home

AP Surprised By Pragmatic Presidency

The Associated Press reports:

The $827 billion [stimulus] measure is likely to pass next week despite stiff opposition from the GOP and disappointment among Democrats, including the new president who labeled it imperfect. "We can't afford to make perfect the enemy of the absolutely necessary," President Obama said in his weekly radio and Internet address, sounding a note of pragmatism that liberal followers rarely heard on the campaign trail.

(emphasis added) Rarely heard? The Obama campaign made clear the candidate's belief that the political process is one of compromise, and that "change" meant working to get things done in contrast to the GOP's polarizing "our way or no way" strategy of governance. Obama even used the "perfect is the enemy of the good" quotation during the campaign.

There are legitimate reasons to question the wisdom of some comprises to which Senate Democrats have agreed, but the president's willingness to indulge compromise in a pragmatic effort to pass a stimulus bill should surprise none of his "liberal followers."

< Bellicose Prosecutors Quietly Dismiss Charges | Purposefully Passing A Stimulus Plan That Will Fail >
  • The Online Magazine with Liberal coverage of crime-related political and injustice news

  • Contribute To TalkLeft


  • Display: Sort:
    Hmm. Is it pragmatic (5.00 / 12) (#1)
    by masslib on Sat Feb 07, 2009 at 05:46:34 PM EST
    to advance a stimulus plan that, from the outset, was too small to deal with the economic situation at hand?

    I think pragmatism is one of those buzz words like "centrist" that's lost its meaning.

    What is meant is political pragmatism: (5.00 / 3) (#2)
    by ThatOneVoter on Sat Feb 07, 2009 at 05:53:30 PM EST
    the term have become divorced from a reference to the consequences of a bill.
    If the Senate passed a bill outlawing all abortions in the 2nd term by a large margin, that would be considered a victory for pragmatism.

    Parent
    "Pragmatic" is code for right of center (5.00 / 1) (#3)
    by FoxholeAtheist on Sat Feb 07, 2009 at 06:05:07 PM EST
    Wasn't the AP recently accused of acting like a GOP shill? That's been my impression of late, but yesterday something TRULY AMAZING came out of the AP. Check this out: AP CEO: Bush Turned Military Into Propaganda Machine:
    The Bush administration turned the U.S. military into a global propaganda machine while imposing tough restrictions on journalists seeking to give the public truthful reports about the wars in Iraq and Afghanistan, Associated Press chief executive Tom Curley said Friday.

    Curley, speaking to journalists at the University of Kansas, said the news industry must immediately negotiate a new set of rules for covering war because "we are the only force out there to keep the government in check and to hold it accountable."

    *OK, I want a congressional investigation into suppression of the "free press" under Bush & Co! Hellooo Bernie Sanders: this is a ready made case for a revised Fairness Doctrine, or some facsimile thereof.

    Parent

    Some parts of the AP, yes (none / 0) (#42)
    by gyrfalcon on Sat Feb 07, 2009 at 08:47:07 PM EST
    but the AP isn't a monolothic entity marching to orders, thank goodness, and they haven't suppressed the people doing the real work.  I haven't a clue what's going on with AP these days because their stuff veers wildly, but there is some sanity left.

    Parent
    "Accountability Journalism" cough cough (none / 0) (#58)
    by squeaky on Sat Feb 07, 2009 at 09:20:13 PM EST
    Fox seems to be the model for the shift from boring factual news to sensationalism/opinion from the DC bureau by relatively new boss Ron Fournier .
    There's more to her vinegary remark than just the aftertaste of a sour parting. Fournier is a main engine in a high-stakes experiment at the 162-year old wire to move from its signature neutral and detached tone to an aggressive, plain-spoken style of writing that Fournier often describes as "cutting through the clutter."

    [snip]

    However it's described, it's clear Fournier's voice has drawn favorable treatment from the Drudge Report...

    Politico


    Parent

    It's just another word ... (5.00 / 3) (#60)
    by Robot Porter on Sat Feb 07, 2009 at 09:24:55 PM EST
    that has come to mean "not left wing."

    Parent
    This was one time I wanted Obama to (5.00 / 7) (#4)
    by Teresa on Sat Feb 07, 2009 at 06:10:25 PM EST
    to surprise me. I think he compromised too much too soon.

    I've told you guys before about my former company shutting down. 10,000 employees, 900 here in Knoxville. All my friends worked there. I wish they could each trade places with a member of Congress. Let them pay their bills on $255 a week with $700+ a month Cobra.

    I'm so frustrated and disappointed.

    Jay Rosen and Glenn Greenwald (5.00 / 9) (#5)
    by imhotep on Sat Feb 07, 2009 at 06:16:14 PM EST
    on Bill Moyers last night both made the point that the media is intent on preserving the status quo.  After almost 30 yrs of right-wing rhetoric, anything else produces panic attacks in media hacks.

    Greenwald was clear as a bell (5.00 / 2) (#19)
    by FoxholeAtheist on Sat Feb 07, 2009 at 07:20:44 PM EST
    on the subject of corruption in the MSM - there was no mistaking what he meant. Rosen was beating around the bush by comparison - acting like what Greenwald called a "serious" person.

