I missed or, rather, didn’t see the president’s news conference today. But Rich Lowry did:
Only someone who desperately hates the position he’s in now, having to try to accommodate political realities in a center-right country and kiss his former messiahship goodbye, would show such peevishness. We got a good look behind the curtain for a moment this afternoon, and it wasn’t pretty.
I’m guessing we’re going to see a lot more of that in the next two years. And it won’t bode well for his reanointment.
[Update a couple minutes later]
“If this deal gave people the belief that Obama might grow in office, the press conference probably deep-sixed that.
[Update a few minutes later]
Remember all that nonsense from the David Brookses and Chris Buckleys of the world in 2008 about his “first-class temperament”? It’s hard to take anything they tell us seriously, at this point.
Cue the people who don’t read the article and don’t understand sarcasm shooting back strawmen about how “you were complaining about him being too reliant on a teleprompter before, and now you want him to have one?”
In 3, 2, ……
Having read but not seen the press brief, Obama didn’t seem terribly peevish to me. His remarks towards the end of “playing a long game” suggest that any movement towards the “center-right” (more like “far-right” – Obama’s tax position polls extremely well) won’t be that far.
I also note that, when the vote on extending the debt limit was discussed, Obama put the onus of getting it passed on John Boehner.
This tax compromise isn’t a move to the right – it’s clearing the battlefield of non-combatants.
“Having read but not seen the press brief, Obama didn’t seem terribly peevish to me.”
Well, see it then. Calling liberals petulant? Resurrecting the debate in liberal circles on the Public Option? Using an analogy of the Republicans as hostage takers? And on top of that, the irritated tone of voice and body language. That look on his face?
I have “been there”, and I have been slammed on teaching ratings for taking that tone. But this man is not just someone teaching Circuits, he is the Leader of the Free World. A person has to control one’s emotions, or perhaps harness those emotions to be an effective leader at that level. I know I can’t do it, but then I am not President.
Jumped the shark level of petulant, I tell you.
Using an analogy of the Republicans as hostage takers? Except they are hostage-takers. They publicly and repeatedly said no vote on anything unless they got everything they wanted in tax cuts. Assuming this actually passes (I hear Bachman and Bernie Sanders are both pissed), the hostages (your taxes and mine) will be out of the way.
And as usual, Chris completely misses the point in his pathetic attempt to defend the false messiah.
Could anyone post a convenient link to the video here? To show my appreciation, I promise not to fill this thread with pathetic attempts to defend my false messiah (blessed be The One).
Hot Air
There are two slices of video after the commentary Bob. I don’t know that they cover the whole presser.
I very rarely listen to politicians, since they are pretty much all, by definition, lying through their teeth. (The reality is more than conveyed by their positions, votes, et cetera, and the only purpose of speech, it seems to me, is to try a little Wizard of Oz Pay No Attention To The Man Behind The Curtain bedazzlement and distraction from the actions.)
But I listened to about 20 minutes of this one, as it happened to be on the radio. I was struck by two things: the first is, I agree he sounded strangely argumentative and petty. I mean, geez, he goes on about “some” caring only about “politics,” and yet here he is addressing a big issue in one of his rare pressers, and all he can think of doing is outlining his political argument for how he’s going to beat the pants of the Republicans in 2012. A small man.
The other thing that was astonishing — I know, not to his regular watchers, but to me — was how very often he spoke in the first person. “I passed this legislation.” Boy, all those poor Democrats who committed political suicide by providing Pelosi with crucial votes are probably grinding their teeth in rage at that.
And it is so strange to hear from a politician. Good one’s are so used to saying “we” did this and “we” did that — dontcha know, we’re all part of the same team! — that it jars the ear. Even if it’s fake humility for some (or most) politicians, it’s striking to hear Obama abandon even the pretence of humility. The guy sounds like a first-class narcissist.
