…of poor judgment:
The judgment errors are many and serious. He misread his mandate, confused campaign rhetoric for persuasive communication, overexposed himself, refused to let go of his juvenile fixation on blaming George W. Bush for all the problems he faced, replaced bipartisanship with hyper-partisanship, and declined to take seriously early-warning signs sent by the voters in New Jersey and Virginia. The common thread through all of this: arrogance. “We won!” he pronounced early on and therefore never seemed to take seriously criticism or objections, whether from the other party, concerned Democrats, the media, or even polls. He simply plunged ahead, oblivious to the backlash that was building.
I predict that even if he loses today, he’ll continue to double down.
[Update a few minutes later]
Speaking of doubling down, Richard Fernandez has some depressing thoughts.
I predict that even if he loses today, he’ll continue to double down.
I hope so. If Coakley loses the Senate Dems go from representing 65% of U.S. voters to 64% of U.S. voters — they still have the largest Senate majority in decades. If they back off their agenda they’ll be falling for GOP/tea party psyops. The only thing they have to fear is fear itself.
Hey Rand, I see Jim decided to wade in and provide himself as a working example of your post title.
Obama is not without faults – not that anybody claimed he was perfect. But some of the charges made in the quoted article are ridiculous. “Hyperpartisanship?” Really? Who’s filibustering literally everything in the Senate?
No, Obama’s not perfect, and he needs to adjust his message, but his platform is still sound.
News flash: the Republicans can’t filibuster anything since the Democrats have 60 votes in the Senate. They can try to filibuster but can only succeed if at least one Democrat agrees with them.
In the meantime, we have Democrats locking Republicans out of conference chambers. How is that anything but hyperpartisan?
Obama came to office an empty suit, a man of little experience and even less accomplishment. One year later, he’s still an empty suit. Millions of us could plainly see that but it amazes me that so many people couldn’t see what was plainly evident before the election. Perhaps they were too blinded by their “Look how wonderful I am for voting for a black man to be president” narcissism.
Ah, that explains our current economic boom! But that filibustering — the Democratic Party has had a filibuster proof majority in the Senate since Obama was elected. It says something that you consider having the Presidency, 60 seats in the Senate, and 256 seats in the House of Represenatives is not enough to govern. What would be enough?
True-believin’ Jim rallying the troops: “Once more down the Road to Serfdom, my friends–once more!”
“No, Obama’s not perfect, and he needs to adjust his message, but his platform is still sound. . . .”
If you like having the State’s mailed fist up your butt and don’t care too much about individual liberty, of course.
The Republicans have 40 seats. This forces the Democrats to get 60 votes, as opposed to 51, which is what would normally be required. It also, due to the arcane rules of the Senate, requires a certain number of hours of debate. In short, it seriously hampers Obama’s ability to accomplish anything.
Although he has accomplished stuff, including a stimulus bill and actually getting this health care bill to a vote. It’s not bad for a first year.
Annoying Old Guy – I thought this economy tanked under Bush. (I seem to recall he was still president until last January.) I also seem to recall TARP was brought to you by Bush and his conservative Treasury Secretary. Much though you may want it not to be so, the current economic mess has Republican written all over it.
Bilwick1 – this “mailed fist” argument was made against Social Security and Medicare. Most people seem to like those programs. Either they like a mailed fist or the fist doesn’t exist. You decide 😉
This place could be a worker’s paradise if only the evil GOPteabaggers would GTFO.
What does Scott Brown stand for? This offers a clue:
The FNC/RNC machine will describe it as a crushing referendum on health insurance reform and Obama, period. The trouble with this analysis is that Scott Brown has actually supported a near carbon copy of the Obama plan on a state level, and his opposition to the Senate bill is primarily that Massachusetts already has universal health insurance, so what’s in it for his state?
Well, okay.
“.Bilwick1 – this “mailed fist” argument was made against Social Security and Medicare.” (Correctly, too.) “Either they like a mailed fist or the fist doesn’t exist. ” It’s true enough that the some people are willing to take the Grand Inquistor’s deal and trade liberty for bread. What’s your point?
What do you mean by “normally”? If we roll back to, say, 2007, is that when the Democratic Party would only needed to get 51 votes? You also avoided answering the question of how few seats the GOP should have to let the Democratic Party proceed “normally”. 30? 20? Banned entirely?
