Krugman: 'The President Is Missing'

[Newsjock]

Source: New York Times

What have they done with President Obama? What happened to the inspirational figure his supporters thought they elected? Who is this bland, timid guy who doesn’t seem to stand for anything in particular?

I realize that with hostile Republicans controlling the House, there’s not much Mr. Obama can get done in the way of concrete policy. Arguably, all he has left is the bully pulpit. But he isn’t even using that — or, rather, he’s using it to reinforce his enemies’ narrative.

... What’s going on here? Despite the ferocious opposition he has faced since the day he took office, Mr. Obama is clearly still clinging to his vision of himself as a figure who can transcend America’s partisan differences. And his political strategists seem to believe that he can win re-election by positioning himself as being conciliatory and reasonable, by always being willing to compromise.

But if you ask me, I’d say that the nation wants — and more important, the nation needs — a president who believes in something, and is willing to take a stand. And that’s not what we’re seeing. 

Read more: http://www.nytimes.com/2011/04/11/opinion/11krugman.html?ref=opinion

[peace4ever]

1. Nowhere Man - Ouch

I supported, contributed, and voted for Obama, but after 2 years I am very disappointed.

It feels like we have all been played for fools with the promise of change, but everything stays the same, or gets even worse.

At this point I don't feel there is any hope, as the corruption is pervasive in most of our institutions, from the bottom to the very top.

At least some folks are still allowed to write about it.

[Bluebear]

28. welcome to DU, P4E

[Snotcicles]

36. It's called, STOCKHOLM SYNDROME. nt

[BonnieJW]

64. I received a phone the other evening

asking me to volunteer for O's re-election campaign. I declined on the grounds of profound disappointment. I told the caller that while I will surely come out and vote in the election and I will vote for O should he get the dem nomination, I will cast that vote with a heavy heart. I am truly voting for the next SC justice and I don't have a lot of faith that O will do well in that department.

[Name removed]

76. Deleted message

Message removed by moderator. Click here to review the message board rules.

[blackspade]

77. Thanks for lumping all critics as 'haters'

I don't hate Obama. I am, however, profoundly disappointed in his administration's caving to the rethug party.
The reason why so may folks 'back' the budget 'deal' is that they have no idea what is in it.
The reality of the situation is that the rethugs are writing the narrative and Obama and the national Democrats are signing on.
The problem is that the narrative is fiscally and morally bankrupt and only inflicts further damage on the struggling working class while handing bucket loads of money to the rich and corporations.

[mistertrickster]

97. +1 nt

[Carolina]

82. 824 people questioned

by CNN?! Wow, I'm impressed :sarcasm:

Besides, what choice was there: a lousy deal from Conciliator in Chief and a governemnt shutdown :shrug:

[madrchsod]

90. really?...how quick to judge

[AllTooEasy]

100. It's by far the other way around!!!

[Carolina]

80. welcome to DU

and I feel as you do.

[Smarmie Doofus]

128. Not for long, perhaps. NYT 'lost' Bob Herbert and Clyde Haberman.....

... in the space of 2 weeks. Might Krugman be the next to go?

>>>At least some folks are still allowed to write about it.>>>>>

[_ed_]

143. Yup

He duped us.

[FourScore]

2. Get thee to the Greatest Page! n/t

[somone]

3. War Is Peace. Timidity Is Audacity. Losing Is Winning.

The Anti-Bush Is Bush III

[ThomCat]

12. Yup. Our Democratic president that we were so damned happy

was "anyone but Bush" turned out to be a Republican president with a lot in common with Bush.

The guy who was going to fix everything Bush did instead has continued and escalated far too many Bush policies and even retained a bunch of Bush appointees.

He loved Bush's TARP plans and continued them without even the slightest critical thought, investigation, or public oversight. Almost everyone with expertise is admitting now that TARP has been corrupt from the very beginning, and the numbers reported to the public were a sham. The amounts lent were kept hidden, and the amounts paid back have not been honestly calculated or honestly reported. The stress tests were worthless because they were based on the assumptions that the toxic assets had whatever value the banks chose to assign to them, instead of requiring the banks to write down those assets to zero. So everything both administrations did was all smoke and mirrors designed totally to cover up for the banks and help them stick taxpayers with the whole bill. We expected Bush to do this, but we didn't expect Obama to go along with it too. But he did. Wholeheartedly. From his first day in office, and he's still going along with it.

He loved Bush's wars. He loved Bush's reliance on torture. So much so that he continued both. He's still continuing both. He has even expanded both. Torture of an American held in Virginia who hasn't even seen a Judge yet, much less been convicted of anything, is something even Bush never did. He has approved assassination as acceptable policy, even the assassination of Americans, without any trial, and without any presentation of evidence of guilt. On the president's word alone an American can now be extra-judicially executed. He has also given us military tribunals with rigged rules that guarantee convictions, because his administration can't accept the idea of any of their prisoners being found not guilty. This is from the president who promised to restore our country to respecting the rule of law.

The examples could go on, and on, and on... :(

[emsimon33]

27. Well stated! and...too true!

[FirstLight]

75. +100000!

oh, to rec a post!

My dissapointment is something i don't often talk about. But I am just flabbergasted at the direction things have taken over the past 2+ years. there is no excuse for the audacity and hope of our mandate to have been wasted as it has been.
WTF is all I can say...
It's only getting worse, for so many of us. and we were hanging on by a thread years ago, now it's worse than the bottom rung.

How can we stop the slide? that's my question. do we primary our president? would it even help or make a difference? are we just going to end up with a fascist regime no matter what letter they have next to their name? if we have really been sold out to the big banks and top 2%...then how do we go about shifting things without complete restructuring of the system that we are slaves to...

i am beyond discouraged that this can happen. And if anyone does step up to fight, it will not end well :(

my state is cutting welfare benefits 8% come july...and restructuring the welfare to work to slice even more people off the ranks (from a 60 month lifetime allowance to a 48 month lifetime allowance) that's just wrong. so fucking wrong...

[Octafish]

83. Kick for Truth.

Every word.

[ChiciB1]

116. Far Too Many Of Us Have Been Saying This For Waaaaaaaaaay Too Long!

Almost all of my family and Democratic friends have simply given up on him. I no longer even "listen" to anything he says because I HONESTLY feel that once said, he will soon turn around and do something different. Not only different, but also much more to the RIGHT!

I feel so defeated, deflated and DENIED as an American citizen. And what is even worse, most of the people I talk with simply EXPECT it to get worse! I realize many here don't agree with these views, and I really wish I felt differently, but unfortunately too many others have come to the same conclusion.

And should anyone think that what I'm saying about others isn't the truth I simply want to state emphatically that IT IS what I'm hearing most of the time. Then there's the other thing we often add and it's this... we feel we are going to be FORCED to vote for him in 2012 because we will HAVE NO OTHER CHOICE! This is why they simply aren't concerned and why they don't even try.

I just got a survey last week asking me questions about Obama and how I felt he was doing. Then of course they wanted a donation.

NO donations or any campaigning will be done by me or those around me. I know these are only words, words that I mean, but words I KNOW that they aren't listening to. Wish I could take all I did and put it back in the box and return it. I lost all HOPE a long time ago!

[WiffenPoof]

136. Oh You Never...

...liked Obama from the beginning (sarcasm).

Well written and spot on ThomCat.

-PLA

[russspeakeasy]

140. Yup.

[Raine]

149. EXACTLY and VERY well stated!

:thumbsup:

[liberation]

153. Just a minor nitpick. Manning was apparently charged with a few counts, finally.

... not that sitting in jail for months without an accusation is any more tolerable.