Anyway, I’m glad to see the Republicans bent the Democrats over and rammed the message of this November home. Tax cuts extended, sweet! A nice 2% cut in the FICA tax, too, for a cherry on top. AMT fixed, check. Estate tax fixed, although I hope I won’t be needing that. I particularly like that the 2% FICA tax cut replaced Obama’s “refundable tax credit” a.k.a. wealth-transfer welfare, since you can’t get the benefit of the new break unless you actually, you know, earn wages, and it isn’t cut off at $75K or whatever. Boy that must have really felt like a mouthful of sawdust going down when Barry had to swallow it, tee hee.
I had to laugh at Obama’s line that finding “$700 billion” in budget cuts to “pay for” tax cuts for those making over $250,000 would necessitate “painful” cuts to seniors, children, and the military. Except that’s over 10 years, that number. Does anyone seriously believe whacking $70 billion out of a $3,651 billion annual budget — that’s a whopping 1.9% folks! — would require “painful” cuts? Old folks eating dog food? Troops with no bullets? This guy is either phoning it in, not serious, or he thinks his listeners are enormously stupid.
But this is really the horrific bottom line. Look at that awful graph. Federal spending has grown in inflation-adjusted 2010 dollars by 60% since 2001. That’s insane. To be sure, revenue has taken a hit during the downturn, but the amount of wealth funneled through (and hence manipulated by) the government is obscene and violently destructive, and it has absolutely exploded under these fools. I want them thrown out on the street to starve.
I find it hard to believe that anyone has ever taken Our Miss Brooks and Little Lord Buckley seriously on any subject, but that’s just me.
Every once in a while I read a comment from Chris and think, gee, I guess I am pretty much reading wing-nut Web sites, and maybe people like Chris are here to remind me that I am getting my opinion and commentary from an echo chamber and need to broaden my horizons.
Then I read a comment over at Hot Air (yeah, another wing-nut Web site) (I will paraphrase what Indy82 posted at 4:30 PM): “The key to triangulation as President is 1) You, the President came up with the compromise, 2) You the President got the better end of the deal, and 3) You the President understand, respect, and COMPASSIONATELY (emphasis that of Indy82 — Indy82 is channeling the master of triangulation Bill Clinton) care about the concerns of the opposition.”
Indy goes own to comment about how Mr. Obama is doing anything but the above and summarizes with “YOU CANNOT TRIANGULATE THIS WAY!”
Yeah, maybe I am getting my news from the wing-nut echo chamber, but every long once in a while, a wing-nut has an insight that transcends partisanship. The above is such a time.
Jim Treacher just pointed out that Obama probably got his “hostage-takers” shtick from HuffPo. All those advisers, 32 friggin’ czars, and he still needs HuffPo as a mouthpiece. We’re in the verrrrr….oh nevermind were so f8cked.
Paul, this link is for you:
http://scienceblogs.com/mikethemadbiologist/2010/12/overanalyzing_obamas_pysche_he.php
I’m not advocating that blog or its author’s argument — I’m just providing it as an example of the other side. For anyone else who doesn’t want to link, here’s the conclusion:
“Obama is, at heart, a Republican, albeit a moderate one. Democrats, including elected ones, need to recognize that a Republican, not a Democrat, is in the White House. They must realize that, vis a vis the presidency, they are an opposition party and act accordingly.”
(AL, thanks!)
Obama is a clandestine Republican! I knew it! When he tossed out “We won” as a debate-stopper in discussions with argumentive Senate Republicans, that was code for “I’m on YOUR side, guys”. Genius!
Well, Bob, given the course of events for the last two years, winding up in the election results last month, it would be difficult to argue that Barry Dunham is not a clandestine Republican. He has, after all, single-handedly discredited liberalism and the Democrat party for at least half a generation.
Paul Milenkovic on December 7th, 2010 at 2:47 pm
I agree. His tone, misstating facts, blaming others is unbelievable for a national broadcast; or for that matter any broadcast/speech by a President in this information age. He has even done this same thing during his State of the Union speeches. When he said during his press conference yesterday that SS was created originally for widows and orphans, I went bananas. What an idiot!
I never thought I could be President, but this President has made me reconsider that opinion.
Worth watching the video, really. His peevishness doesn’t come across in the transcripts.
Too bad his anger and peevishness is reserved for the American people & institutions that dare disagree with him. He had no problem maintaining his detached “coolness” when the islamofacist murdered multiple military people at Fort Hood. I guess that is not offensive enough to warrant a reference to hostage taking.