As for the economy, let’s remember that the Democratic Party took over Congress, both Houses, after the 2006 elections. That’s when the economy started tanking. But by your logic here, it was Bush’s fault because he was President, even though the opposition party controlled the entire Congress. Now, when Obama is President, it’s not his fault even when his party controls Congress? Is your view that as long as a single Republican is in Congress, it’s the GOP that’s responsible? If not, please let us know where that line is.
I would further note that even if we take the President as being responsible regardless of which party controls Congress, my claim was not about the tanking of the economy, but that failure to recover. Since TARP was such an obvious failure of the Bush regime, Obama and his Congress repealed it, right? Is their failure to do that also Bush’s fault? And the so-called “stimulus”? Is that Bush’s fault to? The focus on health care nationalization instead of economic recovery, Bush’s fault? The failure to “hit the ground running”, Bush’s fault? Perhaps if Obama is so helpless when starting with such a strong political position, he might not have been the best choice for President.
P.S. Could you cite, just for me, one specific element of Obama’s platform that is still sound? I must confess, I haven’t seen it yet, as he appears to have subcontracted the whole thing to Pelosi and Reid.
Comrade Gerrib,
Those “Arcane” rules you speak of with such bile insure that “all” people have a voice in legislation. As I recall we elected a president not a dictator (yet).
the Democratic Party has had a filibuster proof majority in the Senate since Obama was elected.
No, they didn’t get to 60 until Al Franken was seated on July 7, 2009, eight months after Obama was elected. And that 60 includes Ben Nelson, Mary Landrieu and Blanche Lincoln, not to mention Joe Lieberman, who is not a Democrat and often votes with the GOP.
In the meantime, we have Democrats locking Republicans out of conference chambers. How is that anything but hyperpartisan?
The Democrats would welcome GOP input from legislators with a non-zero chance of voting for the resulting bill, but no such people exist. To date GOP involvement in health care reform has only served as a delaying tactic.
It says something that you consider having the Presidency, 60 seats in the Senate, and 256 seats in the House of Represenatives is not enough to govern.
Specifically, it says something about how the filibuster has been abused to make 60 Senate votes a requirement for doing anything. Both parties deserve blame for this, and both parties should support abolishing the filibuster.
Megan McArdle scores a point with her comments on those supposed suicides at Gitmo. Well said, Megan.
http://meganmcardle.theatlantic.com/archives/2010/01/suicides_at_guantanamo.php
FIFY
On the Frenandez piece, the ironic thing about all this is that a Scott Brown win in Mass gives the Dems what they really need politically: an out. Right now they are saddled with an incredible stinker of a bill, the most corrupt, overreaching and incomprehensible oinker to have wriggled out of Congress in most Americans’ lifetime. This is their chance to hit the abort button on the whole ‘governing thing’ and return to what they’re really good at, the demagoguery that served them so well during Bush’s two terms.
But before I get too depressed about that I’m going to have to think about some old sayings. Can this crop of Dems fool enough of the people all of the time to get away with it again? And, if they do, who should bear the shame?
I’m thinking that people really are getting sick of the hyper-partisanship and are ready for some non-partisan change: less corruption, less government, lower deficits. Despite being painted by the left as far-right, that’s really all the Tea Parties were ever about. If there is a desire for change burning in the country, it’s of this kind, not the airy-fairy-hopey kind peddled by Obama in the last election. And Repubs beware: this fire will scorch pols of all stripes before it burns itself out.
It’s true enough that the some lots of people are willing to take the Grand Inquistor’s deal and trade liberty for bread.
It’s also true that if it becomes clear that the Grand Inquistor cannot deliver the bread the lots of people becomes very few. Since the Social Security and Medicare bread most assuredly cannot be delivered anymore I expect the popularity of that deal to fall off precipitously.
This is actually why the Democratic Health Care Plan is so utterly short-sighted and foolish. Our political system does not deal well with benefit cuts, which is what Social Security and Medicare require. But the Democratic Health Care Plan will place additional financial and political stress on Medicare, hastening the day when the bread cannot be delivered. So when the peasants riot, it won’t matter when Marie says, “Well, then give them the best bread!” There won’t be any bread, much less the best bread in the warehouses and somebody’s going to be storming the Bastille.
