Now, Keith called the piece “an interview”, and later referred to the same piece in another segment. This is where I could be wrong. “The Education of President Obama” is not a straight up interview. It’s kind of a profile piece, containing segments of interviews from a lot of people. If there is another piece Keith is referring to, I’d love to see it, because what I read ain’t it.
Still, there’s something about reading something before you hear from the pundits, and watching their analysis go off like a runaway rocket.
Yes, I'm saying I think Keith screwed this one up. The job he did on this seems as bad as any Fox News piece. If I wanted his level of half-ass analysis, I'd read Huffington Post.
Now, the money quote Keith mentioned about Obama being seen as a Tax and Spend Liberal was far more nuanced in the piece I read.
Well, why don't you read it for yourself:
While proud of his record, Obama has already begun thinking about what went wrong — and what he needs to do to change course for the next two years. He has spent what one aide called “a lot of time talking about Obama 2.0” with his new interim chief of staff, Pete Rouse, and his deputy chief of staff, Jim Messina. During our hour together, Obama told me he had no regrets about the broad direction of his presidency. But he did identify what he called “tactical lessons.” He let himself look too much like “the same old tax-and-spend liberal Democrat.” He realized too late that “there’s no such thing as shovel-ready projects” when it comes to public works. Perhaps he should not have proposed tax breaks as part of his stimulus and instead “let the Republicans insist on the tax cuts” so it could be seen as a bipartisan compromise.
I’m trying to figure out why exactly Bill Burton needed to clarify any of that with Keith. Seems pretty damn clear to me. How exactly does this depress my fellow Liberals?
So for months, Keith and the Huffington Post set scream and holler that the President wasn't doing "it" right. The President in a moment of self reflection admits it, and...the same set pummels him for admitting it???
Also, Keith didn’t mention the very next paragraph:
Strikes me that the President kinda gets the idea that there is no profit in the notion of “taking care of the policies and the politics will take care of itself.”
Then, what really got on my nerves is Keith dug in with a second reflection on the same article (again, could be wrong). This time I saw the quotes he was talking about, and he still selectively edited the damn thing.
Keith made it sound like the President was ready to give up the whole store to the Republicans.
Wanna read what was actually in the article?:
What was I said about “taking care of the policies and the politics will take care of itself?”
And "perhaps Obama sees a bit of himself in a young, substantive policy thinker??" That's the writer going off on a tangent, not the President.
I know. The "he doesn't like confrontation" quote didn't do anything for me either. Still, he doesn't have to like it. He just has to do it.
Also, this isn't exactly a new idea. Should have been Keith's outraged when Obama supporter, and Tea-Party hater Colin Powell said pretty much the same thing about a month ago on his very network?
I disagree with General Powell's idea that too much was done. Folks need to get over that.
Look, you be the judge. From where I stand, this is the same pragmatist that we voted into office. I think the President needs to take more political advantage of the Republicans if they do take the House. He needs to make a punching bag out of them sometimes, especially if they launch as many investigations as they're threatening.
At the same time, I will make this warning to the President. Right now, for Liberals, the choice between him and the Republicans is clear. If he caves too much to the Republican agenda, especially after watching them do nothing but thwart his for two years, then a lot of Liberals aren’t going to be disappointed in him, they’re going to be pissed off, and then they will stay home in 2012. We didn’t vote him in to sign in a Republican Agenda. If the GOP tries a Government Shutdown, his reaction cannot be "you know they're got a point".
When dealing with these scumbags, he needs to make sure he’s getting the maximum out of the GOP that he can.
Wouldn’t it be ironic, if it was a Republican Congress that passed a Public Option?
The whole article was a worthwhile read, but it is very long. Still, do yourself a favor, hit the link, print it out...and don’t rely on someone else to do your reading for you.
Not even Keith.
Also, Keith didn’t mention the very next paragraph:
Most of all, he has learned that, for all his anti-Washington rhetoric, he has to play by Washington rules if he wants to win in Washington. It is not enough to be supremely sure that he is right if no one else agrees with him. “Given how much stuff was coming at us,” Obama told me, “we probably spent much more time trying to get the policy right than trying to get the politics right. There is probably a perverse pride in my administration — and I take responsibility for this; this was blowing from the top — that we were going to do the right thing, even if short-term it was unpopular. And I think anybody who’s occupied this office has to remember that success is determined by an intersection in policy and politics and that you can’t be neglecting of marketing and P.R. and public opinion.”
Strikes me that the President kinda gets the idea that there is no profit in the notion of “taking care of the policies and the politics will take care of itself.”
Then, what really got on my nerves is Keith dug in with a second reflection on the same article (again, could be wrong). This time I saw the quotes he was talking about, and he still selectively edited the damn thing.
Keith made it sound like the President was ready to give up the whole store to the Republicans.
