Corrente

If you have "no place to go," come here!

Historiann: "Intellectual Dishonesty: Ur Doin It Rite on the Left"

a little night musing's picture
Tags: 

You must read Historiann, because she's on a roll. Talkin' about those who say our poor, poor President can't get anything done because of the big, bad partisanship wolf that keeps huffing* and puffing and blowing the House in (and the Senate, especially!)

Well, some of us–or should I say more accurately, some of you–better sit up, grab your forks, and get ready to chow down on some Humble (or Umble) Pie. Check out this embarrassment from Michael Tomasky: apparently, because Obama hasn’t accomplished much in his first 11 months in office and because partisanship has only gotten worse, it means that the U.S. political system is ”broken.” That’s right–Dear Leader is in fact powerless before a few determined loudmouths in the Senate. (I’m speaking of President Joe Lieberman, President Blanche Lincoln, President Olympia Snowe, President Max Baucus, President Ben Nelson, President Chuck Grassley, and President Mary Landrieu–who all have more power than President Barack Obama because they’re not afraid to use the levers they have to get what they want. Too bad Obama didn’t learn at their feet when he was their junior colleague!)

One of many great quotes:

Somewhere–either from above or below–the ghost of Lyndon Johnson is laughing at these crybaby Dems and so called “progressives,” and crying for the rest of us. WWLBJD? I’ll tell you: He would have phoned up those Senators, and talked to them about some up-and-comer D.A., mayor, or congressperson in their states he’d be inclined to support in a big way in a primary challenge if they didn’t play ball with the President. He also would have let them know that their hometown crowd-pleasing porky pet projects would be stripped, defunded, and kicked to the curb, and that he would make sure their constituents knew whose fault it was. (But of course, this scenario presumes that we have a President who wants to pitch for the home team instead of a President who wants to be the Umpire.)

Well, yeah.

And I love that Umpire metaphor. That's what we've been looking for, doncha think?

*yeah, half-pun deliberate.

0
No votes yet

Comments

Submitted by hipparchia on

the awfuller, the better!

Z's picture
Submitted by Z on

... his strike zone changes based upon which team is up.

He's not an objective umpire, although he postures as such, while behind the scenes he is trying to make sure the corporate team wins. It's no coincidence that the baucus bill is what is left, that's the one that the rahmbama team has wanted the whole time. They've been steering things that way from the get-go.

Z

a little night musing's picture
Submitted by a little night ... on

... his strike zone changes based upon which team is up.

Your point being...?

Z's picture
Submitted by Z on

... to call him an umpire suggests that he is objective on the matter. He is not. He's actually pitching for the opposing team.

Z

cal1942's picture
Submitted by cal1942 on

Great.

Even as an umpire he dosen't seem to know the difference between a ball and a strike and furthermore he doesn't give a damn.

michaelwb's picture
Submitted by michaelwb on

it's awesomely correct but I will throw out one thing:

He would have phoned up those Senators, and talked to them about some up-and-comer D.A., mayor, or congressperson in their states he’d be inclined to support in a big way in a primary challenge if they didn’t play ball with the President.

This worked for LBJ because he had election 'coattails" and influence enough help someone win.

But 2008 and 2010 demonstrated that Obama can only get Obama elected and doesn't really help others.

Which is another huge difference between the two.

DCblogger's picture
Submitted by DCblogger on

Obama won with a landslide and brought in additional Dem Senators and many more House members. He could have been LBJ or even FDR.

Instead he has chosen to be President University of Chicago Disaster Capitalism. Obama is our Kerensky. Our job is to make sure that he is not succeeded by Lenin.

Aeryl's picture
Submitted by Aeryl on

That the increases were because of Obama, and not just being a Democratic year.

And all evidence since then, shows that Obama is more a hinderance to electoral prospects, than a help.

Also, winning a majority of states by miniscule amounts, does not a landslide make. He barely got 51% of the popular vote in a Democratic year.

Valhalla's picture
Submitted by Valhalla on

But I do know one reason Obama had no coattails was because he did very little downticket campaigning (for someone with the greatest, most effortless popularity even in the history of historic historicity, a bit odd). For the most part, that fell to Clinton to take care of.

madamab's picture
Submitted by madamab on

and I think the proof is not just in the past, but in the present.

For example, look at the elections recently held in November. Obama made 6 visits to New Jersey in support of Jon Corzine, and it certainly didn't help Corzine much.

lizpolaris's picture
Submitted by lizpolaris on

"But of course, this scenario presumes that we have a President who wants to pitch for the home team instead of a President who wants to be the Umpire."

Obama is clearly pitching for the opposition - FOR the corporations, against the people, us little under-the-bussers. Go read Glenn Greenwald, historiann.