Gollum and Smeagol on the debt deal

I get that Saruman is the Koch brothers, and the Tea Party is clearly the Wild Men of Dunland. John Boehner is likely the Witch-king of Angmar. But who is Obama? We wanted him to be Gandalf, but he’s looking more like Denethor.

I’m not that cynical, Chris–though I could almost accept him, sometimes, as Radagast, the wizard who left the stage sometime around March 2010 and hasn’t been scene since.

Obama also probably just lost most of his support among the Democrats

A considerable exaggeration. Anyway, where are they going to go?

[I don’t catch most of these LoTR refs. I do remember Gollum though, who seems in this post to be on some serious extra-legal substance: “The last war that will cover all the world in shadow.” On second thought maybe the somewhat androgynous warrior elf, whatever his name is, would be up for that.]

But who is Obama?

You need a different literary role model: T.S. Eliot, not J.R.R. Tolkien:

We are the hollow men
We are the stuffed men
Leaning together
Headpiece filled with straw. Alas!

Nay Frank. The bankers are the nine kings. They have been totally seduced by evil and fight on its behalf.

Well, if we’re gonna do Eliot, I’d humbly suggest that though the tongues of flame are well in-folded, the fire and the rose are not yet one.

How ’bout the U.S. Senate as an entmoot?

A considerable exaggeration. Anyway, where are they going to go?

The recent Gallup poll shows his economic approval ratings have collapsed among Dems – only half of African Americans think his actions have helped the economy. I doubt they will vote R or even Green, but they may just stay home, or not volunteer for Dem candidates. With unemployment at 9% for the foreseeable future, there will be plenty of GOTV applicants available on the cheap though.

Oh my…precious!

If the comments to various threads this morning are any indication, people sympathetic to Obama are going against him in high numbers

I think it’s important to remember that the comments in any threads any morning are no indication whatsoever. I just saw a poll the other day reporting that among Democrats, Obama’s level of support is higher for this point in his administration than any president since Truman.

This shocked me because I don’t know of anyone who supports Obama. I think among my online acquaintances who talk about politics his approval rating would be close to zero percent. The liberals all think he’s a right-wing sellout, and the conservatives all think he’s a left-wing madman. But I think this is because my impression of political opinions comes from people who talk about politics on the Internet.

This shocked me because I don’t know of anyone who supports Obama.

I don’t “support” Obama. But I will vote* for Obama next year because however shitty a president he may be, his opponent is guaranteed to be far shittier. My sense is that this is where a lot of my fellow lefties are.

*Vote? Yes.
Knock on doors, stuff envelopes, distribute flyers, write a check? Fuck no.

As a dyed-in-the-wool Democrat, I must regretfully after long heartwrenching thought state that I will not vote for Obama again. Doing so would be as ethically broken as he has shown himself to be.

Lee A. Arnold #11 asked “…where are they going to go?”

At this point, I would suggest the nearest bar.

I saw on 60 Minutes last night that Brazil’s economy is growing like gangbusters with a very cozy relationship to export to China for pretty much whatever China needs. The point was also made that Brazil doesn’t expect to ever start a war. They’d prefer to go to the beach or have a beer.

Politicians are orcs.

I don’t have to go anywhere else in order to withdraw support to Obama.

It’s more like —

(Knock Knock)
Sauron opens door to see Frodo.

Frodo: I believe this is yours, Sauron.
Sauron: I’ve been looking for that thing everywhere!
Frodo: Any chance of a lift back to the Shire?

As to #25, referring to Romney and Rick Perry as “both pretty generic,” you can’t be from Texas or you would know that Rick Perry is a far from generic type. He is pattern-card Tea Party, a tub-thumping Bible-belter who would be thrilled to take the country back to a pre-New Deal society. His vaunted “Texas miracle” has created 200,000 jobs – that involve paper hats. To achieve this, he has decimated the education system of Texas, which was in the toilet even before he started slashing it. What he did in his 10 years with Texas is a model in some ways of what all the far-right Republicans (and there isn’t any other kind, is there?) want to do to the whole country: Sap all strength from every public service organ, let the Robber Barons roar, turn out dumb, angry citizens fit only for minimum wage jobs, and feed them to an industrial sector that ruins what’s left of the environment. Sound good to you guys? But don’t underestimate him. He could actually beat Michelle Bachman and Mitt Romney, so I’d start practising that drawl if I were you.

P O’Neill,

Sources tell me it went down like this,

Frodo: Look, the people of Middle Earth are tired of this bickering, so I will give you back your ring if you promise not to use it for evil.
Sauron: No
Frodo: How about not using very often?
Sauron: No, and give me that armor you are wearing.
Frodo: Okay, it’s a deal. Here you are.
Sauron: The armor…
Frodo: Here.