[Carolina]

84. Touche!

well put

[emilyg]

4. kickee

[Ramulux]

5. Bingo

Krugman has been nailing it recently.

[wtmusic]

6. Obama is not a leader.

He's a rational, intelligent man who is afraid to take the bold steps that need to be taken.

Sometimes you need to kick some ass.

[Poboy]

10. Not a leader at all. He's a follower. And since the R's are 'leading',

that is who he is following.

[wtmusic]

17. In his last presser, Obama used the phrase "I think" 21 times.

It's a defensive, unnecessary phrase which puts your opponents' position on equal footing - you've just ceded authority.

That kind of measured response from Jimmy Carter is what got Ronald Reagan elected.

[theaocp]

120. Very well stated. n/t

[SharonAnn]

134. He's a conciliator. He wants to be liked, same as Bill Clinton.

[Marr]

11. I don't know what he is.

He's a clever politician, but it seems like he doesn't actually give a shit about the real effects of policies. Or if he does, he's well to the right of center. His actions have repeatedly endorsed the traditionally conservative, top-down view of the economy-- and that's the one thing that a person cannot do and still be considered a Democrat, IMHO.

[wtmusic]

14. He's allowing Republicans to define the narrative, IMO from inexperience. nt

Politics 101: never allow your opponent to define the narrative.

Obama needs to appeal to Americans directly and powerfully. In his last presser he said "I think" 21 times

[WiffenPoof]

138. You Are So Right!

I have been saying this for a very long time now...It is the first rule of politics...THE VERY FIRST RULE...Don't let your opponent define the argument. Never allow your enemies to frame the message.

I AM DUMBFOUNDED AT THIS ADMINISTRATION'S INABILITY (OR UNWILLINGNESS) TO AT LEAST CONTROL THE MESSAGE.

Sorry...I'm just pissed.

-PLA

[Myrina]

125. He's an awesome campaigner and inspirational speaker.

Aside from that, we're fucked.

[ChairmanAgnostic]

51. That's the one thing he will never consider

It is not in his genes.

[humbled_opinion]

167. Yep and its not in his Jeans either....

if you get my meaning...

[liberation]

154. He leads when he wants to

The issue is that what he wants, and what some people of the liberal persuasion in this site want are not the same. However, what he wants tends to be what the people of the moderate conservative persuasion want, and they are also part of this site.

That is the problem with a big tent, eventually you don't know what the hell the Dems stand for other than letting as many people in as possible. Policy becomes insignificant because it takes a very distant backseat to electoral triangulation.

[ProSense]

7. What channel

is Krugman watching?

President Obama: "let’s not try to sneak political agendas into a budget debate"

Obama Threatens to Veto House GOP Bill As Lawmakers Predict Shutdown (updated)

"President Obama and the House speaker, John A. Boehner, faced off in the Oval Office."


Still, Krugman highlights two points:

I realize that with hostile Republicans controlling the House, there’s not much Mr. Obama can get done in the way of concrete policy. Arguably, all he has left is the bully pulpit. But he isn’t even using that — or, rather, he’s using it to reinforce his enemies’ narrative.

He acknowledges that Republicans will block any significant policy because they control the House. Now what is he expecting?

You might have expected the president’s team not just to reject this proposal, but to see it as a big fat political target. But while the G.O.P. proposal has drawn fire from a number of Democrats — including a harsh condemnation from Senator Max Baucus, a centrist who has often worked with Republicans — the White House response was a statement from the press secretary expressing mild disapproval.

Even a centrist Democrat rejected the Republicans, which shows there is a difference between the two parties.

[Marr]

13. "He acknowledges that Republicans will block any significant policy because they control the House."

"Now what is he expecting?"

As he said, he's expecting the President to use the one tool he always has, the bully pulpit, to argue against the Republican agenda. He is not doing that, and his comments the other day on the budget compromise were an endorsement of the traditionally conservative view of the economy.

What's more, while the House may be able to prevent any sort of Democratic agenda from being advanced, Obama could stop a Republican agenda from being advanced as well. He's not doing that, either.

[ProSense]

15. Hmmm?

"As he said, he's expecting the President to use the one tool he always has, the bully pulpit, to argue against the Republican agenda. He is not doing that, and his comments the other day on the budget compromise were an endorsement of the traditionally conservative view of the economy."

I guess the point should be repeated.

[Marr]

18. You should read some of the information you dumped there.

From your first link-- this is another example of Obama endorsing the traditional conservative economic position (ie, less government spending is the answer):

"...and the reason I won’t accept them is not because I don’t think we’ve got to cut the budget; we do. And we’ve already put forward significant cuts in the discretionary budget, some of which have not made members of my own party happy."

Here's something else I found interesting:

"But the notion that we would cut, for example, Pell Grants, when we know the single most important thing to our success as a nation long term is how well-educated our kids are, and the proposal that was coming out of the House would cut this year about $800 out of Pell Grants for 8 million kids, and if were extended into next year would cut in half the Pell Grants that they’re receiving -- that makes no sense."

So... no cuts to Pell Grants?

[Name removed]

56. Deleted message

Sub-thread removed by moderator. Click here to review the message board rules.

[AlbertCat]

60. he's expecting the President to use the one tool he always has, the bully pulpit,

The House this... the House that....

What about the Senate?

Remember when Pelosi was getting lots of stuff done in the House, and it died in the Senate? Can't that still happen, only with the parties reversed?

And all I have to say is... were I doing something important and difficult, I sure wouldn't want President Milquetoast watching my back!


What did the Koch's do? Threaten to kill his children if he didn't cooperate?

[MsLeopard]

99. That's exactly what I've been saying

since the first disappointments began happening with regularity. When someone would ask, "Why is he doing x or y?" I'd say, "He wants his girls to live." Horrible to think, but it seems more and more true with each Republican ass-kiss.

[tblue37]

126. self-delete--accidental dupe

[tblue37]

I have always thought that once someone gets into the WH, he finds out what is and is

not permitted by our real rulers.

[tblue37]

127. self-delete--accidental threesy

For some reason my posts are sometimes posting multiples!

[Bandit]

47. Right.,and we got the largest cut in social programs in history and an INCREASE in Defense spending.

Yep he and the Democrats did just fine...More tax cuts for the wealthy should fix everything though..

[bertman]

57. Krugman is right about the President. You can post all the links you want

to justify your love for the President's capitulation to the Republicans, but you cannot change the fact that he CAVED. Not only did he cave, he caved by taking it out of the hides of the Americans who can least afford it at a time that they are hurting worse than ever.

Prosense, your view of what is a win and what is a loss for America is totally tainted by your rose-colored glasses.

[ProSense]

106. Krugman

March 2010:

Health reform is back from the dead. Many Democrats have realized that their electoral prospects will be better if they can point to a real accomplishment. Polling on reform — which was never as negative as portrayed — shows signs of improving. And I’ve been really impressed by the passion and energy of this guy Barack Obama. Where was he last year?

link

Obviously, Krugman knows the President stands for something.

Krugman claims the President is missing and failed use the bully pulpit on this issue when he in fact gave a very public press conference and issued a much reported veto threat.

That's ridiculous. You can buy into it, but don't expect everyone to agree with him.

[_ed_]

144. What article

were you reading?

He was making the point that Obama should use the bully pulpit. Interesting you neglected to talk about the Senate, and only the R house. Apologizing. Apologizing. Apologizing. Do you have any actual political ideology of your own? Or do you just reflexively defend every and anything Obama does?