    Parent
    Jamesean pragmatism says, (5.00 / 4) (#7)
    by weltec2 on Sat Feb 07, 2009 at 06:38:33 PM EST
    Consider the cash value of adopting any position before adopting it. James repeats this "cash value" approach to dealing with issues all the way thorugh his lectures on pragmatism. This specifically points to consequences. This bill after all the compromises, is woefully inadequate. Compromise is ONLY pragmatic when you do not have a clear mandate. Obama was given a strong and powerful mandate. Because of his inexperience, he has waffled and the nation will suffer as a result. We can only pray that he has learned; but I am not hopeful.

    A clear mandate (none / 0) (#89)
    by TChris on Sun Feb 08, 2009 at 11:27:01 AM EST
    doesn't matter to the GOP.  Getting 60 Senate votes is what matters, mandate or not.

    Parent
    AP is still right (5.00 / 4) (#10)
    by DaveOinSF on Sat Feb 07, 2009 at 06:54:15 PM EST
    Obama's liberal followers really did fail to hear his pragmatism on the campaign trail.  Not because Obama didn't say it, just they didn't hear it.

    Don't we remember W.O.R.M.?

    Obama is F-A-R Superior to Bush! (5.00 / 1) (#73)
    by AX10 on Sat Feb 07, 2009 at 11:01:46 PM EST
    Why did I just say this, here's why:
    Many of Obama's core supporters embodied the same ignorance of George W. Bush's supporters.
    While Obama's policies are far better than anything Bush had to offer, Obama's core supporters are still as ignorant and simple as Bush's core.
    Just as we saw millions of rednecks, evangelicals, and disgruntled working class peoples from the middle of the country embrace Dubya because he made them feel good and he "is one of us", there were millions of people on the coasts and college towns who embraced Obama for the same reasons.

    "He was Black."  Well it was about time a black was elected President!  WTF?  Voting for or against someone for reasons of race, gender, ethnic background, sexual orientation, etc...prove ignorance.

    "He was a Rock Star. / He was young."
    He makes us feel good because of the way he speaks.  What do his words really mean?

    "He was Cool."  Let's go with the fad of the moment Mr. Affleck, Ms. Johansen.

    I did vote for Obama, no apologies there.
    I will never forget what happened this primary season and I have that much less respect for the Democratic party.

    I do owe an apology to all of those rural folk who supported Bush because he made them feel good.
    I referred to them as "ignorant" and "simple".
    While I do stand by my assessment, I now know that
    there are millions of "ignorant" and "simple" people on both sides of the aisle.

    With that said, Obama is still far superior to George W. Bush.

    Parent

    Yes (5.00 / 2) (#80)
    by Socraticsilence on Sun Feb 08, 2009 at 03:35:46 AM EST
    And a lot of Hillary's core supporters embodied that same ideal, its something that every politician has- don't try and pretend that Obama was somehow the choice of the less intelligent of thoughtful segments of the Democratic party when survey after survey revealed that he was the choice of the most engaged and informed portions of our party.

    Parent
    Really? (5.00 / 1) (#84)
    by jbindc on Sun Feb 08, 2009 at 07:39:54 AM EST
    ...when survey after survey revealed that he was the choice of the most engaged and informed portions of our party.

    Do you have any links?  The only survey I remember seeing was after the general and it showed that a majority of Obama supporters knew things like Sarah Palin had a pregnant teenage daughter and had her wardrobe bought for her, but when asked about things like Obama's stance on coal, they couldn't name it (nor that Biden had contradicted Obama's position on the campaign trail), or other policy positions that he held.

    Parent

    Well, he's a blank screen... (none / 0) (#11)
    by masslib on Sat Feb 07, 2009 at 06:56:19 PM EST
    Just like any handsome guy (2.00 / 1) (#69)
    by BrassTacks on Sat Feb 07, 2009 at 10:36:03 PM EST
    who a woman falls for.  She can project whatever she wants on to her hero.   Remember when women were fainting at Obama rallies?   They fell hard for him, and didn't care at all about who he really was or what he really stood for, or lack thereof.  Voters and the media had fallen HARD for their guy, and no one was going to confuse them with the facts.  He was exactly who they wanted him to be, their Messiah, their Chosen One.  They swooned, they fainted, they worked their neighborhoods for their guy.  They had NO idea who he was and they didn't care.  They were in love and nothing else mattered.  

    Hell hath no fury like a woman (or media or voters) scorned.................

    Parent

    Not all women are that shallow. (5.00 / 1) (#72)
    by masslib on Sat Feb 07, 2009 at 10:46:24 PM EST
    But actually, Obama called himself that, "a blank screen".

    Parent
    What sexist crap. (5.00 / 2) (#93)
    by TChris on Sun Feb 08, 2009 at 11:36:14 AM EST
    So your theory is that Obama won because women, being too stupid to understand or care about the issues, voted for the handsome guy?

    Parent
    I think the point was (none / 0) (#98)
    by jbindc on Sun Feb 08, 2009 at 01:10:24 PM EST
    voters fell for Obama like women (or men) who knowingly fall for people who are not right for them and will end up breaking their hearts in the end.

    Parent
    I didn't notice (5.00 / 3) (#99)
    by TChris on Sun Feb 08, 2009 at 02:05:38 PM EST
    any "(or men)" in the comment.

    Remember when women were fainting at Obama rallies?   They fell hard for him, and didn't care at all about who he really was or what he really stood for, or lack thereof.

    That language (coupled with "handsome" in the comment's title) employs and seemingly endorses sexist stereotyping of the female reaction to handsome male political candidates. Most of the women I know were enthusiastic Obama supporters.  They voted for him because of his politics, not his cuteness. They cared who he was and what he stood for, and their intelligence shouldn't be diminished by nonsense like this.