Akatsukami,
“single-handedly discredited liberalism and the Democrat party for at least half a generation”
. . . we can only hope!
A President is supposed to have the best interests of the nation at heart. If this agreement advances those interests – which, by agreeing to it, this President implicitly says it does – then he should be pleased that a deal was struck and appreciative of those who made it possible.
A “post partisan” President is supposed to recognize he has to take the concerns of the opposing party seriously, which will inevitably mean some horse-trading on legislation. The message would be “We all want a better America, we just have different ideas about how to get there; this legislation is evidence of both sides acting in good faith to come up with a package which addresses both sides’ deeply held concerns.”
This President is the petulant brat who believes everything will get better ONLY if the rest of us GET WITH THE PROGRAM.
While I doubt any amount of training / experience could make this guy an “appropriate” President (simply too much unbridled ego), spending his entire life surrounded by butt kissers has left him extraordinarily unprepared for the Presidency.
Akatsukami, don’t forget to credit Carl Rove and Dick Cheney for sneaking Obama-the-Manchuian-Republican past those adoring Leftist masses.
Hmmmm.
Most humorous statement so far:
“You know, I didn’t vote for Barack W. Bush, but I’m starting to like the cut of this man’s jib.” – found on Instapundit
But it would be a mistake to think that there isn’t a sizable portion of the country which thinks Obama leans way too far to the right. But they only can make their influence known at primary time. Akatsukami, as you know, the conventional wisdom is the electorate in the middle actually doesn’t care about partisan issues, and just votes on how big issues are going, like job and war&peace. Akatsukami’s comment strikes me as a bad predictor of the future — that’s why George W. Bush didn’t discredit the
Ah nuts. That wasn’t ready for the submit button. Maybe it was never going to be ready. Well, you get the idea anyway, and that’s enough from me.
I watched the conference last night, and I still didn’t see peevishness. I saw a man telling unpopular truths. The Republicans are taking hostages (and have been for some time). Democrats who want every jot and tittle of a program will be disappointed. And there will be many more political fights, starting with Obama making Boehner get the votes to extend the debt ceiling.
I don’t think this was Obama’s intention, but if he gets the Democrats sufficiently pissed off to actually fight, they may get a better (from the D’s point of view) deal. After all, once everybody’s taxes go up January 1, the pressure on the Republicans will go up. Again, probably not by plan, but this news conference may be the equivalent of the coach yelling at his team at half-time.
Rand – as usual you read me saying “2 + 2 = 4” as saying “2 + 2 = 17” and argue against 17. I do not nor ever have thought Obama was anything more than a good center-left politician. But your mis-read is typical of libertarians (and Marxists) – you (and Marxists) don’t understand how real people and societies operate. It’s a feature, not a bug – you wouldn’t believe in the political philosophy you do if you understood how people operate.
“The Republicans are taking hostages (and have been for some time).” – Chris
Defend the logic behind this slander. Obama is the President, Demos have an overwhelming majority in the House, Demos need but one or two votes picked off – a minimal compromise – to get things through the Senate.
The libelous hostage-taking bit is insane. That Obama and the Democrat party refuse to make the tiny compromise needed to get their way with two+ senators and instead whine and throw ad homenim attacks around is such total proof of their petulance that there’s no way to reject it short of willing obedience to their authority.
Going a step further, the Republicans have had next to no power to stop Obama over the last two years. So drop the whole “party of no” or “hostage taker” talking point unless Gibbs is signing your checks.
Sometimes, in a “what are they doing now?” spirit, I wonder what became of Baghdad Bob? I now think he moved to the US, became an Obama Democrat, and posts under the name “Chris Gerrib.”
Those goofy shrinks on whatever committee have decided that narcissism is no longer a psychiatric disorder, knocking the legs under those wing-nutters who want to call people who don’t agree with them “Narcissists.”
What’s next is that they are going to remove Asperger’s Syndrome, that condition where otherwise smart people have trouble reading body language and tone of voice. A person with that condition often cannot tell when another person is whining.
