Obama faces recriminations from NYTimes lefty OpEds

[Chomsky]

It's knives out now. Krugman:

But the bitter irony goes deeper than that: the main reason Mr. Obama finds himself in this situation is that two years ago he was not, in fact, prepared to deal with the world as he was going to find it. And it seems as if he still isn’t.

...

But none of this will matter unless the president can find it within himself to use his power, to actually take a stand. And the signs aren’t good.

http://www.nytimes.com/2010/11/15/op...rugman.html?hp

And Frank Rich:

On last Sunday’s “60 Minutes,” Obama was already wobbling toward another “compromise” in which he does most of the compromising. It’s a measure of how far he’s off his game now that a leader who once had the audacity to speak at length on the red-hot subject of race doesn’t even make the most forceful case for his own long-held position on an issue where most Americans still agree with him.

...

Two years ago, Obama campaigned on this issue far more strenuously than he did on, say, reforming health care. Now he and what remains of his Congressional caucus are poised to retreat from even this clear-cut battle. You know things are grim when you start wishing that the president might summon his inner Linda McMahon.

http://www.nytimes.com/2010/11/14/op...rssnyt&emc=rss

Both miss the point entirely. Obama and the Democrats aren't wimps who need to grow some balls, they are totally owned placeholders for the oligarchy.

[Dave Stratman]

Re: Obama faces recriminations from NYTimes lefty OpEds

"Both miss the point entirely. Obama and the Democrats aren't wimps who need to grow some balls, they are totally owned placeholders for the oligarchy."

Well said.

[cjppjc]

Re: Obama faces recriminations from NYTimes lefty OpEds

It's knives out now. Krugman:




And Frank Rich:





Both miss the point entirely. Obama and the Democrats aren't wimps who need to grow some balls, they are totally owned placeholders for the oligarchy.

There is a certain lack of balls too. They just don't enjoy the fight as much as the other side.

[ThePythonicCow]

Re: Obama faces recriminations from NYTimes lefty OpEds

Both miss the point entirely. Obama and the Democrats aren't wimps who need to grow some balls, they are totally owned placeholders for the oligarchy.

Yes - well said.

[flintlock]

Re: Obama faces recriminations from NYTimes lefty OpEds

Ditto. That is our system now.

[we_are_toast]

Re: Obama faces recriminations from NYTimes lefty OpEds

Both miss the point entirely. Obama and the Democrats aren't wimps who need to grow some balls, they are totally owned placeholders for the oligarchy.

Sorry Chomsky, but your dead wrong on this and Krugman and Rich are correct.
Someone from another site put it this way, which I thought pretty much nailed it.

...
The President's learned his approach to leadership back in his law school days, and refined it no doubt while he taught constitutional law at University of Chicago Law School: his leadership style is based on the Socratic Method. Those of you who went to law school know what I'm talking about. The law professor asks the questions. Students do their best to answer. There is a battle of ideas. The truth emerges. "A" students thrive on it. It's a great tool for teaching and sharpening the student's analytical skills. Unfortunately, as William Greider's excellent piece in the Nation observes, it's been lousy for governing....

The President's learned his approach to leadership back in his law school days, and refined it no doubt while he taught constitutional law at University of Chicago Law School: his leadership style is based on the Socratic Method. Those of you who went to law school know what I'm talking about. The law professor asks the questions. Students do their best to answer. There is a battle of ideas. The truth emerges. "A" students thrive on it. It's a great tool for teaching and sharpening the student's analytical skills. Unfortunately, as William Greider's excellent piece in the Nation observes, it's been lousy for governing.

The conspiracy theory that ALL politicians are simply bought and paid for by the Oligarchs is more than a bit far fetched. If this were true, there would be no legislative battles, there would be no record number of filibusters during the last congress, and there would be no massive, hidden contributions by hedge fund managers to a group of candidates.

iTulip has more than it's fair share of conspiracy theories, but this one should be left off the list, at least for the time being.

[vinoveri]

Re: Obama faces recriminations from NYTimes lefty OpEds

The law professor asks the questions. Students do their best to answer. There is a battle of ideas. The truth emerges. "A" students thrive on it

.

Ha ha ha ha ha ha ha ha ha ha ha ha ha .... sorry but the idea of law school training being a battle of ideas where the truth emerges is so patently not true as to be hilarious. Good lawyers are trained to spot issues, argue any counterpoint, and advocate for a position (any position).

Law, as practiced today, is not about ideas and certainly not about the truth.

[BigBagel]

Re: Obama faces recriminations from NYTimes lefty OpEds

Sorry Chomsky, but your dead wrong on this and Krugman and Rich are correct.
Someone from another site put it this way, which I thought pretty much nailed it.



The conspiracy theory that ALL politicians are simply bought and paid for by the Oligarchs is more than a bit far fetched. If this were true, there would be no legislative battles, there would be no record number of filibusters during the last congress, and there would be no massive, hidden contributions by hedge fund managers to a group of candidates.

iTulip has more than it's fair share of conspiracy theories, but this one should be left off the list, at least for the time being.

I think it's foolish to believe that there is an oligarchical Illuminiti pulling every string in government. The world is much more complicated then that. At the same time I think it's also foolish not to believe that financial and other corporate elites have had significant success in regulatory and legislative capture.