    Parent

    I agree except (none / 0) (#52)
    by gyrfalcon on Sat Feb 07, 2009 at 09:04:41 PM EST
    "pragmatism" isn't the word I would have used.

    Parent
    I doubt it's what the AP meant... (5.00 / 2) (#13)
    by Jerrymcl89 on Sat Feb 07, 2009 at 07:04:41 PM EST
    ... but I certainly think it's possible that, while Obama talked of post-partisanship and pragmatism, his more liberal supporters really did not hear it.

    Tchris (5.00 / 3) (#36)
    by gyrfalcon on Sat Feb 07, 2009 at 08:25:35 PM EST
    if you don't write for a living, you should.  I frequently disagree with you, but I pretty much always am deeply impressed and often moved by your ability to turn a phrase.  Plus you make me laugh out loud sometimes!

    Paul Krugman on Senate (5.00 / 2) (#45)
    by oculus on Sat Feb 07, 2009 at 08:54:31 PM EST
    stimulus bill:

    NYT

    Yup, he confirms what we knew (5.00 / 4) (#48)
    by andgarden on Sat Feb 07, 2009 at 08:56:55 PM EST
    The best talking point is that the Senate is trying to cut 600,000 jobs. Maybe that will get some stuff back in conference.

    Parent
    Very depressing news indeed. (none / 0) (#83)
    by weltec2 on Sun Feb 08, 2009 at 05:22:56 AM EST
    This is just what the Repugs wanted, something that would fail, something that they could throw rocks at. Fox is going to have a field day.

    Parent
    Waiting for Obama? (5.00 / 3) (#47)
    by Mitch Guthman on Sat Feb 07, 2009 at 08:56:34 PM EST
    TChris,
    "working to get things done"
    What does "working to get things done" actually mean? Wouldn't it be better if Obama worked at getting the right things done?  The things that might actually help?  

    I can only thank God that building codes are not written by "pragmatic" centrists.

    "Pragmatic centrists" don't believe (5.00 / 2) (#49)
    by andgarden on Sat Feb 07, 2009 at 08:57:37 PM EST
    in building codes.

    Parent
    They do (5.00 / 2) (#53)
    by phat on Sat Feb 07, 2009 at 09:05:05 PM EST
    if 60 Senators will vote for them.

    Parent
    Oooh (none / 0) (#55)
    by gyrfalcon on Sat Feb 07, 2009 at 09:09:53 PM EST
    very, very well said.  Ten points or more, if I could give them to you.

    Parent
    There are certainly times when the best (5.00 / 7) (#56)
    by Anne on Sat Feb 07, 2009 at 09:17:17 PM EST
    course of action is to take the path of least resistance, but hasn't it occurred to anyone on the Obama team, or Obama himself, that it is precisely because Obama has stated a willingness to compromise, and seems to believe that the measure of a good result is in the absence of acrimony associated with getting it, that the GOP - and even members of his own party - is just out-and-out playing him to get the result they want?

    Honestly, I'm starting to see Obama as the kid who always makes sure he has a couple bucks in his pocket so that when the bullies confront him on the playground, he can give them something they want and make them go away - at least until tomorrow.  Too bad he hasn't realized that not only will they not stop the bullying, they inevitably will up the price.  Seeing as how it's the best chance for the country's economic health and recovery he's just giving away, that bothers me more than a little.

    Which makes the whole kabuki of the last 10 days not so much pragmatic, as pathetic.

    So, while the Senators engaged in some of the most maddening debate I've heard in a while - I was yelling at the nonsense coming out of Grassley's mouth as I was driving around doing errands - Obama has escaped the unpleasantness for a fun weekend at Camp David.

    At this rate, I will have think of a creative explanation for the reddened lump on my forehead I am getting from banging my head on the desk...

    So, he's not even a good politician............. (3.50 / 2) (#70)
    by BrassTacks on Sat Feb 07, 2009 at 10:39:50 PM EST
    We're so screwed.  

    Your post was great and, I fear, right on the money.  Not only did not elect a Messiah, we've elected a wimp who is not all that interested in standing up to anyone over anything.  

    Parent

    If he's a bad pol (5.00 / 1) (#81)
    by Socraticsilence on Sun Feb 08, 2009 at 03:37:05 AM EST
    What does it say about his ability to win both the primary and the general election- was he running against incompetent morons?

    Parent
    I think it says (5.00 / 1) (#87)
    by sj on Sun Feb 08, 2009 at 10:36:30 AM EST
    that he is an excellent campaigner.  

    The campaign is now over.

    Parent

    This isn't pragmatism. It's bad policy. (5.00 / 3) (#57)
    by tigercourse on Sat Feb 07, 2009 at 09:19:34 PM EST
    You can't dress up making Ben Nelson the Senate leader and patching together an incompetent half assed "stimulus" bill as anything other then the full and complete failure of the executive branch and the entire Democratic party to do what is right in the face of token opposition from a broken party of hated crooks.

    We (and by we I mean America) got hosed. And Obama's "pragmatism" is the main culprit.

    I respectfully disagree (4.75 / 12) (#9)
    by Big Tent Democrat on Sat Feb 07, 2009 at 06:50:17 PM EST
    that Obama defined his politics as "compromise" with insane and counterproductive ideas.

    Certainly he sold the PPUS, but never was there anything specific tied to that idea. The Theory of Change propunded by Mark Schmitt and others defending the PPUS argued that it was indeed just an act, not a promise. And after the nomination, he detailed a progressive policy.