I, too, am beginning to see Obama as Denethor. But the true shadow or Mordor remains firmly fixed in the Repub camp. Not for nothing, but this might serve as an appropriate reminder: The Two Towers: The Banishment of Grover Wormquist.

http://youtu.be/w65menUWLIY.

I made it a few weeks ago and it seems more salient than ever now.

I am not terribly thrilled with Obama right now either, but this whole idea that there’s no difference between Obama and whoever the Republicans run (i.e. ” I have resigned myself to sit the next election out. I have the choice between a center right republican and a far right republican. That is no choice I am willing to make.”) is exactly the argument that Nader made back in 2000, that there was no difference between Gore and Bush. It was as crazy then as it is now, and that sort of thinking directly led to 8 years of GW Bush. How did that work out for you?

Sure Obama cut a bad deal with some crazy people, but don’t forget that it’s the crazy people who are the real problem. Don’t blame the firefighter for failing to rescue the kids from the burning building (even if the firefighter did a pretty pathetic job attempting the rescue). Blame the arsonist who started the fire in the first place.

Well, Plouffe is correct though. A greater proportion of independents (and Democrats for that matter) wanted the Dems to compromise in comparison to the proportion of independents (and, separately, Republicans) who wanted the Republicans to compromise.

Obama’s numbers against a generic GOP candidate have been shrinking, with the greatest loss from independents.

Finally, remember that this deal is basically a gap measure to get us beyond the 2012 elections. Obama had more to lose than the Republicans from a lack of a deal, and he needed the Republicans for any deal.

Making the deal was the smart move for Obama, and in the 2012 election the country will have a chance to weigh in on the issues that were pushed down the road – like higher taxes on the wealthy.

Sure Obama cut a bad deal with some crazy people, but don’t forget that it’s the crazy people who are the real problem. Don’t blame the firefighter for failing to rescue the kids from the burning building (even if the firefighter did a pretty pathetic job attempting the rescue). Blame the arsonist who started the fire in the first place.

Every town has crazy people. Not every town has a fire commissioner offering fuel to the crazy people to help them burn it down.

Making the deal was the smart move for Obama, and in the 2012 election the country will have a chance to weigh in on the issues that were pushed down the road – like higher taxes on the wealthy.

Care to make a bet?

Uncle Kvetch @40
I have no hard evidence, more like a hunch about where his ‘real’ position is. Now Bill Clinton, by possible contrast, was always more of a centrist by conviction; he wouldn’t have turned esp. left in his second term even if he hadn’t gotten mired in the impeachment thing.

I have no hard evidence, more like a hunch about where his ‘real’ position is. Now Bill Clinton, by possible contrast, was always more of a centrist by conviction; he wouldn’t have turned esp. left in his second term even if he hadn’t gotten mired in the impeachment thing.

I had Obama pegged as Clinton Redux before he took office, and nothing he’s done or said in the intervening time has led me to reconsider that.

@ Uncle Kvetch: his opponent would be “much shitier.” Really? Marginally, perhaps.

I get where you’re coming from, David, but when I feel pulled in that direction I remind myself that there’s this thing called the US Supreme Court. Put another way: “How shitty? Tony Scalia shitty.” That’s enough to keep me voting for the least worst alternative.

Mundanely, right now the new media tizzy is Biden saying Tea Partiers acted like terrorists in the debt negotiations. Whatever–I’d take issue with the terrorist point of view, I’d liken them more to hostage takers or hijackers than terrorists, but that’s marginalia.

More interestingly, in the same speech Biden said that Obama was prepared to use the 14th Amendment to cut through the impasse. This is huge, and I can’t help but think it might be a hint from Biden to the House Democrats: screw this shit, if you can make this deal fail then do it. Obama has the willingness to use the 14th; force him to be a leader.

I’m holding out for Pelosi to do the right thing. Luckily I have more faith in her will and principles than any other part of the Democratic leadership, so even if it’s a lost cause we’ve at least got one of our best in the driver’s seat.

I guess you live in one of the handful of states where your vote counts. Ohio, Florida, Wisconsin, maybe Pennsylvania but probably not…

Good point. I live in New York state. Either (1) Obama will have a lock on the state to the extent that my vote will be meaningless, or (2) Obama will be competitive in the state, in which case he’s doomed to lose in a landslide, thus rendering my vote meaningless.

This is what democracy looks like?