[Chomsky]

Re: Obama faces recriminations from NYTimes lefty OpEds

Sorry Chomsky, but your dead wrong on this and Krugman and Rich are correct.
Someone from another site put it this way, which I thought pretty much nailed it.



The conspiracy theory that ALL politicians are simply bought and paid for by the Oligarchs is more than a bit far fetched. If this were true, there would be no legislative battles, there would be no record number of filibusters during the last congress, and there would be no massive, hidden contributions by hedge fund managers to a group of candidates.

iTulip has more than it's fair share of conspiracy theories, but this one should be left off the list, at least for the time being.

Disagree. There are real differences among the two parties, but with respect to the financial elite there are little or none.

Obama has a situation before him where he cannot lose. Can. not. lose. The public supports expiration of the Bush tax cuts. The Dems in Congress can just do nothing and let them expire. And Obama can veto any GOP attempt to extend them with impunity, if he'd just care to argue for that position, and get a big political win. And yet he has already strongly hinted that he will support an extension of the tax cuts.

You give me a better explanation.

[ThePythonicCow]

Re: Obama faces recriminations from NYTimes lefty OpEds

The conspiracy theory that ALL politicians are simply bought and paid for by the Oligarchs is more than a bit far fetched. If this were true, there would be no legislative battles, there would be no record number of filibusters during the last congress, and there would be no massive, hidden contributions by hedge fund managers to a group of candidates.

iTulip has more than it's fair share of conspiracy theories, but this one should be left off the list, at least for the time being.

That's not a persuasive reason that there can't be a controlling oligarchy, in my view.

Could it not be that the controlling oligarchs use a variant of the Socratic method you describe on the populace at large? Get the peons fighting amongst themselves over a lot of stuff that doesn't matter much, while the big ticket items happen either way? I think the variant I have in mind is called Hegelian dialectic.

A dictator might act as you describe, suppressing dissent. But there are other forms of tyranny, more subtle.

Damon Vrabel has a better understanding than most of how this works at present, using debt-issued money as the primary control mechanism.

[Serge_Tomiko]

Re: Obama faces recriminations from NYTimes lefty OpEds

Ha ha ha ha ha ha ha ha ha ha ha ha ha .... sorry but the idea of law school training being a battle of ideas where the truth emerges is so patently not true as to be hilarious. Good lawyers are trained to spot issues, argue any counterpoint, and advocate for a position (any position).

Law, as practiced today, is not about ideas and certainly not about the truth.

I think Nietzsche would agree with you. Socrates gives his adherents the illusion of truth. It never really was about the truth, which when it comes to human life is often far outside the purview of the word games of which Socrates, Pharisees, and Lawyers are famous.

[goodrich4bk]

Re: Obama faces recriminations from NYTimes lefty OpEds

Both miss the point entirely. Obama and the Democrats aren't wimps who need to grow some balls, they are totally owned placeholders for the oligarchy.[/QUOTE]

Of course they do. Nobody who challenges the financial oligarchy would keep his job for long, whether at the Times or any other MSM. So they suggest that it's a personal failure of the man, not an indictment of the entire system. Really, if you start putting into words that Obama must placate the top 2% because the oligarchs will fund a challenger in 2012 you will immediately be labeled a conspiracy theorist and disappear. Just look what happened to Paul Craig Roberts when he had the termerity to challenge globalism.

[goodrich4bk]

Re: Obama faces recriminations from NYTimes lefty OpEds

Very well said. I've been watching the pundits all day scratch their heads, wondering why Obama is negotiating with himself. Not a single one suggested that raising taxes on the top 2% is political suicide. In fact, they kept saying just the opposite: "It's a no-brainer!".

You don't get to be President without understanding exactly where all the real landmines are in American politics. And for those who rebel against theories of mysterious oligarchs meeting in secret, that is not what you or anybody else I know is saying. It's a conspiracy of interests, nothing more, but also nothing less. It can be very powerful and invisible at the same time. Indeed, it would lose most of its power if anybody ever gave it a name and face.

[jiimbergin]

Re: Obama faces recriminations from NYTimes lefty OpEds

Disagree. There are real differences among the two parties, but with respect to the financial elite there are little or none.

Obama has a situation before him where he cannot lose. Can. not. lose. The public supports expiration of the Bush tax cuts. The Dems in Congress can just do nothing and let them expire. And Obama can veto any GOP attempt to extend them with impunity, if he'd just care to argue for that position, and get a big political win. And yet he has already strongly hinted that he will support an extension of the tax cuts.

You give me a better explanation.

Not sure where you get your info. According to Rasmussen 51% of voters want the Bush tax cuts to continue, even for the wealthly.
http://www.rasmussenreports.com/publ...or_the_wealthy

[Chomsky]

Re: Obama faces recriminations from NYTimes lefty OpEds

Not sure where you get your info. According to Rasmussen 51% of voters want the Bush tax cuts to continue, even for the wealthly.
http://www.rasmussenreports.com/publ...or_the_wealthy

From here:

http://www.cnn.com/ELECTION/2010/res...s/#val=USH00p3

Bush-Era Tax Cuts Should Be Continued For...
Total
Democrat
Republican
Other/No Answer

All Americans (40%)	14%	84%	2%
Families Under $250,000 (36%)	64%	32%	4%
No One (15%)	75%	22%	3%

Also, Rasmussen polls have recently been known to have a marked conservative bias:

http://fivethirtyeight.blogs.nytimes...rmed-strongly/