    Indeed, I doubt anyone on TalkLeft would argue he promised he would "compromise" on torture. I would argue he also did not promise to pass an ineffective stimulus in the name of "compromise."

    For the two day prior to the final capitulation, he argued against the very type of modifications he has now embraced.

    Indeed, he said "stimulus is spending."

    The Obama performance on the stimulus is indeed a broken promise and terrible policy. I would also argue terrible politics and I think his supporters have every right to feel betrayed by it.

    BTD, I think (5.00 / 8) (#51)
    by gyrfalcon on Sat Feb 07, 2009 at 09:02:42 PM EST
    plenty of us here didn't believe him or trust him when he said he would end torture because the words he used were not unequivocal.  The stimulus issue only came up after the nomination was settled, really as an urgency after the general election itself.  But I truly doubt very many of us would have argued that he'd have the b***s of FDR, or dare I say it, the unnammable She, who opposed him in the primaries.

    A high percentage of your commenters never trusted him on any front-- not that he was some secret right-winger, but that he wasn't either knowledgeable enough or committed enough to the welfare of the rest of us to really dig down and fight for anything substantial.

    I'd say he's so far pretty much proved out what most of us suspected and feared he would.

    That's what happens when your politician of choice is primarily interested in and dedicated to his own magnificence.

    I don't care what you say, there are some politicians who aren't so solely dedicated to themselves first, and we tossed one of them overboard during the primaries.

    I just heard Bernie Sanders on CNN, one of my senators, and although he's a bit of a loon and I surely don't agree with him on everything, he's very clearly always been first and foremost dedicated to principle and not his own advancement.

    They DO exist out there, and it is NOT unreasonable to try to look for people like that and support them.

    (Feingold's another one, but he's even more of a loon than Bernie Sanders, IMHO, and if it were up to me, I'd primary him.)

    Parent

    Oh please (5.00 / 1) (#79)
    by Socraticsilence on Sun Feb 08, 2009 at 03:33:13 AM EST
    The assumed Fiction that Hillary was some kind of progressive icon is just that a fiction her voting record in the senate clearly indicates that she was as much if not more of a centrist than Obama, not that she was some sort of Kucinich/Feingold type.

    Parent
    Has the Obama administration tortured anyone? (5.00 / 1) (#91)
    by TChris on Sun Feb 08, 2009 at 11:32:04 AM EST
    I must have missed that.

    Parent
    Yes! (5.00 / 1) (#92)
    by Politalkix on Sun Feb 08, 2009 at 11:35:17 AM EST
    The majority of commenters in TL feel tortured just imagining Obama as President. I give you Cream City as a prime exhibit :-).

    Parent
    And now this... (5.00 / 1) (#101)
    by FoxholeAtheist on Sun Feb 08, 2009 at 05:11:52 PM EST
    From the ACLU via Jeralyn: Military Lawyer: Gitmo Conditions Have Worsened Since Inauguration: The ACLU says the Obama Administration is not bringing change:

    "Hope is flickering. The Obama administration's position is not change. It is more of the same. This represents a complete turn-around and undermining of the restoration of the rule of law. The new American administration shouldn't be complicit in hiding the abuses of its predecessors."

    Say no more.

    Parent

    Ongoing detention at Gitmo is (none / 0) (#100)
    by FoxholeAtheist on Sun Feb 08, 2009 at 02:08:23 PM EST
    cruel and inhumane treatment, to say the least - especially for those 17 detainees who even Bush, unequivocally, cleared for release.

    Why didn't Obama send them back to their home countries on day one?

    Parent

    Um (none / 0) (#78)
    by Socraticsilence on Sun Feb 08, 2009 at 03:31:14 AM EST
    No offense but centrist are what we tend to choose as Dem's- our last two term president- A Welfare Slashing, Gay Marriage Banning Centrist, and while  I certainly expect Obama to be a step up from Clinton he's not going to be that much of a step up.

    Parent
    That starts to make a point (none / 0) (#82)
    by rghojai on Sun Feb 08, 2009 at 04:03:06 AM EST
    Arguing about what was promised: Such was a fundamental concern, that Obama was really good/bad at seeming to essentially pretty much more or less promise things. At a glance they seemed promised (for what promises are worth).

    Relative to the AP article, as people have noted, it's more "rarely paid attention to" than "rarely heard."

    Along the lines of what others have said, during the primary season, having a go at sharing these thoughts too often came across as trying to share thoughts about the joy of torturing kittens--among some usually astute Democratic friends and family members. This is not get-over-it stuff, this is pay-attention-and-live-and-learn stuff.

    To echo one more point, of course I would love to be proven monumentally, incalculably wrong and see the end result being good things for the country and steps taken that are consistent with my liberal values. "Call me skeptical," said the person who voted HRC in the primary, Green on 11/4.

    To say these are early days is arguably an early contender for understatement of the year, but if we see more of the same with results at best mediocre, I'd love to see a Dem--from the proverbial Democratic wing of the Democratic party--take him on for the '12 nomination.

    Parent

    The president doesn't "pass" (none / 0) (#90)
    by TChris on Sun Feb 08, 2009 at 11:28:47 AM EST
    legislation.  Legislators do.

    Parent
    Obama's "quote" (1.00 / 1) (#12)
    by Jacob Freeze on Sat Feb 07, 2009 at 07:00:33 PM EST
    Obama's "quote" is as garbled as his policy.

