of the Republican Party. It mentions some of the same facts I have posted here before about how radicalized the Republicans have become in recent years, but even I was caught unaware at how bad it is in the House. (Republicans have moved right at a rate 600% faster than Democrats have moved left) You know it's bad when a guy from the American Enterprise Institute, a heavily conservative think tank writes:

One of our two major parties, the Republicans, has become an insurgent outlier—ideologically extreme, contemptuous of the inherited social and economic policy regime, scornful of compromise, unpersuaded by conventional understanding of facts, evidence and science, and dismissive of the legitimacy of its political opposition.

With this in mind, I think this article effectively illustrates the fundamental misunderstanding of American politics that so frequently comes from the 'a pox on both your houses' crew that views government dysfunction as resulting from both parties' intransigence. (as well as the silliness of the OMGSOCIALISM crew) If nothing else, it provides an interesting view into a pretty important time in our history.
 
The Republican Party was red from the start. It's the Democratic Party who changed from libertarian to statist.

I think the Republican Party is actually pretty politically correct. Dr. Paul is the only candidate who would dare speak against the Civil Rights Act of 1964. We should also remember that the 2 GOP front runners support Affirmative action and one of them even sponsored it in Congress.

The Republican Party's economic views are even less extreme. Once again, Dr. Paul is the only one calling for abolition of the IRS and the income tax.

The Republican Party's foreign policy is really the only plank that's extreme.
 
The Republican Party was red from the start. It's the Democratic Party who changed from libertarian to statist.

I think the Republican Party is actually pretty politically correct. Dr. Paul is the only candidate who would dare speak against the Civil Rights Act of 1964. We should also remember that the 2 GOP front runners support Affirmative action and one of them even sponsored it in Congress.

The Republican Party's economic views are even less extreme. Once again, Dr. Paul is the only one calling for abolition of the IRS and the income tax.

The Republican Party's foreign policy is really the only plank that's extreme.

Nobody cares what you think.
 
So another victimization of this administration by Republicans? Poor obama coming from Chicago. He had little experience the political circus he was going to have to deal with on a daily basis.

/rollseyes
 
You know it's bad when a guy from the American Enterprise Institute, a heavily conservative think tank writes:
One of our two major parties, the Republicans, has become an insurgent outlier—ideologically extreme, contemptuous of the inherited social and economic policy regime, scornful of compromise, unpersuaded by conventional understanding of facts, evidence and science, and dismissive of the legitimacy of its political opposition.
Norman Ornstein is a liberal who happens to be employed by a conservative think tank. You know it's really bad when some hack quotes a liberal and tries to pawn it off as a statement coming from a conservative organization.

Perhaps you should think twice before regurgitating Daily Kos crap? Just a thought.
 
Last edited:
So another victimization of this administration by Republicans? Poor obama coming from Chicago. He had little experience the political circus he was going to have to deal with on a daily basis.

/rollseyes

Who cares if he is 'victimized' or not? It's a big boy's world out there.

To me, it reflects quite poorly on Obama because of his inability to recognize the impact of a radicalized opposition party as well as a lack of understanding of just how deeply radicalized Republicans had actually become. To me this just shows that his team was largely incompetent politically for the first two years of his administration.
 
Norman Ornstein is a liberal who happens to be employed by a conservative think tank. You know it's really bad when some hack quotes a liberal and tries to pawn it off as a statement coming from a conservative organization.

Perhaps you should think twice before regurgitating Daily Kos crap? Just a thought.

Norm Ornstein is not a liberal, but I appreciate your input. Just because he deviates from conservative orthodoxy on some issues does not actually make him a liberal, and interestingly enough he was frequently derided in the past as a far right neoconservative. I have no idea what Daily Kos might say about this, as I have not read anything from that site in quite a long time. One of the primary reasons is that there are a lot of people like you that post there, and a stupid leftist is no better than a stupid conservative.

Someday you'll get this stuff down.
 
Another issue is that he apparently may have been considered to be weak by the party leadership.

He may have believed that he could work with the Republicans.

When Reid and Peloski are making statements that they did not need the Republicans to run Congress and were planning on running roughshod over them, that does not bode well for the spirit of cooperation.

The well was poisoned from the get go.
 
Another issue is that he apparently may have been considered to be weak by the party leadership.

He may have believed that he could work with the Republicans.

When Reid and Peloski are making statements that they did not need the Republicans to run Congress and were planning on running roughshod over them, that does not bode well for the spirit of cooperation.

The well was poisoned from the get go.

The Republicans began using these tactics when they lost control of Congress in 2006. There really was never a spirit of cooperation. Obama thought he could somehow appeal to a grand bipartisan consensus, and that was an extremely foolish idea.
 
Norm Ornstein is not a liberal, but I appreciate your input. Just because he deviates from conservative orthodoxy on some issues does not actually make him a liberal, and interestingly enough he was frequently derided in the past as a far right neoconservative. I have no idea what Daily Kos might say about this, as I have not read anything from that site in quite a long time. One of the primary reasons is that there are a lot of people like you that post there, and a stupid leftist is no better than a stupid conservative.

Someday you'll get this stuff down.
That's odd...Wikipedia says otherwise and calls Norman Ornstein a "centrist liberal".
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/American_Enterprise_Institute
Someday you'll get this stuff down.

OK...if it wasn't the Daily Kos...please come clean and tell me where you first saw that quote.
 