[bhikkhu]

8. When I was a teenager I might have gone for that

the whole (oft repeated) "what happened to the inspirational figure", why can't he just inspire us with his vision, why can't he just lift the whole debate to a higher level, why can't he just transcend, rise above the fray, the rules, the clamor, the mass of people he is supposed to represent...

Its always tempting to wish for that sort of thing, some magical figure to sweep away all the doubts the day is filled with and make it all better, but that's not the world we live in, and certainly never has been the way democracy works. Perhaps its not so obvious from one's little desk in front of the computer monitor, but I'm pretty sure its blindingly obvious in DC.

[AlbertCat]

63. but I'm pretty sure its blindingly obvious in DC.

No it's not.
DC is on another planet.

Have you been there? It's in a bubble. It's full of itself and hasn't a clue what is going on anywhere else...and worse, doesn't care.

Y'know that NYC snob thing of "If it didn't happen in NYC, it didn't happen"? Well in DC, NOTHING AT ALL happens except in the District of Columbia.... a gated community.

You can actually FEEL it just going to museums there.

While there, I was chatting with a DC socialite about how I had inherited some money and that 1st tax bill was the biggest check I'd ever written. I said "it was kinda scary!" I had this 30-something woman sitting next to 54 year old me at the Ballet in the Kennedy Center tell me it was time I grew up! Taxes were too high! I was gonna point out to her that growing up means you realize you have to pay your taxes if you want to live in a nice country... and growing up meant realizing rich people were STILL RICH after they paid their taxes... but why bother? She's in DC... where reality doesn't matter.


We had a huge majority in both houses, and this is what we get? Bull shit.

[jannyk]

9. Kick & Rec!

[villager]

Has been since the inauguration.

n/t

[villager]

16. Dupe

n/t

[Kablooie]

19. Oh what would Hillary have done?

To late to even think about, I know.

But ...


Oh what would Hillary have done?

[grahamhgreen]

21. If she ran in 2012, I'd vote for her.

[davidwparker]

113. +1

[lumberjack_jeff]

39. She would have pushed for a better health care plan.

... and twisted Joe Lieberman's arm to get it.

[cyberpj]

48. You can all jump all over me but I say, "what would Nadar have done?" - oh yeah... he probably

would have been killed by now for his anti-corporate, anti-lobbying stance.

[FedUp_Queer]

61. Given the fact that Obama picked former Clintonistas for his cabinet

and took the Clinton's advice on other appointments, I think it's pretty clear she would have done the same thing.

[AlbertCat]

65. Oh what would Hillary have done?

Who cares?

Something equivalent.

What would Howard Dean have done?

What would Dennis Kucinich have done?

What would Harvey Birdman have done?

[Kablooie]

171. Oh what would have Harvey Birdman have done?

[Carolina]

86. the same thing

She and Bill founded the DLC! Bill signed the Commodities Modernization Act (overturned Glass-Steagall), the Telecommunications Act, NAFTA, Welfare Deform, etc. They gave Larry Summers and the Goldman Sachs crew of Rubin et al the keys to the treasury. The Obama team is the Clinton team and a Hillary White House would have been equally bad or worse.

We need NEW blood!

[DURHAM D]

132. Total crap -

Hillary got George S. and Rahm Emanuel fired from the Clinton WH for running their own agenda and leaking to the press. It took her awhile to convince Bill they were a problem but she got it done. She is not Bill - she does not suffer fools well and she is actually a democrat.

She would of had her own team and I am sick of this shit and nonsense being posted here at DU as if it is gospel.
Its all total drivel and obviously designed to protect your feelings because Obama is such a disappointment to you. its just flying straw bitch crap

[mistertrickster]

139. Your view is interesting and insightful. I'm starting to see her with "new eyes" these days. nt

[Carolina]

148. oh yeah and she ran such a great campaign too

she'd have been a great POTUS :sarcasm: "In it to win it but it'll be over by Super Tuesday....."
Yeah, right.

Plus she voted for IWR and got tongue twisted trying to justify her calculating (on the worst sense of that word) vote.

Obama's team is full of Clinton retreads! And Hillary ran on her HUSBAND's experience. She had 12 years as First Lady of Arkansas and 8 as FLOTUS. She won in NY because she was hillary CLINTON not hillary rodham.

You seem way too upset, so I must have struck a nerve of TRUTH. Spare me the drivel!

[DURHAM D]

151. I don't need to rehash the primary -

but you do? Must be that your hero didn't turn out to be remotely close to what you thought you were getting.

BORING

:hi:

[Carolina]

190. quite frankly, I didn't cotton much to any of the primary tools

since the main ones (Clinton, Edwards, Biden, Dodd) all calculatingly voted for IWR. Nodrama gave a good speech at the 2004 convention but big wooo.

I liked Gravel's anti-war stance and truth-to-power talk but he was treated dismissively and I knew he, Kucinich and Richardson didn't stand a chance.

Nodrama has proven himself to be the tool I suspected and he confirmed this early by chosing Summers and Geithner. He has continued to disapppoint, so no surprise there.

Therefore, despite your "hi," please don't ever think he was my hero. My heroes were killed in the 1960s!

And in your defense of HRC, you do need to revisit the primary contest because PAST is PROLOGUE! HRC's history with the Bill Clinton team (NAFTA, Gramm-Leach-Bliley, Welfare Deform, Telecommunications, Robert Rubin, Larry Summers, Dick Morris!) and her abysmally managed 2008 campaign portended an even worse presidency than what we have now.

So back at ya....

BORING!

[liberation]

157. So Hillary "fired" Rahm, even though he resigned and ended up with a cushy job paying big $$$

and he is actually such a democrat that she was the president of her alma mater's college republicans chapter. I mean, how much more authentic can you get?

Yeah, let's substitute a creepy cult of personality for another. That will totally fix it this time, I swear...

[DURHAM D]

168. I hope you can actually comprehend the following:

"She grew up as a Goldwater Republican, like her father, in the middle-class Chicago suburb of Park Ridge. By the time she was a freshman at Wellesley, when she was elected president of the College Republicans, her concern with civil rights and the war in Vietnam put her closer to the moderate-liberal wing of the GOP led by Nelson Rockefeller. By her junior year, she had to be talked by her professor into taking an internship with Rep. Gerald R. Ford and the House Republican Caucus. In her senior year, she was campaigning for the anti-war Democrat Eugene McCarthy."

Please note the last sentence. What were you doing in 1967?

And what's the creepy cult thing. Hillary is done with elective politics.

As for your hero... Which is better? Start out as a Young Republican and become a Democrat while not yet old enough to vote or flat out lie as a 47 year old adult about being a Democrat.

so many suckers so little time

[liberation]

155. Let's see a former republican who sat on the board of WalMart...

... I take that the issue you have with Obama is that he is no corporatist and hawkish enough?

[grahamhgreen]

20. They sold an image of what we wanted, not the real thing.

[mazzarro]

72. Bingoooooooo!!!!!

Yes indeed - we were sold images by DLC operatives who figured that Obama's smooth talk will sway the liberal base and they were wildly successful. I wonder how they will explain him to the base this time around? Well - we do have some Dems who are so blindly attached to the President - maybe that will explain the total disregard to all the cries from us "professional leftists". But even more interesting will be how they - the DLC'ers will campaign for the nomination after Obama leaves office.

[shireen]

123. +1

i feel betrayed.
profoundly betrayed.

[Modern_Matthew]

22. Sadly, he will only be remembered as the first African American President...

When it could've been so much more than that.

[ProSense]

23. who

reformed the health care system.

Krugman, March 2010:

Health reform is back from the dead. Many Democrats have realized that their electoral prospects will be better if they can point to a real accomplishment. Polling on reform — which was never as negative as portrayed — shows signs of improving. And I’ve been really impressed by the passion and energy of this guy Barack Obama. Where was he last year?