    "Le mieux est l'ennemi du bien," is what Voltaire actually said.

    "The better is the enemy of the good."

    Obama added his own little exaggeration to make the point more obvious, in conformity with his standard practice of talking down to the dumbest common denominator.

    Actually the Obama quote (none / 0) (#14)
    by ThatOneVoter on Sat Feb 07, 2009 at 07:09:10 PM EST
    is standard in English. I'm not even sure that it's from Voltaire.. isn't in Plato?

    Parent
    Qui plume a, guerre a. (1.00 / 1) (#22)
    by Jacob Freeze on Sat Feb 07, 2009 at 07:30:09 PM EST
    If you think Plato said "Le mieux est l'ennemi du bien," you must be very happy with Barack Obama.

    It appears in Voltaire's La Bégueule in the form I quoted, along with several variations...

    "Ma chère enfant, rien n'est plus périlleux
    Que de quitter le bien pour être mieux."

    There are also variations of the same in several other languages; Italian, for example...

    "Il meglio è l'inimico del bene."

    None of them match Obama's silly exaggeration.

    Parent

    admirable pedantry though. (5.00 / 1) (#26)
    by ThatOneVoter on Sat Feb 07, 2009 at 07:45:47 PM EST
    A con-man like Obama has to keep it simple. (1.00 / 2) (#32)
    by Jacob Freeze on Sat Feb 07, 2009 at 08:07:25 PM EST
    Obama knows he can keep 75% of the population befuddled with simple-minded slogans, and the simpler the better, but something is actually lost in his "translation" of Voltaire, although true believers are unlikely to appreciate anything subtler than "I'm hungry."

    "Le mieux est l'ennemi du bien" isn't necessarily on the side of le bien against le mieux, and anyone with a minimal education may recall that Voltaire was one of the most revolutionary figures of the Eighteenth Century, and perfectly capable of advising the French to reach for something better, even if what they had was good enough.

    Parent

    Oh, please! (5.00 / 0) (#59)
    by Radiowalla on Sat Feb 07, 2009 at 09:21:32 PM EST
    Everyone knows that tout est pour le mieux dans le meilleur des mondes possibles.

    Parent
    You cannot fool all the people, all of the time (5.00 / 1) (#71)
    by BrassTacks on Sat Feb 07, 2009 at 10:41:58 PM EST
    It will wear thin, sooner or later, with everyone.  

    Well, nearly everyone.  Some people stay in love, even when they've clearly been had.  

    Parent

    Hey everybody (3.00 / 2) (#39)
    by Socraticsilence on Sat Feb 07, 2009 at 08:41:37 PM EST
    Jacob's here to whine it up! Puma Roar buddy! Good luck with that.
    When was the last president who didn't use slogan's-

    "Nothing to fear but fear itself"

    "Bridge to the 21st century"

    "Ask not what your country but what you can do for your country.

    Parent

    Who raised the bridge? Do not feed! (5.00 / 2) (#75)
    by Spamlet on Sun Feb 08, 2009 at 12:02:03 AM EST
    Stop! (4.50 / 6) (#54)
    by gyrfalcon on Sat Feb 07, 2009 at 09:07:27 PM EST
    Stop using "Puma" as an all-purpose insult.  You only betray your own ignorance and shallowness.

    Just stop.


    Parent

    Reminder. (5.00 / 2) (#94)
    by TChris on Sun Feb 08, 2009 at 11:41:30 AM EST
    Comment threads on my posts do not exist for the purpose of rehashing the primaries.  Primary-related comments are off-topic ... ALWAYS ... and will be deleted.

    Parent
    Someone here at TL cited (none / 0) (#34)
    by FoxholeAtheist on Sat Feb 07, 2009 at 08:19:27 PM EST
    a current USA Today Poll that puts Obama's approval rating at 64%.

    BTW, does anybody have a LINK for that.

    Parent

    I saw it yesterday -- a Gallup poll (5.00 / 1) (#35)
    by Cream City on Sat Feb 07, 2009 at 08:24:15 PM EST
    as I recall, if that helps to find it.  Actually, it was about 62%, I think, and that's for overall -- something like a 20% drop in two weeks.  On the economy, it was down to 55%.  Ouch.

    It was interesting to read there that Obama's approval rating, even at the start, still was not as high as were those for JFK and Carter.  And we know that those presidencies did not go well. . . .

    Parent

    Those with short memories (5.00 / 1) (#61)
    by Politalkix on Sat Feb 07, 2009 at 09:39:14 PM EST
    will surely benefit by reading articles provided in the following links.
    [link 1], [link 2], [link 3].

    Within a few months after Bill Clinton became the president, only 36% of Americans approved of his handling of the job. Obama is doing a lot better than that!

    Parent

    In a few months (none / 0) (#96)
    by Cream City on Sun Feb 08, 2009 at 12:40:22 PM EST
    we will see if that is so.  The correct comparate is how Clinton was doing two weeks after inauguration.  Yes, his approval had begun to drop -- but not by as much as has Obama's.

    It is worrisome at a time when the country has to come together, and what we are getting is the wrong people in Congress coming together to take charge.

    Parent

    He could pull a Clinton (none / 0) (#40)
    by Socraticsilence on Sat Feb 07, 2009 at 08:42:57 PM EST
    and lose congress in a landslide. He managed to do okay.