Yours,
Tom DeGisi
Correction:
It’s true enough that the some lots of people are willing to take the Grand Inquistor’s deal and trade liberty for bread.
Second correction, since preview does not always work with tags:
It’s true enough that lots of people are willing to take the Grand Inquistor’s deal and trade liberty for bread.
FIFY
Social Security is the largest ponzi scheme of all time.
The people getting far more $$ out then they put in think its great, people like me that have put in far more than I will ever get out think its horrible. In any case the whole thing is going to colapse soon…
http://www.investors.com/NewsAndAnalysis/Article.aspx?id=517577
Both SS and Medicare are bankrupt. What happens now? They are out of $$ and China seems unwilling to keep lending.
Surely there must be more Unobtanium our boy could plunder, no?
“boys” not “boy”
Racist!
No, they didn’t get to 60 until Al Franken was seated on July 7, 2009, eight months after Obama was elected. And that 60 includes Ben Nelson, Mary Landrieu and Blanche Lincoln, not to mention Joe Lieberman, who is not a Democrat and often votes with the GOP.
In other words, they didn’t really start their “bipartisan” health care “reform” legislation until they were sure they had a filibuster-proof supermajority in the Senate. That’s a great sign of “bipartisanship”.
Moving on, I disapprove of the term “hyperpartisan”. It’s yet another ugly word that doesn’t have a concrete meaning. Having said that, I simply cannot understand the posturing of people like Jim who claim the health care bills aren’t partisan when 1) Democrat allies get special benefits (labor unions, ambulance chasers), 2) no attempt has been made to engage the Republicans, and 3) the Democrats had to work hard (and pay massive bribes) merely to get enough of their own party’s votes to pass this legislation.
If they back off their agenda they’ll be falling for GOP/tea party psyops.
Golly! Tea party psyops!? Run in fear!!!!
Finally, I have to say, it does look like Obama will double down again. If he does continue to pursue that losing strategy, then in November that should end Democrat domination of Congress for a while.
Speaking of the Grand Inquisitor, here’s some interesting news from the American Spectator that should make Jim and Chris happy:
http://spectator.org/archives/2009/07/01/exclusive-grand-inquisitor-end
“Both SS and Medicare are bankrupt. What happens now?” That raises a question the libertarian writer Joseph Sobran posed to “liberals:’ can you tell us at what point you’ll stop? That is, stop taking our money and expanding the power of the State? Sobran claimed he never could find any “liberal” who could even guesstimate at that. They can’t even say something like, “OK, once the average American is paying X percentage of his income to the federales, that’s enough;” or “Once the State is consuming Y percentage of the GNP, then it would be time to stop.” If Il Dufe gets his healthcare (that is, Statecare) program, what next? I’d like Jim and Chris to take a crack at the Sobran Qyestion: when the heck do you guys finally take your hands out of our pockets and the guns away from our heads?
1) Democrat allies get special benefits (labor unions, ambulance chasers),
Pharma and insurance companies get benefits too, and no one would mistake them for Democratic party allies. Basically, anyone with the power to stop reform got something in exchange for not stopping it. Ugly, but that’s politics.
no attempt has been made to engage the Republicans
Are you kidding?!? Max Baucus held up health reform for six months trying to get GOP support in his committee — he ended up with a single vote in committee, and no votes on the floor.
the Democrats had to work hard (and pay massive bribes) merely to get enough of their own party’s votes to pass this legislation
The Senators who voted for health care reform represent 65% of the voters. By any reasonable measure, that’s landslide support. The only thing that made it close was filibuster abuse.
Bikwick1 – their are problems government cannot or should not solve. I’ve listed several. Government can’t repeal the business cycle, nor can it provide unlimited handouts to those who won’t work. But it can provide for health care for those who can’t pay for it, and prevent people from starving in the streets.
Taxes can be too high (I voted for Reagan, after all) and regulation too onerous. But trying to fund two wars on a tax cut is ludicrous, and no regulation turned an asset bubble into a financial meltdown.
Understanding this is the definition of “political moderate.” I am a moderate, and am not holding a gun to you or anybody.
I’d like Jim and Chris to take a crack at the Sobran Qyestion: when the heck do you guys finally take your hands out of our pockets and the guns away from our heads?
I predict crickets or an attempt to declare the question illegitimate. The progressive playbook always trys to control what arguments may be made and how they are phrased.