Those shrinks have declared war on the entire wing-nut blogosphere, I tell you.
Chad – I don’t know what reality you’ve been in, but when the Republicans in the Senate filibuster practically every bill, forcing a 60-vote supermajority just to even vote on the bill that’s hostage-taking. Regarding “tiny compromise” – the Republicans under Obama’s original tax proposal get 98% of what they wanted.
“Baghdad Chris” writes: ” . . . you [Rand] wouldn’t believe in the political philosophy you do if you understood how people operate.”
That’s right, Rand! If you understood how people operate, you would just LOVE Chris Gerrib and his ideological confreres lifting your wallet!
lifting your wallet! This comment is more revealing than you know. Most people don’t see taxes as “lifting my wallet,” AKA theft. They see taxes in much the same way they see brushing their teeth – a chore that has to be done to prevent further problems.
Or as John Scalzi put it I really don’t know what you do about the “taxes are theft” crowd, except possibly enter a gambling pool regarding just how long after their no-tax utopia comes true that their generally white, generally entitled, generally soft and pudgy asses are turned into thin strips of Objectivist Jerky by the sort of pitiless sociopath who is actually prepped and ready to live in the world that logically follows these people’s fondest desires. Sorry, guys. I know you all thought you were going to be one of those paying a nickel for your cigarettes in Galt Gulch. That’ll be a fine last thought for you as the starving remnants of the society of takers closes in with their flensing tools.
CHris,
“but when the Republicans in the Senate filibuster practically every bill,”
Please list the bills the Republicans filibustered.
“Or as John Scalzi put it I really don’t know what you do about the “taxes are theft” crowd, except possibly enter a gambling pool regarding just how long after their no-tax utopia comes true that their generally white, generally entitled, generally soft and pudgy asses are turned into thin strips of Objectivist Jerky by the sort of pitiless sociopath who is actually prepped and ready to live in the world that logically follows these people’s fondest desires. Sorry, guys. I know you all thought you were going to be one of those paying a nickel for your cigarettes in Galt Gulch. That’ll be a fine last thought for you as the starving remnants of the society of takers closes in with their flensing tools.”
Ladies and gentlemen, the “either or fallacy” in action. It’s a favorite of both the President and his supporters.
the Republicans in the Senate filibuster practically every bill, forcing a 60-vote supermajority just to even vote on the bill
Which is what they’ve been doing since Feb 2009. And yet they increased their numbers last month. What does that tell you and Scalzi?
Go ahead and enter your phantom gambling pool Chris. The rest of us “generally entitled” “takers” will enjoy the spectacle.
A President is supposed to have the best interests of the nation at heart.
Such a president would never tell a set of ethnic voters, as Obama did Hispanics, that some of their fellow Americans are their “enemies.”
It’s amazing to me that many Americans still don’t understand Obama hates them and their country.
Maybe Gerrib should change the photo on his website before berating others for their soft, pudgy white asses.
Just sayin’.
A count of filibusters is available from the Senate’s website.
but when the Republicans in the Senate filibuster practically every bill, forcing a 60-vote supermajority just to even vote on the bill that’s hostage-taking.
No it’s not. It’s the Senate in operation as it’s meant to be. The point of the filibuster is that you can’t ram something down the throats of the country if 40 Senators — who represent a hell of a lot of people! — think it well and truly sucks. I can think of no ethical justification for the idea that 50% of the people plus 1 should be able to do anything they damn well please, and screw the minority. That’s not the way this country works, has ever worked, or is designed to work.
This is entirely the fault of Democrats trying to do things huge swathes of Americans hate with a passion. That’s power-mad evil. Even Reagan, that great bugbear of liberal imagination, did no such thing. He passes his reforms with nontrivial support from Democrats. Almost all governing majorities in the past did, too. If they couldn’t propose things broadly popular enough to secure the votes of a good number of the minority party, they didn’t try it.
The party of Obama, Pelosi and Reid is the first governing majority in my living memory to attempt to utterly ignore the concerns of the minority, of the 70% of this country that don’t consider themselves “liberal.” And, in the usual Leftist projection, that is of course what they accuse the Republicans of. “Hostage taking,” indeed. As if the people who got their asses thoroughly thrashed in November by the voters, as if the people who have no right any longer to fantasize they represent the will of the majority of Americans — are Republicans!