    Parent
    I have never seen the (none / 0) (#25)
    by ThatOneVoter on Sat Feb 07, 2009 at 07:40:19 PM EST
    phrase "the better is the enemy of the good", in English. With "perfect" for "better", it is quite common. Obama's not at fault.

    Parent
    I was reading some of the (none / 0) (#31)
    by ThatOneVoter on Sat Feb 07, 2009 at 08:05:31 PM EST
    Republic recently. Pefect this, perfect that.. that's where I thought I had seen the phrase. The editor may have used it, also.

    Parent
    I believe (none / 0) (#41)
    by Socraticsilence on Sat Feb 07, 2009 at 08:44:56 PM EST
     Plato's usage of "perfect" has a different context than the modern usage of the word, its been a while though so I could be wrong.

    Parent
    AP Is Hardly Neutral (none / 0) (#6)
    by squeaky on Sat Feb 07, 2009 at 06:30:24 PM EST
    It is in the interest of DC media and MSM at large to perpetuate that the word liberal is still a dirty word. Any threat to their system of calling the shots, being experts on all comings and goings, and telling people how to feel will be repelled and not reported.

    Glenn Greenwald, Jay Rosen in an interview with Bill Moyers point out that the lousy, non existent war protest coverage was no mistake. The MSM are part of the Iraq war 'problem' and were a large part of what the marches and protests were about. Of course they erased them as if they did not happen. Just a fringe group of ultra left losers..  

    GLENN GREENWALD: Let me just add to that, because I think it raises an interesting dilemma. Which is, if you look at what the media were saying about Obama favorably, both around the time of his election and subsequent as well, they kept insisting that he could continue Bush's counterterrorism policies that were so controversial.

    They were praising him for leaving in place all sorts of Bush officials that the media wants to see is continuity, that he's not threatening to their way of life and to their establishment, for the reason that we talked about before. That's how he wins praise from them, is by showing that he isn't going to change things fundamentally, and therefore, isn't a threat to their system.

    At the same time, as Jay said, what he needs to do more than anything to fulfill the commitments that he made, is demonstrate that he's a true change agent. And I think these objectives are very much in conflict, because the more he threatens the Washington system, I think the more hostility the press will feel towards him, and therefore, project to the public about him. And that, too, can undermine his political popularity.

    Well worth a read via digby

    I didn't know he planned three evening (5.00 / 2) (#8)
    by Teresa on Sat Feb 07, 2009 at 06:43:40 PM EST
    talks. I'm glad. I wish he had done one before the stimulus package was near completion but maybe this can get us some additional steps.

    Somebody has got to explain to the people how scary this situation is. I don't think people that get their news only from TV have any idea what a mess we are in. I hope he lays it on the line.

    Parent

    Teresa... (5.00 / 2) (#17)
    by FoxholeAtheist on Sat Feb 07, 2009 at 07:14:36 PM EST
    This is O/T but, if my memory serves, don't you live in the vicinity of one of the coal sludge spills. I've been thinking about that disaster pretty much on a daily basis. Do you know what's happening 'on the ground' there?

    Parent
    It's still a mess. TVA bought out the (5.00 / 2) (#21)
    by Teresa on Sat Feb 07, 2009 at 07:25:43 PM EST
    homes that got the worst of it this week. An outside environmental group has water tests that are pretty bad but TVA doesn't believe them. One Senator wants the Feds to help clean it up (Lamar) and one doesn't (Corker the creep). I don't think I'll ever swim in my lake again.

    Parent
    Thanks T, please continue to (5.00 / 3) (#24)
    by FoxholeAtheist on Sat Feb 07, 2009 at 07:34:59 PM EST
    update us on open threads. The way you described it that first evening was just so raw and heart-wrenching. You and yours will remain in my thoughts and, I'm sure, the prayers of others.

    Parent
    why would he do that? (5.00 / 2) (#18)
    by pluege on Sat Feb 07, 2009 at 07:16:33 PM EST
    Obama just parlayed a preemptive capitulation inadequate bill into a conservative ideological tax break give away bill that feebly at-best addresses the problem. It would be completely contradictory for Obama to be screaming the sky is falling on one hand, and then deliver a barely useful response.

    The whole point of the republican strategy is that now that they have successfully diluted the stimulus into a mostly republican tax cut package, they will use its passage to make sure Obama and the Democrats spend nothing else on anything except more military spending and bank executive bonuses.

    Parent

    Because if he does nothing, there won't be (5.00 / 2) (#23)
    by Teresa on Sat Feb 07, 2009 at 07:31:06 PM EST
    a second term or a country left worth leading. Maybe he believed that his popularity alone would get a bill through. Hopefully, he's learned his lesson.

    We won't have long to wait. He is speaking Monday night and I hope to see a fighter show up. I'm not counting on it, but I'm hoping. If we don't figure out a way to get additional bills passed, we might as well give up and I can't do that yet.

    I'm not saying I disagree with a word you said.

    Parent

    This economic crisis gives me the (5.00 / 5) (#27)
    by FoxholeAtheist on Sat Feb 07, 2009 at 07:50:03 PM EST
    same sense of palpable urgency that I have about the environmental/climate crisis. The tipping point is right in front of our noses, yet it seems that we're as paralyzed as the proverbial frog in the soon-to-be-boiling pot.

    We are obviously at the mercy of a whole class of very privileged and influential people who think they'll manage just fine while the rest of us are sinking. That's the BIG problem, imo.