Then there's the insignificant Wall Street reform that established the Consumer Financial Protection Bureau, saving the economy and the auto industry.

[Lydia Leftcoast]

131. You posted that already

n/t

[howmad1]

146. Repeat the same old bullshit:

and eventually we'll all believe it.

[dflprincess]

165. By selling us out to the insurance companies

The bill Obama signed does nothing to help most of us access health care - it only mandates that we continue paying the same old crooks for the same old crap with no guarantees we'll be able to afford to see a doctor when we need one.

[humbled_opinion]

169. Oh bother...

at this point I wouldn't even wonder if he helped the Cons undo his Healthcare law before it gets fully implemented.

[shanti]

55. sadly

that was enough for many people!

[Keith Bee]

24. James Carville said it during the HCR debate

Obama needs to get angry.

[Beacool]

70. he also said something else about Obama's testicular fortitude.

:eyes:



:7

[TheBigotBasher]

102. Hard working white America,

How did that work out?

If the entitled one could not run her own campaign finances how could she run the economy?

Maybe she might have tried to ban some computer games,

[Beacool]

104. Running a campaign and governing are two totally different things.

As it has been clearly shown. As for the white American remark, she was just quoting a poll (which is still true, BTW). Obama polls the lowest (I think that he's at 39%) with whites.

:shrug:

[TheBigotBasher]

110. Get to F jusifying racism.

Want to know why the left jumped to Candidate Barack Obama? Hillary didn't just run to the right of her record she ran to the far right of it. Barack Obama became the default candidate of the left as a result.

[Beacool]

114. And look what you got.............

He's neither to the left nor more progressive than Hillary. Remember how he voted on FISA?

[TheBigotBasher]

121. "more progressive than Hillary"

so which Hillary campaign was that?

http://www.noquarterusa.net/
http://hillbuzz.org/
http://www.hillaryis44.org/

I have problems finding progressive Hillary supporters.

[DURHAM D]

133. I don't know why given that you spend so much time stalking them.

None of those sites you love to reference are sites for feminists and liberal women.

Why do you hate women? You do know how obvious it is don't you!

[TheBigotBasher]

137. Lol.

http://thebigotbasher.com/2011/04/07/kloppenburg-a-massive-victory-for-women/

Why do you hate gays? It is obvious isn't it?

PS when these Nazi blogs threaten the lives of me and other bloggers I think I have justification in following wtf they do.

[TheBigotBasher]

187. Stalking to them is reading their sites and commenting upon them.

To thse Nazi bigots stalking is not publishing the photo of a completely unrelated blogger, threatening to publish the home details of the wife of that completely unrelated blogger, threatening the life of an unrelated Professor who happened to share my real name, having the so called voice of PUMA feminism joining in with a hunt for yet another completely unrelated female blogger.

With regard to your comment about hating women, why do you defend racism. If you defend those sites then I know where you stand.

[liberation]

158. Caville needs to get a credibility first, and then learn that "sleeping with the enemy"

is a figure of speech not something to take literally.

[kenny blankenship]

25. Could be worse. Instead of a President who leaves you wondering what he really believes

He might open his mouth and remove all doubt.

[cyberpj]

49. Huzzah! And he did plenty of that while campaigning, didn't he? nt

[chill_wind]

26. Not just Krugman. 300 other know-nothing economists also warned Obama

many months ago about how much focusing on the deficits instead of jobs was a bad idea.

He's not missing. His priorities are obvious. No one forced him to unleash the conservatives' wet dream deficit commission and then just stand back and watch the general focus and direction and fallout from all that's ensued from it since.

"Even so, did Mr. Obama have to celebrate his defeat? Did he have to praise Congress for enacting “the largest annual spending cut in our history,” as if shortsighted budget cuts in the face of high unemployment — cuts that will slow growth and increase unemployment — are actually a good idea?"

[melm00se]

29. it's easy to lead

when both the House and Senate were controlled with your party.

the true measure is to lead when you have strong opposition.

As to being "Bush III". stop and think for a second: as a candidate you are not given complete access to all the information that a president has (and used to make decisions). A president, you do now. Do you think that he might, using the full information, understand why his predecessor made the decisions he did and, with full disclosure, agree that was the best decision made?

[FedUp_Queer]

62. Sorry.

Torture is never right.
Prison camps like Bagram are never right.
Warrantless wiretapping is never right.
Indefinite detention is never right.

[markpkessinger]

163. Agreed! +1000 . . .

...And the fact that so many fellow Democrats are defending this President over the very issues they were ready string W. up for is simply appalling!

[davidwparker]

118. "both the House/Senate were controlled with your party"

This was his first two years in office. I missed the leading. I heard more about that dog in the first year than I heard from him about health care.

There is a most excellent SNL opening where the comedian is going through O's promises as to whether they were done or not done. Funny, tragic, and prophetic all at the same time.

[indimuse]

30. Obama is doing the job he was PAID to do..

by the BANKERS! (CFR..etc..)

[Major Hogwash]

31. President Obama is the first black man elected to be the President of the United States

President Obama always considers the longterm effects of history and has it in the back of his mind every single day of his life.
Just like other black leaders that made history in this country.

Martin Luther King didn't need critics to try and trip him up every day of his life, but they were there.

So, considering that the Republicans have been the party of "Just Say No" for the last 2+ years, maybe you ought to sit down and consider how history is going to judge their party, instead of pointing your thin, bony finger at the President!!!

[jillan]

41. MLK was not afraid to stand up for what he believed in, that's why he made such an impact

inspite of the critics.

[Carolina]

87. thank you

Obama is no MLK.

MLK stood up for what he believed and what was RIGHT. He didn't know the phrase: political expediency!

Nor was he afraid to die -- literally -- for the rights of WORKING MEN!

[ProSense]

111. MLK was never President.

As Al Sharpton points out, people expect Obama to lead a progressive movement against himself.

He's is in LBJ's role: the President.

Where's the movement: writing about apologists getting in the way of complaining about the President on the Internet and attacking him as the sole source of all the country's problems.

It's utter bullshit!

Doesn't matter that Republicans aren't winning the debate. The President's detractors within his own party are going to insist that they are.

They can't criticize him for a deal without attacking his character. Some of the stuff being written is utterly vile.

[Major Hogwash]

178. Krugman doesn't even mention MLK or the fact that racism is rampant in the GOP.

Maybe that's because he is removed from reality.

[AlbertCat]

66. President Obama always considers...

...the longterm effects of history and has it in the back of his mind every single day of his life.
Just like other black leaders that made history in this country.



*********


How! Now you can read Obama's mind. Amazing!

What are the winning Lotto numbers today?????

[Major Hogwash]

180. You don't think he does? Really? Then you didn't read his book.

Because he has been aware of who and what he is for most of his life, even clear back in high school.

[bvar22]

69. MLK really DID put on his "comfortable shoes".

Please don't compare these men.

One is a Marketing Creation,
the other was the Real Deal.



Who will STAND and FIGHT for THIS American Majority?
Lofty Rhetoric, Broken Promises, and Whiny Excuses mean NOTHING now.
"By their WORKS you will know them,"
and by their WORKS they will be judged.

[Major Hogwash]

181. That's preposterous, and we ALL know it.

There's is no comparison, my ass!!

[liberation]

159. Ironic the first person making an issue of Obama's race in this thread decided to channel MLK

when doing so.

[Major Hogwash]

179. Reality made your fan smell bad, huh?

Maybe that's because you thought this was going to be easy, to get a black man elected to be our President and there wouldn't be any backlash.