Also, Scalzi’s quote is dumb. In the first place, it ignores the fact that the Federal government ran itself without income taxes for the first 150 years of the Republic’s existence, on tariffs, excise taxes and user fees — things you can choose not to pay, if you’re willing to do without the service or goods. Nor is the choice between massive intrusive goverment and none whatsoever — there are middle grounds, like the government we had a mere 10 years ago, 60% smaller. Nor is the Federal government the guarantee of local security — that would be state and local government. Nor was it the case in the many centuries before massive nanny-state government came into vogue that humans lived cowering in terror while brigands and psychopaths roamed freely.
Indeed, in general throughout history a local community has been extremely effective at dealing with the occasional psychopath that turns up: a rope is usually handy, and there are always convenient trees. There’s very little need for a bureaucrat from the capital, 800 miles away, to get involved.
Nice try, Chris. But those aren’t filibusters, are they? Those are cloture votes. And if you look at the numbers, they have been relatively constant for a number of years, so your implication that this is something new is also wrong. And to say “practically all” is just slightly inaccurate, too, considering the number of bills that are voted on.
Carl Pham – I really wish you’d read some history.
1) The Democratic Party spent the better part of the Republic’s history split into a Southern (conservative) and Northern (liberal) wing. That changed, under Reagan. Google “southern strategy.”
2) The whole operating system of the country is that a majority does in fact get to do what it wants to. The people who wrote the Constitution knew how to arrange for a super-majority when it wanted to. Except for major things like impeachment and treaties, they did not see the need for more than a plain-old majority.
exhelodrvr – you idiot! A “motion for cloture” is what you file to end a filibuster! That number has gone through the roof.
I’ll read some history whenever you establish I’ve said something wrong, Chris. Just because I don’t interpret its events the same as you do doesn’t make me ignorant, friend.
(1) So what? You’re under the impression that the Republican party has been monolithic its entire existence? Why can’t the Obama/Pelosi/Reid Democrats pull the same divide ‘n’ conquer strategy with the Republicans, eh? Split off a few Olympia Snowes, “RINOs” or “Tea Partiers” or whatever. Neither party is anything more than a big tent of rather fractious roughly cooperating groups with somewhat parallel agendas. If Reagan could count on “Reagan Democrats” to get his agenda enacted, then Obama should have been able to count on “Obama Republicans” to get his agenda enacted — if it had been genuinely popular.
(2) Bzzt, fail. The Founders knew and feared direct majority rule, and enacted many mechanisms for slowing down, constraining, and moderating the power of the majority, ranging from the Bill of Rights — can Congress enact a law forbidding you from agitating from nationalized health care on blogs? Even if every citizen in the country, except you, agrees? — to the indirect election of both the President and the Senate, to the “enumerated powers” principle of the Tenth Amendment, to the restriction on direct (per capita) taxes, to the multiple branches of government with overlapping constitutional roles. Geez, dude, how can you have claimed to read history when the whole concept of “checks and balances” doesn’t cross your imagination? Just who did you think was being “checked” and “balanced,” besides the will of a (perhaps ephemeral) majority, hmm?
1) The current Republican Party is monolithic.
2) Yes, and all the checks and balances were met. Obama won the Presidency by a majority and got bills passed in the House and Senate by a majority. That’s how the system works. The word “filibuster” appears nowhere in the Constitution, nor any concept of that word.
The current Republican Party is monolithic.
An amazing assertion. Jim DeMint to Olympia Snowe form a monolith.
(1) Ha ha ha ha. Forgotten the split between social conservatives and Tea Party fiscal libertarians? Between the country club Republicans and the insurgents in the primaries that were so strenuously condemned by the former? Murkowski versus Miller? Castle versus O’Donnell? Tarkanian versus Angle? Good grief. Furthermore, to the extent the Republican Party is unified in some of its goals, it’s because the Democrats, by staking out absurdly unpopular positions, have unified a very wide variety of people against them.