You know, I wonder what part of Lord of the Rings we get to mock up, when election season starts and Republican candidates have to appeal to their bases?

I think *piglet* starts envisioning being roasted on a spit, and hurries to vote Obama, because seriously, do any of you guys think about what those election ads are going to be like? Many of them are going to be some variant or other of “How To Eat A Librul”.

shah8: Obama’s copy of “To serve liberals” is a COOKBOOK!

“I don’t “support” Obama. But I will vote* for Obama next year because however shitty a president he may be, his opponent is guaranteed to be far shittier. ”

Youy can read the future?

It seems clear to me that there is – already – countewr evidence: Obama is WORSE than Bush on many things (assaulting whistel-blowers, drone killing innocents &c.)

Perhaps Obama should switch parties. The Rs may not particularly want him, but they look like they need a credible candidate, so might go for it out of desperation. Obama, on the other hand, is much more flexible, and should have no trouble switch hitting. That would clear the field for a D to get the D nomination.

At the time Nixon was our president, I always thought that he would have been happier as chief of state in the USSR or the PRC. Both those countries needed a leadership transfusion, and their systems seemed more in line with Nixon’s style. He never seemed to have gotten the hang of small d democracy.

Obama seems not to get the basics of big D Democracy.

Some responses to commenters:

Kevin@29

‘You don’t win elections be “winning over” the independents. You win elections by getting the base to turn out to vote.’

While I agree with the thrust of your argument re Obama, I don’t think this is right. Clearly elections are won by appealing to some combination of both your base and independent voters (this is after all why politicians say one thing in the run up to the primaries and then suddenly ‘change their minds’ on key issues before the generals). On the one hand, if independent voters believed the same as your base, well, then they’d be your base, and on the other, Democrats don’t have anywhere near a big enough base to win elections without appealing to independents too.

However, what is remarkable about this latest capitulation is that Obama appeared to have positioned himself reasonably close to the centre of public opinion on the debt ceiling, and yet has ended up agreeing to a deal considerably to the right of the wishes of even independent voters (and even some moderate Republicans

(http://i2.cdn.turner.com/cnn/2011/images/07/21/rel11b.pdf) (page 9)

This is why this failure is so noteworthy, and why he’s now looking so likely to go down in history as an ineffectual one-term president – he’s pissed off his base, and failed to give independents what they want, while looking like a weak leader and a hopeless negotiator at the same time.

FDR as Beren Erchamion the One Handed, who long ago wrested the Silmarils of the New Deal from the crown of Prescott Bush. (I admit Eleanor is unlikely as Luthien).

Nancy Pelosi as Galadriel, a living relic of a dimly legendary Liberal Age, somehow maintained into the present, in the enchanted forest of San Francisco. Few who venture there emerge unchanged.

LBJ as Isildur – a powerful leader and warrior, doomed by his flaws, the last to wield the sword of Organized Labor.

JFK as Gil-Galad – of him the harpers sadly sing.

Rahm as Boromir.

Elizabeth Warren as Faramir, banished for giving right counsel and leal service.

Alan Greenspan as Saruman, once powerful and accounted one of the Wise,
later the creator of a new and stronger breed of Orc,
but now much reduced, and his staff broken.

Ayn Rand as Smaug, who knows only greed.

Pam Oshry Geller as Shelob, with Michelle Malkin and Debby Schluessel and Ann Althouse her lesser spawn, spinning their own Webs for the unwary.

Bill O’Reilly as Bill Ferny.

I see no Aragorn nor Arwen nor Gandalf.

If the Wisconsin recalls succeed, perhaps we can call that state The Shire,
and look for some unlikely hero.

piglet said “And please, go watch the video at 38. This is how we will win!”

Ok, that was kinda funny. I’m not in a laughing mood though nor is anyone I know. Everyone in my building would have been directly harmed by default. For some, those with HIV, diabetes etc. would suffer a lot if the gov could no longer function. I have no resources to fall back on, no one to turn to, no where to go but back on the street if the government fails.

You all are better educated than I am, you are intellectual elites. I am not. I don’t know what the solution is but I do think it is imperative to correctly understand the facts. If one only sees the political landscape as filtered through some fantasy narrative then I highly doubt one will find an effective solution.

I am not interested in trying to divine what goes on in Obama’s or any other pol’s mind. I don’t care if he or anyone is a true democrat. All I want to know is if his policies benefit me or not. Or, failing that, if the strategy being pursued will be effective. So… being poor and having time I have looked around. To the best of my knowledge Obama is pursuing which he believes will yield results in the long run. He is not seeking temporary victories.