Check your irony at the door.

[bvar22]

185. Throughout Campaign 2008, I stated on DU many times:

"Getting Obama elected will be the EASY part.

Getting him to act like a DEMOCRAT will be much harder."

---bvar22, 2008

[Search4Justice]

32. It going to take a heck of a ...

... lot more for Corporate Obama to garner my support or even my vote this time around, than pretty, empty speaches and false promises. I certainly won't ever vote Repub, but I can leave and will leave the top of the ballot blank. I absolutely refuse to vote for the lesser of two shitty choices ever again.

[CrispyQ]

45. I'm writing in Bernie Sanders.

Every time I vote for the lesser of two evils, it validates the democratic leadership's view, that I've got nowhere else to go, so they don't have to listen to what I want. Worse, they continue to shift further & further to the right. Fuck them. I'm not voting for republicans even if they have a D after their name.

Welcome to DU. :hi:

[Search4Justice]

46. I'm a big fan of Bernie myself.

And thank you for the welcome, you are the first and only to do so.

[juajen]

141. I'm very sorry, we are a bit demoralized. Welcome to DU.

Hope you stay for a long time. It's really a very nice place, but we disagree a lot.

[Carolina]

88. Welcome to DU!

and I agree. I will vote in every other race. But I now have the same negative, visceral reaction to Obama that I had to Bush: I either change the channel or hit the mute button.

When his vacuous words about "helping working people" slip through before I can grasp the remote, I find myself muttering the infamous words of my loathsome Congresscritter Wilson: you lie!

[Search4Justice]

184. Thanks for the hello, a pleasure to make your acquaintance.

What troubles me the most about what's happened is that a huge amount of momentum for real change to reverse the downward spiral the Rethugs have put in, was just plain wasted by perhaps the weakest President of at least my lifetime. I don't buy for one second that a man of his intellect doesn't know exactly what he is doing. That is what bothers me most.

[ChiciB1]

122. I Haven't Actually Said That Yet, But I Surely Think It A Lot! We Are

JUST PLAIN SCREWED... a Democrat who is so much like a Repuke OR a far right wing wacko on the other side! It really, really sucks and almost UNBELIEVABLE that THIS is all we have!

It actually turns my stomach because I have NEVER been this unhappy with ANY Democratic President in my life! I've been voting since McGovern too, but I DREAD this election coming up.

Maybe our EMPIRE will fall before then and it won't matter in the end. Guess that's the best that could happen, then MAYBE people will rise up! Some people say that the REAL Obama will emerge in his 2nd term, that's just laughable to me. THIS IS the real Obama and many of us feel we got BURNED!

[Enthusiast]

33. No question that Obama is

alienating his key supporters. He is now openly advocating cutting medicare. So who is Obama? What does he believe in? Pleasing Republicans and the wealthy?

[marew]

34. Appears so.

This is so very discouraging.

[quinnox]

35. Have felt this ever since he became president

Krugman nailed it.

President Obama is not strong, he seems to have no vision for his presidency.

A caretaker president is another phrase I have seen used. He is better than GOP, but seems to be mostly a placeholder, waiting for a strong and decisive leader to take his place.

[treestar]

37. Oh for goddess' sake. Unrec.

This is not for your entertainment.

"Taking a stand" to create drama for no reason other than for your entertainment is not what the US government is about.

It is not timid to make a deal, especially with a Republican Congress.

Good grief. Do you pay the prices asked when you shop everyday? Why are you so timid? Just walk away and refuse to buy anything for what anyone asks.

This is getting beyond ridiculous. Makes it look like you were looking for some sort of Daddy, not a POTUS. Even Daddy had to pay prices asked for food and clothing for you. Too bad he didn't take a stand and let you starve instead.

[lumberjack_jeff]

38. Learn from Jack's example

No. We can't all just get along.

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=MPMmC0UAnj0

[EstimatedProphet]

40. Quite

The repubs own the entire government - because they control 1/2 of 1/3 of the branches of government.

[davidwparker]

119. but what do you expect from people who couldn't get

their minds around the real O when the gov't was controlled by the Senate _Minority_ leader?

What ever became of filibuster reform?

[nichomachus]

42. "They" haven't done anything to him

He is one of "them." The whole hopey-changey campaign was a con job to put a corporatist Trojan Horse into the White House.

[ehrnst]

43. I think that he's decided that he's got to pave the way for the next black candidate

by not appearing "angry" and "leftist" - so he's going the opposite direction...

[Zorra]

53. Clarence Thomas, or Condoleeza Rice? nt

[mazzarro]

96. No I don't think so!

If I recall correctly, early in Obama's administration Jesse Jackson Sr. came out and criticized him for not being forceful enough - especially on black issues. That Obama was tip-toeing around sensitive issues. But - oh boy! was Jesse rebuked by everyone - both conservatives and liberals; reThugs and Democrats alike? Now it seems that Jesse saw this happening long time ago before we - "professional leftists" care to admit that we do not have a champion of our causes in WH as we had hoped.

[ProSense]

44. Watch this:

Al Sharpton, Velma Hart, Cornel West, Robert Traynham (Comcast's DC bureau chief): Video

[SHRED]

50. "President Obama said he plans on running...

... for re-election against the Republicans. After the tax cuts for the rich, the bailouts for Wall Street, and the bombing in Libya, I already thought he was the Republican candidate." –Jay Leno

[FreeStateDemocrat]

52. Who will step up to primary this asswipe?

[savannah43]

162. Alan Grayson, I hope.

Someone not afraid to speak the truth.

[Doc Martin]

54. He is a stunning disappointment,,, actually more like heart breaking

[Beacool]

58. It was there for all to see if people had paid attention.

"What have they done with President Obama? What happened to the inspirational figure his supporters thought they elected? Who is this bland, timid guy who doesn’t seem to stand for anything in particular?"

I stand by my assessment of 3 years ago: Obama is a B.S. artist. Great at marketing himself, but not much more. People didn't do their due diligence. I preferred to read his speeches rather than be swayed by his soaring oratory. Reading the speeches in black & white showed that there wasn't much substance to them.

It figures that in the American tradition of choosing style over substance Obama was deemed the "cool" choice.

:-(

[AlbertCat]

67. Obama is a B.S. artist. Great at marketing himself,

Unlike "Honest Hillary"!

:eyes:

[Beacool]

68. With Hillary what you saw is what you got.

:shrug:

[AlbertCat]

73. With Hillary what you saw is what you got.

What does that even mean?

[w4rma]

101. It means she would have given us DLC/Clintonite policies, too. But, she would tell us that is what

she is doing. I don't like either DLC choice.

[TheBigotBasher]

105. Misspeaking on Bosnia,

Hard working white Americans.

[Beacool]

109. Are you going to repeat that phrase ad nauseam?

:eyes:

[TheBigotBasher]

112. Are you ever going to defend a Democratic President on a Democratic Party

supporting board?

Rise Hillary Rise. The loaf is half baked.

[Beacool]

115. I defended the last Democratic president.

I still do, he gets bashed plenty around here.

:D

[DURHAM D]

135. I recommend no response to BB -

he hates women - PERIOD. It colors everything.

On edit: He hates STRONG women.

[Beacool]

170. Really?

I just thought that he despised Hillary.

:-(



:hi:

[mazzarro]

93. I don't think so either!

After all - Obama's inner circle is choke full of ex - Clintonites. The only difference between Obama and Hillary would be in style not substance and I bet you they both are DLC'er's in heart - period!

