Required Reading

[jjamie12]

Again... sometimes this place turns into an echo chamber. I think this piece should be required reading around here. In my opinion Mr. Brooks makes some very good points.

 

Getting Obama Right

 

Thoughts?

[/dev/null]

You lost me at the line:

 

 

In a sensible country, people would see Obama as a president trying to define a modern brand of moderate progressivism.

 

In a sensible country, people would see Obama and say wtf did we vote for

[Doc]

Yeah, that article was written by a loon. Unless by "progressive" he meant "progressive government takeover/control of everything."

[OCinBuffalo]

In one sense? I agree about the cocoon thing. Just look at most of the threads started by the usual suspects: if its on the home page of Media Matters/Daily Kos/MoveOn.org there is a 95% chance it will end up as a thread here. The funny part is: the thread starters don't seem to understand why, and I think that in most cases they are surprised, when they leave their cocoon with their little tidbit, and post it here, that many of us who subscribe to logic/truth first, excoriate it/them.

 

For example: logic dictates that we read and understand a document before we agree to it. The current health care bill has not been read or understood by anybody...because, in truth, there is no current health care bill. Obama's Bill amounts to a power point presentation. So, it doesn't exist. Nobody should be voting for something they haven't read/don't understand, doubly so if it doesn't exist.

 

Supporting a concept is not the same as supporting a law. Again, logically, the first is theory, the second is reality. Yet, given this, because we can't support the health care law until we have read and understood it, we are being told by the cocoon people that we don't support health care reform, we hate poor people, we are only interested in Republicans taking over, and ultimately that we are all stupid.

 

The point is: these so-called conclusions are not those of the cocoon people, they are the conclusions of the people who run the cocoon. It remains to be seen when, if ever, the cocoon people will realize that the reason we call them idiots is because they keep coming here with their cocoon buffoonery.

[OCinBuffalo]

In another sense? I think it's laughable that the "poor Obama" articles have already started.

 

They did the same thing with Carter: "Boy, you know? He really tried, he really wanted to do a good job, but, he just got overcome by circumstances. Carter's chief of staff was a great political man, and he really knew how to run campaigns, but he had a tough time governing."

 

They never say: let's take a hard look at the ideas, which have been proven over and over to our unending consternation to blatantly suck.

 

Also, please explain how "Obama is four clicks to my left on most issues" and "Obama as a president trying to define a modern brand of moderate progressivism" belong in the same article?

 

So...he is a leftist moderate? Or, if Obama is 4 clicks to the left of this guy, and, Obama is a moderate, does that make this guy Republican?

 

How about: this guy is a supposed Republican, who started out as a liberal, who works for the NY times. It suffices to say: this guy is confused at best. Or better, this guy is catching hell from the people he works with to put a Republican face on the "poor Obama" story they have to write in a lame attempt to stop the bleeding.

 

Ask yourself: how many things has he done that he campaigned on? Never mind, ask yourself: he talked a ton about the way he would do things, name one example of how the way he is doing things is different than a DC insider Democrat.

 

The reason he has found a way to piss off both sides of the house is:

1. he promised things he had no intention of doing(ending the wars, closing Gitmo, etc.), or worse, he simply wasn't aware of the real situation while a candidate, and, didn't understand that he simply COULD NOT do those things until confronted with the truth and the consequences of such actions, once they became his responsibilities, not merely BushBad abstractions

2. he promised delivering policy that would be debated in the light of day and that had been worked on by both sides. Apparently he actually believed that his personality alone would command enough fear or respect to demand compliance.

 

I really think that his own ego is the problem here: he honestly thought that his "greatness"(unearned) would simply scare the Republicans away, and bend the laws of economics, finance, management, accounting, hell physics for that matter.

 

As I have said so many times, logic is logic, truth is truth, and nobody's ego, no matter how large, changes that.

[jjamie12]

In another sense? I think it's laughable that the "poor Obama" articles have already started.

 

They did the same thing with Carter: "Boy, you know? He really tried, he really wanted to do a good job, but, he just got overcome by circumstances. Carter's chief of staff was a great political man, and he really knew how to run campaigns, but he had a tough time governing."

 

They never say: let's take a hard look at the ideas, which have been proven over and over to our unending consternation to blatantly suck.

 

Also, please explain how "Obama is four clicks to my left on most issues" and "Obama as a president trying to define a modern brand of moderate progressivism" belong in the same article?

 

So...he is a leftist moderate? Or, if Obama is 4 clicks to the left of this guy, and, Obama is a moderate, does that make this guy Republican?

 

How about: this guy is a supposed Republican, who started out as a liberal, who works for the NY times. It suffices to say: this guy is confused at best. Or better, this guy is catching hell from the people he works with to put a Republican face on the "poor Obama" story they have to write in a lame attempt to stop the bleeding.

 

Ask yourself: how many things has he done that he campaigned on? Never mind, ask yourself: he talked a ton about the way he would do things, name one example of how the way he is doing things is different than a DC insider Democrat.

 

The reason he has found a way to piss off both sides of the house is:

1. he promised things he had no intention of doing(ending the wars, closing Gitmo, etc.), or worse, he simply wasn't aware of the real situation while a candidate, and, didn't understand that he simply COULD NOT do those things until confronted with the truth and the consequences of such actions, once they became his responsibilities, not merely BushBad abstractions

2. he promised delivering policy that would be debated in the light of day and that had been worked on by both sides. Apparently he actually believed that his personality alone would command enough fear or respect to demand compliance.

 

I really think that his own ego is the problem here: he honestly thought that his "greatness"(unearned) would simply scare the Republicans away, and bend the laws of economics, finance, management, accounting, hell physics for that matter.

 

As I have said so many times, logic is logic, truth is truth, and nobody's ego, no matter how large, changes that.

OC- In general, I think you're a smart guy. From what I know (admittedly, only in cyberspace, where anyone can lie about anything) about you, you have a nice education and have taken business chances in the world, and have done reasonably well for yourself. For that, I applaud you. In fact, I think that we agree FAR more than we disagreee about *the world*, in general. That is why I will wait to respond to your two posts until I am not drunk. Friday night, Sabres game = I had too much to drink to be coherent enough to respond to well reasoned thoughts tonight. I hope you understand.

[DC Tom]

You lost me at the line:

 

 

 

 

In a sensible country, people would see Obama and say wtf did we vote for

 

Lost you at the end of the article?

 

I disagree strongly with that line, too - Obama, to me, is a populist who campaigns on issues with the rhetoric of victimization, not some sort of post-modern neo-progressive. I also think the writer needlessly soft-shoes Obama's and Geithner's viws towards the free markets. Generally, though...interesting article, and rather thought-provoking.