tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-1230105326154789140.post1911104990282672285..comments2023-05-07T08:05:24.118-05:00Comments on Your Analytic Analeptic: David Brooks: the voice of sanityΦhttp://www.blogger.com/profile/03793923196182331129noreply@blogger.comBlogger4125tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-1230105326154789140.post-33721689987506492042011-07-10T12:44:07.139-05:002011-07-10T12:44:07.139-05:00You're obviously more even-handed in your asse...You're obviously more even-handed in your assessment of Obama than a lot of conservative bloggers out there. <br /><br />I would argue that Obama hasn't governed enough since the inauguration. One reason I voted for him was his commitment to the idea that people could disagree without being disagreeable. But perhaps he thinks that that idea commits him to a kind of hyper-bipartisanship. For example, if memory serves, he unilaterally decided to freeze pay for government workers (something Republicans would have ordinarily endorsed) without bargaining for anything in return. And he seems to think that everything is potentially on the table, which is just to say that he too quickly abandons progressive goals and principles, i.e., he gives in too quickly and too easily to the extremists that David Brooks is complaining about. This makes him seem weak as a leader and, I would argue, less effective as a governor. Bringing an end to the Bush tax cuts on income over $250,000 was the right thing to do, and he should have pushed harder for it. Everything does seem to be going to crap, but I would argue that it's going to crap because Obama and the Democrats have conceded too much and haven't been progressive enough. You and I would disagree about that, I'm sure. <br /><br />And you're right about the numbers (i.e., the jobs report that just came out). They're going in the wrong direction now, and that really has me irked. <br /><br />On the other hand, I would need to see an argument that a president can't both campaign and govern. It's in the interest of someone who is campaigning to govern effectively, right? But that is an interesting and possibly telling stat you mention. And the source (CBS News) is reliable (though, interestingly, I'm having trouble finding the story at CBS News's website). Still, if a president can both campaign and govern, then one wonders what's wrong with outpacing Bush. When Republicans were raising more money than Democrats, I didn't complain that Republicans had an unfair advantage; my complaint was that Democrats weren't working hard enough to raise money. Granted, there is way too much money in politics, but we can't expect either party to unilaterally decide to raise less money out of principle, given the current law.Φhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/03793923196182331129noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-1230105326154789140.post-58374481722614046852011-07-09T13:10:10.161-05:002011-07-09T13:10:10.161-05:00I agree with everything in paragraph two and three...I agree with everything in paragraph two and three. :) <br /><br />FWIW, I think the military stuff like the repeal of DADT, the recent decision the WH administration made to express condolences to families of servicemembers who took their own lives and the decisions to continue on what most of what Bush started, etc, are all notably good accomplishments on Obama's part. But, his first term is pretty darn well near over (it seems he's done governing and has moved on to campaigning. https://twitter.com/#!/LesliHannah/status/83065642533662720 )and everything else has gone to crap; the numbers, none of them, cannot and do not lie.Juniperhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/17417147046724209351noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-1230105326154789140.post-49744290604673337872011-07-07T22:09:47.070-05:002011-07-07T22:09:47.070-05:00We might have to agree to disagree about Obama, Le...We might have to agree to disagree about Obama, Lesli. His first term isn't yet over, so it's difficult to say what history will say about his presidency. And while my displeasure with Obama has been gradually increasing since he took office, I think that many who judge him negatively do so unfairly and ignore his considerable accomplishments so far. (Of course, some of them judge him negatively because of his accomplishments.) I will admit this: I doubt that he will go down in history as a great president.<br /><br />As for the Republican Party, they either need to find more moderate candidates or find a way to make the views of their more conservative members mainstream. They've made progress on the latter. It's unfortunate that relatively moderate candidates like Pawlenty, Romney, and Huntsman apparently believe that they have to sell their souls (like I believe McCain did) to get the nomination, because I think they have a much better chance of beating Obama than people like Bachmann and Gingrich and Palin. <br /><br />I also believe that, all else being equal, more moderate candidates are better at governing than more extreme candidates. Since the Republican Party has been moving even further to the right recently, it is therefore more difficult to recruit high-quality Republicans to run for elected office. So I agree with you about the politicians seeking the Republican nomination for president. <br /><br />Thanks for the comment!Φhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/03793923196182331129noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-1230105326154789140.post-921216662580273412011-07-07T19:05:22.444-05:002011-07-07T19:05:22.444-05:00Great article. Can't believe that even with an...Great article. Can't believe that even with an awful (please admit: history will reveal he is just really, really bad) President like Obama and everything else that's happened over the past two years, the best Republicans can do is Palin, Perry and stuff like this. And yet, I'm not surprised. Blech.Juniperhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/17417147046724209351noreply@blogger.com