I can answer it though. The answer is “it depends”.
Most progressives and most moderates, and most conservatives (including me) agree that a military draft is allowable when the nation is under existential threat. A military draft requires people to go and die. So the answer is 100% of everything when the nation is under existential threat. Even some libertarians would require everyone to be a member of the militia (the Swiss model), and therefore be required to die if the nation is invaded.
We all know that the bright line has traditionally been set at 100% by all the major political parties. This hampers any plan to set that number at less than 100%.
Yours,
Tom DeGisi
” But it can provide for health care for those who can’t pay for it, and prevent people from starving in the streets. ”
No, government can’t actually do any of that. It can only force the taxpayer to do so. So getting back to my question: when do you stop?
Tom DeGisi writes (at first quoting me) : “‘ I’’d like Jim and Chris to take a crack at the Sobran Qyestion: when the heck do you guys finally take your hands out of our pockets and the guns away from our heads?’
“I predict crickets or an attempt to declare the question illegitimate. The progressive playbook always trys to control what arguments may be made and how they are phrased.”
Indeed. Crickets, or the squeaking sound of weasels. See Chris’ response to the Sobran question. When in doubt, fall back on the specter of starving masses in the street. It’s like Chris went to Grand Inquisitor school and memorized the catechism.
I am a moderate, and am not holding a gun to you or anybody.
Yes you are. You are. You are. You are. If I say it three times you know it is true. You are holding the Social Security and Medicare gun to my head. I don’t want either program. I want to manage my own retirement and medical care. I think I’m more competent to do so than any number of moderates, progressives or conservatives.
Yours,
Tom DeGisi
One additional note: if Chris is a moderate statist, as he says, then that implies that he would stop short of total socialism. So he should have some kind of line drawn in his head at which point the statism stops. So where is that line, Chris?
(Cue the crickets. Weasels, stand by.)
I’m a conservative, which means I am also a moderate statist, Bilwick1, since I do believe a state is necessary. I have never tried to draw that line. Lines are hard to draw. I also have a hard time drawing other lines, like the ‘reset button’ line.
Since you ask, though, I’d set it at 50%, which is pretty much where it is right now for most people. So sorry, Chris, no tax increases. I’d like it to be 25%, but I think that would take at least 80 years to achieve.
And if we start rounding up Jews, I’m for a reset. But gee, we ought to start sooner than that!
Yours,
Tom
50% of income, that is.
and no regulation turned an asset bubble into a financial meltdown.
Chris, government doesn’t just screw up by regulation (which was contrary to your assertion a big contributor, this has already been discussed before). It also screws up through monetary policy and government-backed insurance.
Are you kidding?!? Max Baucus held up health reform for six months trying to get GOP support in his committee — he ended up with a single vote in committee, and no votes on the floor.
Right. I count three Democrats on that committee, Nelson – FL, Rockerfeller – WV, and Lincoln – AR, who would have needed that political cover. Maybe Conrad – ND too. That means probably 9 or 10 supporters out of a group of 23. And those compromises did get Snowe’s vote after a while, but I see nothing to indicate that the committee even tried beyond that.
Personally, I think this is another example of the incompetence of the current Democrat leadership in Congress. Trying for six months to pick up Democrat votes that you should have had in the first place plus a token Republican vote, then attempting to spin it as some sort of bipartisan accord is silly. Personally, Jim, I’m a bit surprised that you fall for stuff this transparent.
“and no regulation turned an asset bubble into a financial meltdown.” Yes, the fabled “Golden Age of laissez-faire economics that was the Clinton-Bush Era.. Wait, no, not “fabled,” exactly. What’s the word? Ah, yes: “mythical.”
The government is 99% responsible for the bubble.
Barny Frank etal wanted Fanny and Freddie to “encourage” more minority homeownership so they forced Fanny and Freddie to
put forth loan standards that no sane banker would ever underwrite.
Since it was all insured by the full faith etc.. of the federal government a huge army of loan brokers started writing stated income loans that fanny and freddie would buy. No private banker would write such loans. When the people who were lured into buying more home than they could possibly afford predictably failed to meet their mortgage obligations the system collapsed. Now the Feds are meddeling in contract law and the foreclosure system prolonging the pain as the toxic assets can’t be cleared out. The sad part is that the groups most impacted by this collapse are the low income neighborhoods that Barny origionally wanted to help.