Last edited:
That's odd...Wikipedia says otherwise and calls Norman Ornstein a "centrist liberal".
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/American_Enterprise_Institute

OK...if it wasn't the Daily Kos...please come clean and tell me where you first saw that quote.

/facepalm

I saw that quote in the article I linked. Maybe you should think twice before posting in threads you haven't read the subject of.

I'm also really glad that Wikipedia's evaluation of his political ideology says that and all (its citation is from an article he wrote proclaiming his moderation, not his center-leftism) I can find you dozens of sources that list him as conservative.
 
/facepalm

I saw that quote in the article I linked. Maybe you should think twice before posting in threads you haven't read the subject of.
My bad for quickly reading and not realizing the article was longer than a page. Sorry about that.

I'm also really glad that Wikipedia's evaluation of his political ideology says that and all (its citation is from an article he wrote proclaiming his moderation, not his center-leftism) I can find you dozens of sources that list him as conservative.
Wikipedia does make an effort to be accurate and they call him a "centrist liberal". Others do the same...for example:

"Ornstein, for example, is a moderate liberal, but the think tank that employs him is conservative: the politics of the one combines with the politics of the other to make a purely objective go-to guy who can offer liberal opinions without the label."
http://www.commentarymagazine.com/article/press-man-the-prisoner-of-zandi/
 
The Republicans began using these tactics when they lost control of Congress in 2006. There really was never a spirit of cooperation. Obama thought he could somehow appeal to a grand bipartisan consensus, and that was an extremely foolish idea.

One thing to lose control of Congress and to plan to create issues.

Another thing to say that the other party ideas/concepts will not be considered - they are not needed because you have the super control needed to push things through :thumbsdown:
 
Last edited:
The Republicans began using these tactics when they lost control of Congress in 2006. There really was never a spirit of cooperation. Obama thought he could somehow appeal to a grand bipartisan consensus, and that was an extremely foolish idea.

He tried. Foolish? Only because the two parties have radicalized - especially the republicans. If they weren't radical would it be foolish?
 
That whole article is laughable. First hacks like pelosi and her ilk deride the other side and basically tell them to take a hike. Then whine that those same other siders don't want to "compromise" (in other words, do what you want them to do).

Then, pretend that Ornstein isn't a liberal.

/ the fail is strong in this one.
 
That whole article is laughable. First hacks like pelosi and her ilk deride the other side and basically tell them to take a hike. Then whine that those same other siders don't want to "compromise" (in other words, do what you want them to do).

Then, pretend that Ornstein isn't a liberal.

/ the fail is strong in this one.

Your lack of self awareness is pretty amazing. You embody basically exactly what the article is talking about.
 
He tried. Foolish? Only because the two parties have radicalized - especially the republicans. If they weren't radical would it be foolish?

No, it wouldn't be foolish if the Republicans were less radicalized. In the past, as the article mentions, there were conservative Democrats and liberal Republicans and politics really did frequently take place 'between the 40 yard lines'. This is no longer particularly true, but Obama tried to play it like it was.

I mean think about it, his health care plan was for the most part an old Republican idea, his climate change policy was basically an old Republican idea, his stimulus plan contained huge tax cuts, all Republican ideas. It didn't matter that he was proposing Republican ideas from the 90's, they treated him like the second coming of Mao anyways.
 
http://www.newyorker.com/reporting/2012/01/30/120130fa_fact_lizza


I found a few things about this particularly interesting, first was just how wrong Obama's political calculus was in the early months of his administration. He appears to have genuinely believed he could work with the Republicans in a post partisan manner, which was in retrospect laughably naive. It was also interesting to see that Obama's team was worried about deficits causing bond rates to go up, the same argument many on here have used. An argument that also turned out to be laughably false.

Related to that, there were some interesting passages about the increasing polarization of Congress, in particular the radicalization of the Republican Party. It mentions some of the same facts I have posted here before about how radicalized the Republicans have become in recent years, but even I was caught unaware at how bad it is in the House. (Republicans have moved right at a rate 600% faster than Democrats have moved left) You know it's bad when a guy from the American Enterprise Institute, a heavily conservative think tank writes:



With this in mind, I think this article effectively illustrates the fundamental misunderstanding of American politics that so frequently comes from the 'a pox on both your houses' crew that views government dysfunction as resulting from both parties' intransigence. (as well as the silliness of the OMGSOCIALISM crew) If nothing else, it provides an interesting view into a pretty important time in our history.

I am just glad that he finally woke up to the true reality that the Republicans have absolutely no desire to work with him on any issue no matter how badly it effects this country.

I realized this before he even got in the door, I wonder why he clung to the belief of a bi-partisan relationship so long?
 
One thing to lose control of Congress and to plan to create issues.

Another thing to say that the other party ideas/concepts will not be considered - they are not needed because you have the super control needed to push things through :thumbsdown:

LOL when and where did he say this??
 
Obama didn’t remake Washington. But his first two years stand as one of the most successful legislative periods in modern history. Among other achievements, he has saved the economy from depression, passed universal health care, and reformed Wall Street.


He also walked on water and put a chicken in every pot. The article reads well but when I got to this part it became obvious that accuracy and objectivity was far from paramount.
 
He also walked on water and put a chicken in every pot. The article reads well but when I got to this part it became obvious that accuracy and objectivity was far from paramount.

I found the article to be very even handed and matter of fact. It certainly didn't spare the criticism of Obama for dumb political moves and a misunderstanding of the severity of the recession we were facing.

I also don't really find its points about Republican radicalization to be something that can be argued.
 
Back
Top