    Parent

    I've just been sitting here trying to think (5.00 / 3) (#28)
    by Teresa on Sat Feb 07, 2009 at 08:00:10 PM EST
    like a Republican thinks. I can't do it. How can they not see what is happening. Why don't they care? Are they stupid, evil or lacking any compassion? I can't figure them out at all because we are talking about the future of our country as we know it and they don't seem concerned as long as the banks survive.

    When I discussed with my last boss how the financial crisis was killing his company, he told me that he wasn't worried about keeping a roof over his family's head or feeding them. He lives on the lake in our biggest McMansion subdivision and takes ten day trips to Aruba to wind surf, etc. I guess if you're rich enough, you just don't have the same concerns that ordinary people do.

    Parent

    Right. Of course, he's just too (5.00 / 1) (#30)
    by ThatOneVoter on Sat Feb 07, 2009 at 08:04:16 PM EST
    stupid to realize that he could lose everything too. One of the functions of Limbaugh and Hannity is to give well-off, stupid people a sense of security, so they don't have to think.

    Parent
    That applies also (5.00 / 3) (#44)
    by gyrfalcon on Sat Feb 07, 2009 at 08:51:50 PM EST
    to the well-off media folks, sorry to say.  The recession/depression is a mildly interesting news item to most of them, not an urgent personal crisis.


    Parent
    I disagree. (none / 0) (#50)
    by Fabian on Sat Feb 07, 2009 at 09:02:34 PM EST
    Ad revenues are down all over.

    With people unprepared or even unwilling to switch over to digital TV (nice bit on NPR this morning) TV ads might drop even faster than the rest of the media.

    They may well do "better" than the rest of us, but an ebb tide takes all boats with it, yachts as well as skiffs.

    Parent

    Talking with a guy who works for the local (5.00 / 1) (#66)
    by DFLer on Sat Feb 07, 2009 at 10:31:37 PM EST
    weekly shopper/newspaper and he told me they were doing okay, even though ad revenues were down. And he meant employment ads - the 2 to 3 inch kind.....yikes. I had noticed that what used to be 3 to 4 pages was now just one and one half.

    Parent
    Too Stupid? (none / 0) (#37)
    by Socraticsilence on Sat Feb 07, 2009 at 08:36:20 PM EST
    Man I guess we can just hold out hope he doesn't sell us out like the last dem president did.

    Parent
    Not Obama, my old boss. (none / 0) (#38)
    by Teresa on Sat Feb 07, 2009 at 08:38:33 PM EST
    My bad (none / 0) (#43)
    by Socraticsilence on Sat Feb 07, 2009 at 08:48:02 PM EST
    After the Jacob Freeze commnet's I was a little touchy.

    Parent
    Yes, the bottom line is the bottom line (none / 0) (#33)
    by FoxholeAtheist on Sat Feb 07, 2009 at 08:16:07 PM EST
    The money grabs of this economic crisis are on par with war-profiteering. The GOP leadership and the Blue Dog cohort don't want the chaos to end until there is absolutely no further profit to be made.

    Parent
    Maybe this will help (none / 0) (#86)
    by AustinTalker on Sun Feb 08, 2009 at 10:28:10 AM EST
    I'm an independent who mostly votes Republican.  Here are my thoughts on the current situation, why the current stimulus bill is bad policy and why I'm against it in its current form.  Hopefully they'll help you.  

    We're currently in a recession.  We got here primarily because people took on too much debt and banks made many bad loans for housing.  There were multiple causes for that, and I won't go into them here.  As we entered the recession, people started saving money more and buying less.  Companies started cutting back and laying people off to adjust to lower demand. Overall, the economy is going through an adjustment period where people's hard work and investments are being directed away from housing and finance.  We'll have less leverage going forward, so the demand for a lot of products, goods, and services will be less. Companies are adjusting to that reality.  The stock market is down because no one really knows when the adjustment will end.  This painful situation is temporary because people will still plan for the future and continue coming up with new inventions, products, and ways of doing things.  

    In its current incarnation, the stimulus bill is a political nightmare. It's huge and the message on it is confusing. If you argue that we should use government spending to jump start the economy, no one knows how much is enough.  If the spending doesn't work to change the situation, we're almost $1 trillion in the hole and any future spending will be difficult.  Plus, we still have to pay back that money with interest.  We'll either pay back with higher taxes or by printing money and causing inflation.  Either way, that'll be hard on us, our children, and our grandchildren. We'd be better off splitting this stimulus bill into multiple bills, debating them thoroughly, and then going forward.  

    From a fiscal conservative perspective, it feels like we're racing down a slope.  We know there's a bottom but can't see it yet.  We see the government helicopter above and the crew says they'll throw us a parachute to slow the descent.  Instead, the government is preparing to throw us a bowling ball.  When we reach the bottom, we'll have a harder stop because of the extra weight.  

    The main thinking against the bill that I get from talking to people is that the government is planning to spend a lot of money, they're rushing it through without much debate, and they're cramming it full of a wish list of seemingly random projects.  The administration is trying to pass it by scaring us instead of by selling us on the benefits.  Because we're spending a whole bunch of money through the government, the money will go to the people with the best lobbyists instead of the individuals who know best where it will help them.  We don't want to saddle our children and grandchildren with tremendous debts or bankrupt America in the process of trying to save it. We care about the individuals who are hurting and want to get them through the recession, but don't want to throw the money away on projects that won't help in the future.  