[Beacool]

107. My point is that everyone knew where she stood politically.

While Obama liked to keep his speeches vague on details (as per Axelrod's advice). His voting record was so minuscule that keeping them vague was the best way not to get pinned down. Therefore the semi messianic speeches about oceans receding, planets aligning, etc.

[neoralme]

78. I began to think that after is FISA stance. Voting for him was the

biggest mistake of any vote I ever cast. I should have gone for Hillary, even though there were things I didn't like about her, she would not have caved like a Gumby figurine every time she was challenged.

[gkhouston]

59. Let Obama be Bartlet. n/t

[democrank]

71. Sad but true.

I don`t know what it is with President Obama. Is he too naive? Too gutless? Too uncertain? When push comes to shove, he caves.... just about every single time. That is not leadership.

[Ganja Ninja]

74. Frankly I'm more than a little curious about why My President is so compliant.

And as much as I hate the birther's I'm beginning to wonder if someone doesn't have some dirt of some kind on him. He seems willing to capitulate on anything and everything. In fact the only thing he's steadfast on is his birth records.

[neoralme]

79. There may be something to what you say. I have never seen any

politician cave like this man. It is like he is doing it on purpose. Is he being blackmailed?

[HughBeaumont]

85. I think the tax cut cave is what did it for me.

Maybe the 12 industrialist scumfucks showed him the film (Bill Hicks reference)??

[Vincardog]

81. Quick O man to the Middle Cave there are principals to sell out

[YvonneCa]

130. They're going to sell out...

...school administrators??? :7

[mm44sas]

89. krugman has been desperately trying to reach out to Obama

however, as much as Krugman beats Obama on the head day after day with facts, it only makes Obama administration DENSER.. more aloof, and less likely to listen..

ICEBERG AHEAD!

[HughBeaumont]

91. Maybe Krugman should ask the hostage-holding globalists/lobbyists of Corporate America that.

If anything, Obama's term exposes the Plutocracy in all it's ugly wrinkled nudity. The sign should have been flashing when impeachment of a liar war criminal administration was all of a sudden "off the table".

And unless we invade boardrooms by the metric ton, not be scared of their rent-a-thugs, not fear arrest, realize that private citizens outnumber police by a thousand-fold and not leave until the goddamned CEOs start playing ball, nothing is ever going to change in that regard. The rich have no reason whatsoever to fear us. Corporate piglets have no intention of raising our wages; they haven't for thirty years. They only pretend to give a shit when they have to run for their lives.

When the game is rigged in favor of neo-fascism and all you have in D.C. are Trickle-Down-worshipping Republicans littering both parties (the odd Sherrod Brown, Kucinich or Bernie Sanders notwithstanding), what's an average citizen supposed to do? Who looks after them?

When it's all about "cooperation" between corporations, boardmembers, major stockholders and their bought-and-paid-for enablers in Washington and "competition" among the middle/working/poor/enslaved worldwide . . . I don't know, what do you do with that?

We're going to blame a president? It's a means to an end. What stand is he going to take? He's either blackmailed, compromised from the get-go or worse yet (what most people here believe), he's firmly in the Third Way (Reaganite With A Smile) camp. I'm obviously not going to say he's the same as Bewsh, but goddamnit, I didn't vote for the fucking rich not to have their precious lives disrupted in any way shape or form.

The system is broken and rotten from the top down. Government is not the problem, the Corporatism (or Capitalism, depending on who you ask ;) ) is the problem.

[Jefferson23]

92. He's missing? I think Obama isn't lost, he seems fine, he seems so unperturbed, always

ready to say ...let's look to the future, let's look forward..I don't like this much, BUT.

[Roci]

94. It's impossible

To say "Amen" loud enough!

[valerief]

95. We've got the Disney animatron version. nt

[mistertrickster]

98. His campaign slogans will be "hope" and "change" as in hope that I change . . .

[fascisthunter]

103. No, he's been bought and Paid for

He's not missing...

[davidwparker]

108. "figure who can transcend America’s partisan differences"

:puke: :puke: :puke: :puke:

:puke: :puke: :puke: :puke:

:puke: :puke: :puke: :puke:

[hulka38]

117. "...he’s using it to reinforce his enemies’ narrative"

That's the unforgivable part for me and he's done this consistently. A supposed lefty President embracing conservative policies and lending them credibility absolutely undermines the liberal agenda and credibility for many years. The message to the nation is that liberal ideas are wacky and should be reflexively dismissed. But the real kick in the pants is the conservative agenda is wrong! In fact, it's killing America. Liberals know it and get scolded for trying to fight that agenda. How can I support that anymore? It's way too fucked up.

[Jim_Shorts]

124. Winning the future ???

Obama ran on CHANGE you can believe in - and we gave him everything he needed - the house and the senate. What we got is basically Bush III or much worse if he goes along with cutting medicare.

The new slogan is so appropriate because all I ever say these days is WTF

[bluethruandthru]

129. I wonder if the president ever reads Krugman's op eds.

Do all the idiots surrounding him in the white house ever let him see the kind of criticism that's been boiling over everywhere? Probably not. The DC cocktail party club is made up of wealthy lobbyists, ALL the DC "journalists", white house staff and other rich folks. They just stand around and pat each other on the back and reinforce their fairy tale version of facts.

[Shining Jack]

142. Stepford Prez? n/t

[Don Draper]

145. Spot on!

Unfortunately, this is what I have come to expect from Obama.

[JEpstein]

147. Brilliant as usual from Krugman

He's awesome. I wish there were more like him.

[Faygo Kid]

156. +1, and welcome to DU.

You have some catching up to do.

[Cherchez la Femme]

150. The Pres had 2 years of majorities in both houses

of Congress, and STILL all he did was pander to people who wanted nothing other than to destroy him.

It's not Stockholm Syndrome, as someone said below

it's masochism, and we're all feeling the pain by proxy!

Masochism by Proxy Syndrome -- yep, that's what we've got.

[RedCloud]

152. Onion News reported the real Obama was locked up for two years.

[markpkessinger]

160. The comments folllowing Krugman's piece . . .

. . .on the NYTimes site are a devastating litany of disillusionment. So sad.

[xchrom]

161. Recommend

[golddigger]

164. Watching Rachel right now and she is tearing into his ass.

[motorcityliberal]

166. Paul Krugman's Pre-emptive War on Obama

http://www.thepeoplesview.net/2011/04/paul-krugmans-pre-emptive-war-on-obama.html





I have said it before, and I will say it again: Paul Krugman may be a nobel winning economist, but he should keep his day job. He's a terrible political commentator, especially when he goes after pre-emptive attacks on President Obama. In his column in the New York Times today, he delves into one such pre-emptive war on President Obama, saying that "Obama is missing" - while, of course, having not a clue on what he would do and how he'd legislatively accomplish that. Here's his opening salvo:
Maybe that terrible deal, in which Republicans ended up getting more than their opening bid, was the best he could achieve — although it looks from here as if the president’s idea of how to bargain is to start by negotiating with himself, making pre-emptive concessions, then pursue a second round of negotiation with the G.O.P., leading to further concessions.
This - "Republicans ended up getting more than their opening bid" - is so disingenuous and intellectually bankrupt that I don't even know where to begin. You see, if you just read that and don't know recent history, it would be reasonable for you to be outraged to hear that President Obama gave the Republicans more in cuts than even they originally wanted.

Except it's a bunch of horse manure, and I suspect Krugman knows it. This number comes from Boehner and House Republican leader's original offer in January, which blew up on its own, and conservatives in their own party took it down. Boehner folded like a cheap wallet, because he did not have enough votes in his own caucus to pass those cuts. What the Republicans ended up passing in the House, which by any honest measure should be considered their original offer in the negotiations, was $61 billion in cuts, or on an annualized basis, $100 billion in cuts, in line with their "Pledge to America."