Wanna read what was actually in the article?:
“There are a lot of lessons learned in the last two years in terms of how we might improve internal communication, encourage greater accountability without discouraging individual initiative,” said one aide familiar with the discussions led by Rouse and Messina. Obama has been aggravated by friction among his advisers. “He’s a little frustrated with the internal dysfunction,” the aide said. “He doesn’t like confrontation.” But his initial choices to fill open slots have been drawn largely from his administration, suggesting more continuity than change.
Rouse and Messina see areas for possible bipartisan agreement, like reauthorizing the nation’s education laws to include reform measures favored by centrists and conservatives, passing long-pending trade pacts and possibly even producing scaled-back energy legislation. “You’ll hear more about exports and less about public spending,” a senior White House official said. “You’ll hear more about initiative and private sector and less about the Department of Energy. You’ll hear more about government as a financier and less about government as a hirer.”
Obama expressed optimism to me that he could make common cause with Republicans after the midterm elections. “It may be that regardless of what happens after this election, they feel more responsible,” he said, “either because they didn’t do as well as they anticipated, and so the strategy of just saying no to everything and sitting on the sidelines and throwing bombs didn’t work for them, or they did reasonably well, in which case the American people are going to be looking to them to offer serious proposals and work with me in a serious way.”
I asked if there were any Republicans he trusted enough to work with on economic issues. The first name he came up with was Senator Judd Gregg of New Hampshire, who initially agreed to serve as Obama’s commerce secretary before changing his mind. But Gregg is retiring. The only other Republican named by Obama was Paul Ryan, the Wisconsin congressman who has put together a detailed if politically problematic blueprint for reducing federal spending. The two men are ideologically poles apart, but perhaps Obama sees a bit of himself in a young, substantive policy thinker.
Even if such an alliance emerges, though, the next two years will be mostly about cementing what Obama did in his first two years — and defending it against challenges in Congress and the courts. “Even if I had the exact same Congress, even if we don’t lose a seat in the Senate and we don’t lose a seat in the House, I think the rhythms of the next two years would inevitably be different from the rhythms of the first two years,” Obama told me. “There’s going to be a lot of work in this administration just doing things right and making sure that new laws are stood up in the ways they’re intended.”
What was I said about “taking care of the policies and the politics will take care of itself?”
And "perhaps Obama sees a bit of himself in a young, substantive policy thinker??" That's the writer going off on a tangent, not the President.
I know. The "he doesn't like confrontation" quote didn't do anything for me either. Still, he doesn't have to like it. He just has to do it.
Also, this isn't exactly a new idea. Should have been Keith's outraged when Obama supporter, and Tea-Party hater Colin Powell said pretty much the same thing about a month ago on his very network?
MR. GREGORY: Do you think that Republicans are poised to retake at least the House? And would you like to see them do that with this--the current slate of candidates and some of the ideas?
GEN. POWELL: I, I don't know. The, the pollsters would tell us that the Republicans are poised to take over the House. That wouldn't break my heart, I wouldn't go into a funk. Frankly, it might be good for the president to have the Republicans owning one of the two bodies of our Congress.
MR. GREGORY: How so?
GEN. POWELL: Because then they have responsibility. You can't just say no to everything. You can't just sit around beating up the president. But the president also has to, I think, shift the way in which he has been doing things. I think the American people feel that too many programs have come down. There are so many rocks in our knapsack now that we're having trouble carrying it. I think the president has to, like a, like a, like a razor blade, just go right after the single issue that is uppermost in the minds of the American people and that's employment. And he's done a lot with health care, with cap and trade, with education, and I understand the importance of all of that; but as far as the American people are concerned, the main attack is employment, and he's got to fix that.
I disagree with General Powell's idea that too much was done. Folks need to get over that.
Look, you be the judge. From where I stand, this is the same pragmatist that we voted into office. I think the President needs to take more political advantage of the Republicans if they do take the House. He needs to make a punching bag out of them sometimes, especially if they launch as many investigations as they're threatening.
At the same time, I will make this warning to the President. Right now, for Liberals, the choice between him and the Republicans is clear. If he caves too much to the Republican agenda, especially after watching them do nothing but thwart his for two years, then a lot of Liberals aren’t going to be disappointed in him, they’re going to be pissed off, and then they will stay home in 2012. We didn’t vote him in to sign in a Republican Agenda. If the GOP tries a Government Shutdown, his reaction cannot be "you know they're got a point".
When dealing with these scumbags, he needs to make sure he’s getting the maximum out of the GOP that he can.
Wouldn’t it be ironic, if it was a Republican Congress that passed a Public Option?
The whole article was a worthwhile read, but it is very long. Still, do yourself a favor, hit the link, print it out...and don’t rely on someone else to do your reading for you.
Not even Keith.
No comments:
Post a Comment