    Parent

    Where were you when Bush increased the debt (5.00 / 1) (#88)
    by imhotep on Sun Feb 08, 2009 at 10:55:03 AM EST
    from $5 trillion to $10 trillion?

    "We don't want to saddle our children and grandchildren with tremendous debts or bankrupt America in the process of trying to save it. We care about the individuals who are hurting and want to get them through the recession, but don't want to throw the money away on projects that won't help in the future. "

    There have been billion$ (really!) lost, misplaced and squandered rebuilding an Iraq that we broke and it's still not over.  You haven't seen the wasteful spending on Iraq because it's over there and the defense dept budget can't be audited.  

    The Republicans are removing money for education and social services (to be spent in this country) from the stimulus bill while still throwing away money in Iraq.  It's crazy.    

    Parent

    That's a different issue and sore point (none / 0) (#95)
    by AustinTalker on Sun Feb 08, 2009 at 12:01:39 PM EST
    You've hit on why most fiscal conservatives are disgusted with Bush's policy.  He said he was conservative, but then proceeded go to war in Iraq and spend almost a trillion dollars. That was incredibly hypocritical.  We're still paying for his decision now.  He cut taxes, but he didn't cut spending.  He increased the debt during good times, and we're now facing the consequences in bad times.  If he'd been up for reelection again, I think he'd have been voted out of office.  That's the main power we have as voters.

    We have to deal with the situation we're in because of all the past administrations.  I'm inclined to give Obama the benefit of the doubt on policies, but he has to actually explain why they will be beneficial and how they'll help.  Bill Clinton was and is good at that.  Bush was terrible at explaining policies, even the ones I agree with.  I might agree or disagree with Obama's policies. I expect him to explain why we should do them without resorting to scare tactics, stereotypes, and strawmen.

    Parent

    Conservatives (5.00 / 2) (#97)
    by TChris on Sun Feb 08, 2009 at 12:58:45 PM EST
    had the power to vote Bush out of office in 2004, when it was obvious he had no plan to pay for his wars and was content to allow deficits to rise, but conservatives nonetheless voted overwhelmingly for his reelection. That's one of the reasons many of us on the left are a little miffed to hear conservatives suddenly preaching the virtues of fiscal conservatism ... particularly when government spending is the only thing that might save us from a depression.

    Parent
    What did Obama Supporters Think ... (none / 0) (#15)
    by santarita on Sat Feb 07, 2009 at 07:11:48 PM EST
    he meant when he talked about bipartisanship?  

    As to AP and the rest of the media - does anyone remember when the Dems were in the minority and the media excoriated them for being "obstructionists"?  Anyone hear the media talking about the Republicans being "obstructionists" now?

    I believe he said "postpartisanship". (5.00 / 3) (#16)
    by masslib on Sat Feb 07, 2009 at 07:14:18 PM EST
    Gawd, that's evidently worse! (5.00 / 4) (#20)
    by FoxholeAtheist on Sat Feb 07, 2009 at 07:25:34 PM EST
    The next time I hear a talking head ridiculing "partisan bickering", I'll probably rip my own throat out.


    Parent
    FoxHole (none / 0) (#77)
    by cal1942 on Sun Feb 08, 2009 at 12:47:28 AM EST
    rip HIS throat out not yours.

    Parent
    Even worse... (none / 0) (#29)
    by santarita on Sat Feb 07, 2009 at 08:02:13 PM EST
    I'd forgotten that he used old wine in new bottles to get through the primaries.

    Parent
    Obama's stimulus plan (none / 0) (#85)
    by Rajan on Sun Feb 08, 2009 at 10:17:39 AM EST
    President Obama and his economic team, and even the entire political class in this country, are suffering from collective myopic vision in viewing and tackling the current economic downturn.  2009 is not 1932 but they are trying to apply 1930's prescription to tackle  the 2009 problems when the country had undergone a sea-change in its economic activities during the intervening seven decades.  During the earlier era, almost everything this country's population needed -  even articles like bedspreads, towels, pillowcases, children's  clothes and toys, etc. -  were manufactured within the country. Today nearly 90 per cent of the items sold in  WalMart and Target stores come from China and elsewhere.  Add to them all the consumer electronics,  computer hardware, home furniture, etc. Any money which will be put in the hands of the general population  by way of tax cuts and rebates will straightaway go into purchase of goods manufactured in other countries and will, possibly, ameliorate the economic situation in China, Mexico and other countries and certainly not here. The manufacturing jobs that had gone overseas are gone for good; they will never come back, let us have no illusions about it. No amount of exhortations,  like King Canute stopping the tide from coming in, will bring them back. This country, at the prevailing per hour labor costs, cannot afford to manufacture most of the everyday items and even other  more expensive durable goods within its borders any more.   This applies also equally to the services sector like software development and maintenance. The American worker is, of course, more productive than his counterpart in China or India but it certainly does not compensate for the factor of 4 or 5 times increase in labor cost.   As for the stimulus which is sought to be induced by building/renovating highways and  by spending billions on creating other infrastructure, they may all be completed within 2-3 years from the date they are started. After that, what next?  What will happen to the jobs which are now created in such shot-gun scatter-shot fashion?  Are we going to tear down the roads and buildings already built and re-build them again? Or, are we going to begin building bridges to nowhere just to preserve the jobs already created?

    There should be a completely revolutionary change in the mindset of the "experts" who are now entrusted with the task of lifting the country out of the economic morass into which it has fallen.  Otherwise, the trillion+ dollars of the stimulus plan will inevitably go down the drain.