So when you rise above the misinformation and look at the facts, here they are, plain and simple: Republicans wanted $61 billion in cuts, Democrats countered with about $30 billion in cuts, and the final number came down to $38 billion. Those are the facts, Dr. Krugman.

Apparently, Paul Krugman can also see into the future and knows the details of a deal not yet public. Taking the opportunity to slam Obama some more, Krugman rails on:
Did he have to praise Congress for enacting “the largest annual spending cut in our history,” as if shortsighted budget cuts in the face of high unemployment — cuts that will slow growth and increase unemployment — are actually a good idea?
You see, Krugman knows the cuts will slow growth and increase unemployment, and he knows this to trash the President whose policies have increased employment beyond expectations int he last few months. The largest share of these cuts, $18 out of the $38 billion, of course, is taken from Defense spending. Why does a liberal like Krugman love Defense spending? Or is it that when it comes to bashing Obama, all principles are off the table?

Yes, there will be other painful cuts, specifically $13 billion cut from the departments of Labor, Education and Health and Human Services, and a $1 billion across the board cut in domestic agencies. Once again, I would like to know Krugman's plan to legislatively maneuver a spending plan that will be completely to his liking. Let's also remember that the President fought for and saved funding for implementing health reform, and took out policy riders that would have cut off funding for family planning services and blocked EPA regulations of greenhouse gases. While $8 billion being cut from foreign aid is not something we would like to do under ideal circumstances, the maybe the economist Krugman - rather than the political commentator Krugman - can explain to us how cutting foreign aid increases domestic unemployment.

Since we're talking about President Obama here, Dr. Krugman, let me also chide you for completely taking the President's remarks out of context. The remarks Krugman quotes from were taken from the President's address after the deal was reached, which celebrated the government continuing to run (maybe Dr. Krugman can tell us who was supposed to fund his beloved services if the government were to have shut down), the Democratic priorities he fought for and saved, and yes, the compromise on the cuts. If Krugman had any political acumen in this piece, he would have mentioned that Obama has just politically positioned himself as the reasonable person who is willing to do true compromise including accepting some things he doesn't like, while Boehner, despite all his celebrations, is being pounded by the Tea Party types for what they consider to be insignificant cuts.

Krugman also claims that this deal wipes out all the benefits of the tax cut and stimulus deal in December. Really? So, umm, here's how he thinks things are going to go: people will see the deal and say, "Oh my goodness! Now I'm not going to spend the extra money I have in my paycheck because of the payroll tax reduction (or the money from my unemployment check) simply because of that damn deal!" See? No stimulus!

But it doesn't stop there. Krugman gets more insidious with his utterly falsified implication that Obama would either like or give into cutting Medicare and so on:
More broadly, Mr. Obama is conspicuously failing to mount any kind of challenge to the philosophy now dominating Washington discussion — a philosophy that says the poor must accept big cuts in Medicaid and food stamps; the middle class must accept big cuts in Medicare (actually a dismantling of the whole program); and corporations and the rich must accept big cuts in the taxes they have to pay. Shared sacrifice!
This is ludicrous. Democrats and President Obama have closed multiple tax loopholes for multinational corporations. Health care reform can be credited for saving Medicare, already delivering benefits to Medicare and Medicare beneficiaries like no-copay preventive care, and reducing the cost of Medicare Advantage insurance. It's pretty easy for Krugman to throw dirt from the cheap seats on the sidelines. But it's President Obama who has fought day in and day out to help the poor, keep unemployment benefits extended, saving Medicare, and extending SCHIP to 11 million poor kids in America. I suggest Krugman first do a tenth of what Obama has done to protect the nation's most vulnerable before he starts his war on Obama.

And suddenly, Krugman is concerned about the deficit, too, and how much it's added to by extending the tax cuts for the rich.
The nonpartisan Tax Policy Center puts the revenue loss from these tax cuts at $2.9 trillion over the next decade.
There are two problems right off the bat with this. First of all, no matter how much Krugman wants to claim it, the tax cuts have not been extended for the next decade. They have been extended for the next two years. Second, Krugman is all of a sudden conveniently concerned about the deficit, while he, for a very long time, has been claiming deficits don't matter. Hell, he's even claimed that deficits saved the world (his words, not mine). So why all of a sudden the crocodile tears about the deficit, Dr. Krugman? Not to mention this line was invented in complete contradiction with the rest of his latest bash piece, which focused on whining about cuts.

He ends with a bad strike:
But if you ask me, I’d say that the nation wants — and more important, the nation needs — a president who believes in something, and is willing to take a stand. And that’s not what we’re seeing.
Oh go to h-e-double hockey sticks. Believes in something? What is it you believe in, Paul Krugman, other than poutrage and spotlight? Barack Obama has told us his beliefs and his values, but he didn't have to. He showed us. He helped states from laying off millions of teachers, firefighters and police officers. He passed health care reform that presidents have been dreaming about for more than a half century. He passed the most significant regulatory reform of Wall Street since the Great Depression. He took on credit card companies, student loansharks, and instituted student loan reform. He almost single handedly rescued the American auto industry, and now GM is hiring back people it laid off. He did all this during a period of great crisis. In this very budget fight, he has protected family planning for women, environmental protection and health care reform implementation.

You want to know what he believes in? See what he has done for ordinary people in the midst of extraordinarily difficult and hostile (and the hostility came as much from your ilk as it did from the teabaggers, by the way) environment. How do we know what you believe in, Paul Krugman? What have you done for all these people except to spew your garbage in the pages of the Times?

Know one thing, Dr. Krugman. If you want to declare a pre-emptive war on President Obama, fine. But you're going to have to go through me first. And us. And there're a lot of us.

[Phlem]

172. ok then.

back to the actual war on the middle class. Is president Obama for it or against it?

not meant to be disrespectful, just curious.

-p

[motorcityliberal]

186. Krugman should stick to being an economist not a pundit

http://www.angryblacklady.com/2011/04/11/budget-cuts-theres-a-difference-between-quality-and-quantity/


As expected, left-leaning Beltway pundits are freaking the fuck out about yet another cave by Obama.

He compromised. He’s a shitty negotiator. He always gives the Republicans what they want. PRIMARY HIM!!!11one

Everyone rushed to judgment before the facts about the budget cuts were even released.

So how does it shake out now that the facts are rolling out? Pretty damn well, All Things Considered1:


A close look at the government shutdown-dodging agreement to cut federal spending by $38 billion reveals that lawmakers significantly eased the fiscal pain by pruning money left over from previous years, using accounting sleight of hand and going after programs President Barack Obama had targeted anyway.

Such moves permitted Obama to save favorite programs — Pell grants for poor college students, health research and “Race to the Top” aid for public schools, among others — from Republican knives.

The full details of Friday’s agreement weren’t being released until late Monday when it was officially submitted to the House. But the picture already emerging is of legislation financed with a lot of one-time savings and cuts that officially “score” as savings to pay for spending elsewhere, but that often have little to no actual impact on the deficit.

As a result of the legerdemain, Obama was able to reverse many of the cuts passed by House Republicans in February when the chamber passed a bill slashing this year’s budget by more than $60 billion. In doing so, the White House protected favorites like the Head Start early learning program, while maintaining the maximum Pell grant of $5,550 and funding for Obama’s “Race to the Top” initiative that provides grants to better-performing schools.

