What Liberals Say About Why the Obama Administration Has Been a Disaster
It's one thing to read what conservatives, who never got thrills up their legs about Barack Obama, think about what's not to like about this administration. But it's also informative to read what liberals think.
Bill Keller just left the helm of the New York Times to write columns for the paper. These columns have been pretty bad. Today Keller attempts to explain how things could fall so quickly from the orgasmic heights of the inauguration in January 2009:
The decline in Obama’s political fortunes, the Great Disappointment, can be attributed to four main factors: the intractable legacy bequeathed by George W. Bush; Republican resistance amounting to sabotage; the unrealistic expectations and inevitable disenchantment of some of the president’s supporters; and, to be sure, the man himself.
We learn that Obama's "Blame everything bad on Bush" strategy has been bought wholesale by Keller. He says it's unfair that all of Bush's many disasters are blamed on Obama and that the "Republicans have been relentlessly effective at rebranding every failing" as Obama's fault. He blames Bush tax cuts and the (imaginary) regulatory free-for-all for economic problems.
Then he blames the American desire for limited government and says such sentiments are based in "anger." He says liberals don't recognize all of Obama's wonderful accomplishments on the economy and with health care reform. To be sure, Obama does get some of the blame in Keller's explanation:
Obama can be faulted for periods of passivity (his silence as Republicans have sought to defund financial reforms), for a naïve deference to Congress (his belated engagement in the details of the health care bill), for a deficit of boldness and passion, for not doing more to stiffen the spines of his caucus on Capitol Hill, for not understanding — at least until his latest barnstorming on the jobs bill — that governing these days is a permanent campaign.
Oh dear. Then it devolves into some scaremongering about how all of the Republican candidates want to starve grandma and abolish all entitlement programs. So after reiterating how much of a disaster Obama has been -- albeit couched in a bunch of excuses as to why -- we get to the end and we realize it's the most ineffective column in defense of a candidate ever:
So let’s get real. Yes, Obama could do better. But we could do a lot worse.
For his sake alone, I hope Obama has more competent defenders than what we read here.
And the comments to the column are even more illuminating. People are angry that Keller was in any way negative about Obama and think he didn't go far enough in blaming Republicans. It's eye-opening to find out that this is where Obama's base is in terms of the stages of grief.
- Comment (11)
- · Quote
- · UnfollowFollow (2)
Comments :
Jan '11
Re: What Liberals Say About Why the Obama Administration Has Been a Disaster
So the explanation is
Psychologists make a lot of money off such blinkered self-defense.
Keller claims that conservatives see government as tyranny and compromise as apostasy. No. When government stays within its limits, it's fine. Funny that a liberal can't see the distinction between government and ever-expanding-government. Second, the president's current jobs plan shows what's wrong with liberal "compromise." They offer disastrous legislation and then demand that Republicans accept at least half of it. In their terminology, compromise means to give them half, no matter what the half might be.
Again, may I remind our liberal friends that when Solomon suggested splitting the baby, it was a bluff. The liar turned out to be the one who wanted the baby split. Splitting the baby isn't really a wise strategy.
Nov '10
Re: What Liberals Say About Why the Obama Administration Has Been a Disaster
The Obama administration has surrendered any effort to affect the economy. Our new Sec. of Commerce is an academic poverty "expert" for goodness sake. Business will sit on the sidelines and watch. We will see full campaign Obama mode from now on and a total populist rant for the next 12 months. Rhetoric will get uglier and uglier, confidence lower and lower, and the liberal party faithful will follow in lock step. However, I remain optimistic for the long run as the total capitulation that will come will sow the seeds of a better day.
Dec '10
Re: What Liberals Say About Why the Obama Administration Has Been a Disaster
If what he says is true—Americans lack an awareness that it was his predecessor who caused all of their misplaced dissatisfaction with our historic first Islamic apostate president, that after the initial first two years of the Democrats’ single-party control of Washington, Republicans control the national debate and consequently the legislative agenda, and that expectations had risen to an unsustainable level—then he has given three reasons why his newspaper has failed miserably to inform the public and lost our trust as a credible news source.
Jun '11
Re: What Liberals Say About Why the Obama Administration Has Been a Disaster
My in-laws made no remarks over Labor Day re: politics. For their sakes, I hope it is because they've moved through anger and bargaining into depression (then acceptance).
Our next family trip will be a doozy if they're still in denial!
Jan '11
Re: What Liberals Say About Why the Obama Administration Has Been a Disaster
Sadly, not my line originally, but "You know who else inherited an economy from George W Bush? Rick Perry".
Re: What Liberals Say About Why the Obama Administration Has Been a Disaster
So, Bill Keller is still smoking hopium.
Oct '10
Re: What Liberals Say About Why the Obama Administration Has Been a Disaster
I love this phrase: "Republican resistance amounting to sabotage." It exposes the core of the Left's disdain for the democratic process. Keller instinctively thinks that President Obama should never be required to win an argument or convince the general public that his policies are right. Because people on the Left are so self-evidently correct that anyone who doesn't simply get in line must be engaged in some act of national sabotage.
I'm sure Keller would apply this same rationale to, say, the Bush years. Clearly it was the opposition from political opponents, rather than his own personal flaws and misguided policies, that kept President Bush from being regarded as a successful leader. Right, Keller?
This sort of incoherence is just boring.
Edited on Sep 19, 2011 at 8:18amSep '10
Re: What Liberals Say About Why the Obama Administration Has Been a Disaster
I have a good friend who is quite the Progressive. His opinion is that Obama is too conservative. He sees Obama as slightly to the right of Mitt Romney. He thinks Obama is in the pocket of Big (whatever), just another tool of the Establishment.
Edited on Sep 19, 2011 at 8:28amRe: What Liberals Say About Why the Obama Administration Has Been a Disaster
I just can't get past Keller's first point: The decline in Obama’s political fortunes . . . can be attributed to . . . the intractable legacy bequeathed by George W. Bush
So - Obama's low approval ratings, more than 2 and a half years into his term is attributable to Bush? This is more than garden-variety grieving, it's delusional thinking on a grand scale. If Bush's "legacy" was really so awful, presumably that would help Obama since he has relentlessly cast himself as the anti-Bush.
May '10
Re: What Liberals Say About Why the Obama Administration Has Been a Disaster
I agree with so much of what has already been said about this guy's disconnect with reality. Then, there's this:
"[A]n orgy of regulatory permissiveness — that was the legacy Obama assumed."
Wow. Just, wow.
Mar '11
Re: What Liberals Say About Why the Obama Administration Has Been a Disaster
Keller's points are pathetic:
the intractable legacy bequeathed by George W. Bush -- Cry me a river. To quote that world-renowned political scientist Super Chicken: You knew the job was dangerous when you took it, Fred.
Republican resistance amounting to sabotage -- He had the whip hand for two years, without so much as a filibuster in the way. And now, the only thing between him and Socialist Utopia is the House. Reagan used to play those guys like the Globetrotters play the Washington Generals.
the unrealistic expectations and inevitable disenchantment of some of the president’s supporters -- Gee, those unrealistic expectations weren't egged on by anybody, were they?
and, to be sure, the man himself -- You got me there, sunshine. But then again, a decent job of vetting the candidate could have been done. Why wasn't it?