(2) So what? The Constitution says the Senate gets to make its own rules, and that’s a rule the Senate chose to make. Constitutional in letter and in spirit.
Besides, are you wiling to agree that the right of the Supreme Court to be the final arbiter of constitutionality is just as wrong as the filibuster? You’ll note that right is also not written into the Constitution. Id est, if the filibuster is “unconstitutional,” so then is Roe v. Wade and Boumediene v. Bush.
I look at the voting record of the Senate. When I see a large number of votes where all Republicans go one way, that’s monolithic. I also don’t see a split between social conservatives and Tea Party folks. There is a minor split between Tea Party and Big Business (the later socialize losses and privatize gains, AKA “bailouts” like TARP), but that’s a relatively minor split. And the Tea Party insurgents lost their elections.
The filibuster is not unconstitutional. Neither is it a requirement imposed by the Constitution. The only Constitutional requirement is simple majority.
When I see a large number of votes where all Republicans go one way, that’s monolithic.
You are confusing action and reaction. Suppose some idiot in the Senate continuously brought up a resolution to condemn motherhood, apple pie, and sex. No doubt you’d observe a whole lot of 99-1 votes. Gosh! Such monolithism! Have the two parties merged?? Not hardly.
Given that the behaviour of the Republicans has been anything but monolithic — indeed, it is two short years since pundits were declaring its dissolution into a fratricidal regional party — the existence of lopsided votes should, instead, suggest to you that the proposals being voted on are unusually obnoxious, and excite unusually consistent and strong opposition.
There is a lot of daylight between someone like Scott Brown and someone like Rand Paul or Jim DeMint. Even you should concede that. If both vote against Harry Reid’s proposals, does that tell you DeMint has mind-control beams on Brown? Or does it tell you Harry’s proposals are way out there?
The filibuster is not unconstitutional.
Then what’s your complaint? It’s bad manners? The minority should just shut up and go along? Wonder how you square that with, say, the treatment of racial minorities during the worst chapters of American history. Oh that’s different! No it’s not. We do not possess Truth-O-Meters that can usefully distinguish the good ideas of the majority from the bad ones. About all we can do is assert some basic rights the minority possesses, and use those to limit the power of the majority.
You might try on the proposition that what has made the United States great is not democratic institutions. Those are no novelty, and have been with us for millenia, with decidedly mixed results. (The Nazis won a plurality in the Reichstag elections of 1932. The Fugitive Slave Act of 1850 passed with four (4) nays.) Perhaps what has made this country great is the profound respect and asymmetrical degree of power granted to minorities to defy the will of the majority.
I wish the Republicans were monolithic–on the side of liberty.
“Monolithism in defense of liberty is no vice; bi-partisanship in the service of statism is no virtue.”
–Zombie Cicero
@Carl Pham: I’m with you: simple “majority rule” is NOT the choice of the wisest people.
@Chris Gerrib: does the phrase “tyranny of the majority” not stimulate a few of your neurons? (And yes, I know that there is such a thing as “tyranny of the minority”.) I don’t believe any serious political thinker has at any time advocated simple majoritarianism as a fundamental principle of government.
The American system of government is quite ingenious, but certainly not perfect. Each branch of government can act abusively, throwing the balance of power out of whack. The system was designed for slow, small changes, and that is what it delivers 99% of the time. Thus, it is by nature, “conservative”– i.e., it “conserves” the status quo. .
Lastly, neither party can claim clean hands on how it conducts its business. The argument over which party is worse is never-ending and nobody ever changes his mind. So why have it?
Pax, dudes.
Remember all that nonsense from the David Brookses and Chris Buckleys of the world in 2008 about his “first-class temperament”? It’s hard to take anything they tell us seriously, at this point.
There was also George Will:
It’s hard to visualize McCain doing a worse job than Obama has, and it’s hard to visualize Obama prevailing if his performance to date had been known in November 2008.
Yeah, I think there’s a good reason not to institute huge policy changes, like nationalizing the entire health care industry, by 50% + 1 votes. That standard may be sufficient to change the name of a highway or post office, but the more drastic the change, the more important it is to have a broader base of support due to the adverse consequences on the 50% – 1!