Obama also repelled Republican moves to cut $1 billion in grants for community health centers and $500 million from biomedical research at the National Institutes of Health, while blocking them from “zeroing out” the AmeriCorps national service program and subsidies for public broadcasting .

Instead, the cuts that actually will make it into law are far tamer, including cuts to earmarks, unspent census money, leftover federal construction funding, and $2.5 billion from the most recent renewal of highway programs that can’t be spent because of restrictions set by other legislation. Another $3.5 billion comes from unused spending authority from a program providing health care to children of lower-income families.



From The Reid Report:

The negotiators grab fully one-third of the cuts — $10 billion worth, by targeting earmarks lawmakers, particularly Republicans, had already agreed to forego.

Another $5 billion comes from capping a Justice Department crime victims’ fund – by claiming savings for the whole fund even though they’re only capping a portion of it.

What isn’t in the bill? Riders to block funding for Planned Parenthood, the EPA, money to implement healthcare reform and Wall Street regulation, and money the NRA wanted cut in order to kill a program that helps stop people from running guns to Mexican drug dealers by gathering info on batch weapons purchases. Seriously. They wanted that.

What else was cut?

How about high speed rail money President Obama didn’t even ask for?

…

Phantom earmarks whose sponsors have died.



So, not the crappiest of deals, contrary to what the pundits would have you believe. It’s actually a fairly decent deal for Democrats, given how powerful the Teabillies are in Congress. Sure, Republicans started at a base line of $32 billion in cuts. Sure the Democrats were all, “No.Effing.Way.” at the time. (Eleventy-three dimensional chess!) And sure folks who are junkies watched with bated breath on Friday as a government shutdown was averted and a stopgap was implemented. And sure, Boehner’s political theater made it seem like he was totally going to shut the fucker down because of the 3% of non-federal funding — yes NON-federal funding — used by Planned Parenthood for abortion.

But what was Obama’s response when Boehner wanted to cut Planned Parenthood funding?

Nope. Zero.

The Teabillies are pissed off about this budget deal:

The Tea Party is steamed over DC’s budget deal.

While President Obama, Senate majority Leader Harry Reid (D-Nev.) and House Speaker John Boehner (R-Ohio) hailed Friday night’s eleventh hour accord to avoid a government shutdown as “historic,” several Tea Party members did not feel the same way.

Tea Party darling Michele Bachmann (R-Minn.) called the $39-billion slashing deal a “disappointment.”

Millions of Americans expected $100 billion in cuts and “wanted to make sure their tax dollars stopped flowing to the nation’s largest abortion provider, and who wanted us to defund ObamaCare,” Bachmann said in a statement.

“Instead, we’ve been asked to settle for $39 billion in cuts, even as we continue to fund Planned Parenthood and the implementation of ObamaCare.’

Bachmann, who is considering running for President in 2012, voted against a temporary bill to keep the government running while the deal moves through Congress.

Sen. Rand Paul (R-Ky) echoed Bachmann’s sentiments.

The stopgap measure does “not set us on a path to fixing the spending and debt problems our country is facing. There is not much of a difference between a $1.5 trillion deficit and a $1.6 trillion deficit-both will lead us to a debt crisis that we may not recover from,” said Rand.

The $39 billion in cuts for the rest of the fiscal year was far more than Democrats originally wanted to concede, but not nearly enough to satisfy the appetite for budget-slashing among Tea-Party backed Republicans, who had called for axing $61 billion.

The deal spared Planned Parenthood and environmental regulation riders the GOP had been pushing for.

Reid had repeatedly blamed the Tea Party for the breakdown in budget negotiations, placing Boehner in a sticky situation to make a deal with the Democrats and satisfy those in his own ranks, including Tea Partiers.

The deal is still tentative, and Congress passed a one-week stopgap budget to put the bill in legislative form.

A CNN poll demonstrates that The People are not participating in the Great Beltway Freakout, so I really wish Ezra Klein, and Rachel Maddow, and Paul Krugman would simmer the hell down for a minute. (Here are the items on which Democrats “caved“: “a provision blocking already illegal taxpayer-funded abortions in the District of Columbia, and a Boehner pet request to fund vouchers for D.C. students to attend private schools. And they did allow $2.2 billion to be cut from an experimental program designed to encourage state cooperatives to come together to provide health insurance.”)

Look, it’s not about the deficit, to these Teabilly jackwads. It’s about abortion. I bet if Obama offered to back a constitutional amendment banning and criminalizing abortion in exchange for a deficit increase of one trillion dollars, these women-hating assholes would go for it.

Hopefully we can have a serious discussion about how it makes NO FUCKING SENSE to continue giving tax cuts to the rich while planning to privatize Medicare.

You want to talk about pulling the plug on grandma? That’s what Ryan’s plan would do no matter how “courageous” some members of the Washington Asshat Brigade think the plan is.

Oooooh! Giving more money to rich people! Now that’s some daring and bold stuff right there! Stop it before you give us all heart attacks! — which will promptly kill most of us because Bieber knows you don’t want your rich-ass cronies to pay their far share to help us… you know… not have heart attacks (through preventive care and whatnot).

A break. Give one to me.

UPDATE: This from commenter vcthree is information to be considered:

As for the vouchers; for all the people freaking out about that? It’s nice that you have concern over that issue, but having lived in the D.C. metro for decades and following the school shenanigans there? What people don’t understand is that vouchers have been an issue in that city forever, and they have overwhelming support and have for years. Never mind the experts from New York or California or Maryland; nearly 3 in 4 citizens in the District support vouchers. And given that one-time mayoral candidate and (former?) D.C. councilman Kevin Chavous has been haranguing the president for two years about this; that the administration threw JB that carrot isn’t shocking to me. D.C. likes the voucher program, and it was an easy concession to make.

[Jim_Shorts]

173. We desperately needed a strong leader, a fighter

We didn't get one. We got a middle of the roader, a conciliator, a moderator.

Wednesday Obama will spell out what he wants in the next budget. GUESS WHAT SS is going to be on the table. May as well tee that ball up for the repugs too. COME ON - anything but SS or medicare - those are our last safety net and its changing the rules in the middle of the game. I understand Obama is trying to negotiate with nut cases - but PLEASE don't sell us out.

[Corruption Winz]

174. Strategically, I think this could be Obama's downfall..

He's trying to represent everyone on the left, while making those on the right happy with his willingness to compromise. It won't work.

This will annoy his base and it will get those on the right to use this against him. They'll say he didn't stand for one side or the other and America needs someone that stands for something.

He better have something big planned for around or before the elections. Preferably before the elections.

[amborin]

175. K&R

[Jakes Progress]

176. Krugman is right about Obama wanting to be super transcender.

The only explanation for his performance and behavior is that he thinks he will be some super god that will be above all this. So what he feels he is above is dead soldiers, sick children, union sacrifice, and justice. Just so long as he gets to feel he is special.

We don't need super capitulator - we need a Democratic president.

[wundermaus]

177. no where man, indeed...

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=yRv34Cat3Vw

or maybe even...

the fool on the hill...

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=51IScrIuQVE

ah, well, just having a retro moment... it'll pass.

there, it's gone.

[uponit7771]

182. ******KRUGMAN OFFERS NO REAL POLITICAL ALTERNATIVES!!!!****** just another hit piece

Krugman, like many bashers and fudrs, will offer no retracting on his "predictions" when they come out to be false...................................just like last time.

[Roci]

188. He's not supposed to offer "political alternatives"

He did win a Nobel Prize in economics, which is more than I can say about anything you offer as criticism of what Krugman believes.

[xchrom]

183. Recommend

[Cattledog]

189. I truly believe Obama is delusional.

He still believes he can reason with the GOP.