Note that some banks like Wells Fargo wrote no subprime loans and are doing ok.
Bilwick1 – for Pete’s sake, get a grip. Socialism is government ownership of the “means of production” (AKA “whatever’s currently private business.”) That’s unacceptable. We also have constitutional rights which are not to be violated. We’re nowhere near socialism. The proposed health care reforms practically enshrine private insurance.
Regarding the “grand inquisitor” remark – governments can’t provide for the national defense. All they can do is make the taxpayers pay and serve. That’s how any government works.
Tom DeGisi – I am no more holding a gun to your head with social security and medicare than with requiring you to attend jury duty. All governments have an element of coercion. All just governments end up with allowing the majority to rule. You don’t like a program – persuade a majority to cancel it.
Paul Breed – I’m always reluctant to comment on work-related matters, but your analysis is exactly backward. Mortgage companies, who don’t really care if the loan gets paid off (they sell it, but not usually to Fanny and Freddie) were writing 75% of subprime loans. (They are also not in any way controlled by CRA regulations, so don’t bother to go there).
At any rate, nobody, bankers or brokers, is guaranteed a dime from Fannie or Freddie. These entities buy the loans, taking them off the lender’s books, and allowing the lender to write more loans. That’s why, when private interests were willing to buy riskier mortgages, Fannie and Freddie’s business fell off.
Seeing the great returns private investors were making buying the subprime mortgage-backed junk, and being squeezed by a lack of compliant (AKA “regular”) mortgage loans to buy, Fannie and Freddie asked for permission to pick up some subprime mortgages.
Thus, a housing bubble became a financial crisis.
Chris,
Who wrote the stated income loan rules?
Have you seen the you tube video of Barny Frank arguing that Fanny and Freddie were risk free investments when the republicans questioned the lending practices?
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=_MGT_cSi7Rs
Also the non government entities that bought Junk should be allowed to suffer the consequences of their errors, not be made well by the government.
Paul Breed – the rules for a loan, stated income or otherwise, are written by the lender.
That raises a question the libertarian writer Joseph Sobran posed to “liberals:’ can you tell us at what point you’ll stop? That is, stop taking our money and expanding the power of the State?
I don’t think there will ever be a point when I think “that’s it, it will never make sense to increase the power of the state again.” But there are ways in which I would decrease the power of the state today, and I expect that to be true in the future too. It’s a balance that should be examined and adjusted constantly.
The government is 99% responsible for the bubble.
Paul: note that we also had a bubble in commercial real estate. Fannie/Freddie had nothing to do with commercial real estate.
The bubble was standard economics: there was a ton of investment capital looking for a safe place to go, Wall Street turned even risky loans into supposedly safe investment vehicles, which in turn created a huge demand for risky loans. Once Wall Street made their fatal miscalculations of the downside risks of those loans, the fuse was lit: everyone else (investors, lenders, and borrowers) just followed their immediate self-interest. No government prodding was necessary.
I see nothing to indicate that the committee even tried beyond that.
They negotiated for six months! Baucus only gave up when he concluded that Snowe was the only one negotiating in good faith — the rest were just trying to delay the effort until it could be killed.
Trying for six months to pick up Democrat votes that you should have had in the first place plus a token Republican vote, then attempting to spin it as some sort of bipartisan accord is silly.
No one is spinning it as a bipartisan accord — it’s a Democratic bill. But there was a serious (and in hindsight inadvisable) effort to craft a bipartisan bill.
Horse manure. Are you drunk? If they don’t follow them the controlling entity (FRB, FDIC, OCC or OTS) can and will levy fines or shut them down. Try reviewing the actual regs.
No government prodding was necessary.
Of course, there was plenty of government prodding. It didn’t make the bubble, it just made the bubble a lot worse.
Didn’t Fannie and Freddie write the standards for conforming loans?
IE the terms may be set by the specific bank, but if they meet conforming standards they can sell them to Fannie and Freddie.
At the end of 2008 Fannie and Freddie owned 1/2 the entire us outstanding mortgage debt. Given just this one fact how can you say they did not cause the collapse by providing a market for bad loans?
See:
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Government_policies_and_the_subprime_mortgage_crisis
Note the claims are with references….
See also
http://online.wsj.com/article/SB122298982558700341.html