His strategy is one of slow, incremental, pragmatic change. One argument in favor of this is, I think, that if Obama and the Dems had taken advantage of their success in 2008 and passed sweeping changes along the lines that Liberals like me and Leftists like y’all….. if they had lorded it over on the GOP there would have been tremendous blowback. Which is better? Sweeping radical change followed by an equally radical response from the right in which you lose those gains. Or one small step in the right direction?

I listen to right wing radio on occasion. They’re insane. But imagine how much more insane they’d be if we had passed universal healthcare along with the rest of the things progressives wanted. Say hello to president Michelle Bachmann. I don’t think that’s a win.

Most people I know pay little attention to politics, except for times like this. They usually believe in one conspiracy theory or another, more or less. All they care about is their immediate needs. But, they all (mostly) have very negative views of republicans and especially the tea party. Maybe it’s wishful thinking but I feel the tea party has permanently damaged the GOP brand. That’s a win, I think.

Obama is definitely “The Traitor in the Camp” in the literary sense. But not Boromir, succumbing in a moment of weakness; his LotR analogue is Saruman. The guy who behind closed doors says the fix is in, there’s nothing he can do about it, and why not grab a piece of the action for himself – and, say, would you like to be on the winning team?

As for the 2010 results interpreted for 2012? I’ve long since concluded that pretending to misinterpret them had as part of it’s purpose a coldly vicious punch in the teeth to the “liberals” who “defied” him. You do this at your own peril, he is saying, and that he – and not you – control the message. Iow, the message is, if “liberals” don’t turn out next year, don’t vote for him, don’t campaign for him, don’t serve as a source of cheap labor for him, and he still manages to win, well, he will exact his revenge.

Imho, he gives every public indication of not being a man of good character in private. He is vain, unwholesomely proud, petty, prideful, spiteful, holds grudges . . . and doesn’t think twice about telling a lie if he thinks it will help him.

Now, please, don’t ask me how I feel about him.

I am with Kevin @49. I think it’s approaching time for the Elves to leave Middle Earth.

I am slowly coming to a realization that I live in a country where a large proportion of my fellow citizens and I have radically different conceptions of how we want to live and what we want our country to look like. I think part of the problem is that, as liberals, we assume that deep down most people agree with us, or would be if they weren’t deluded. Honestly though, I’m not so sure if that’s actually the case. I think there are people who would rather live close to poverty and in constant insecurity to be able to do things like shop cheaply at Walmart, drive a big car, worship in a megachurch, live far away from neighbors, or own lots of guns, rather than than have things like universal healthcare and free decent education but have to live more densely and take public transportation, have abortion widely available, etc. As far as I can tell, those people seem to be winning, and people who think like me seem to be losing. At a certain point, it just comes time to concede that in a democracy, if a majority wants something very different from you, there’s little one can do about it. It might be time to stop viewing Reaganomics and the Christian right as a temporary phase but rather as a fundamental shift in the framework. The age of elves has ended; the age of men has begun.

You know what? Dont stay home. That is what the republicans want, as their winning strategy is “depress D turnout”. Dont vote D, because their strategy is that they can serve their base any amount of shit they want and still have it vote for them, which. Yhea, they deserve to be wiped from the face of the earth.

Vote socialist. Write in a candidate if you dont get a third option on the ballot. Wasted vote? Not when the alternative is staying home drunk, or enabling Obama to spend another 4 years tearing down the american middle class. Do a GoTV effort for a party that actually intends to do something about 10% unemployment.

Bernie Sanders as Gandalf.

I have lost all confidence in Obama. As a leader he has failed to act decisively or with moral authority when confronted with crisis he should have anticipated. I think his Presidency is in danger for that reason… and that reason alone. Most Americans care less about a candidates political strips than what they perceive as the candidates integrity, leadership, if they just plain like him, or how the economy is doing if they are an incumbent.

I care about the stripes – and frankly am tired of so called conservative Democrats throwing progressive values out and throwing the grass-roots base under the bus. To me the dept deal is the third poison knife in the back of the people on behalf of the multi-national corporate hegemony (Sauron). So instead of the “new deal” President we needed we have a deal maker selling-off our social institutions along with our hopes of reforming a corrupted system.

Despite protests to the contrary I think moderate Republicans, conservative Democrats and Obama all got what they wanted out of the dept “deal” – while tea baggers, liberals and the American people all got thrown under the bus.

At this point I will not vote for Obama in the primary.

The general election is likely to be a harder choice. I instinctively mistrust Republican politicians and my instincts have invariably been right… but Obama has proven less than trustworthy also. A Republican President might actually have a harder time selling out our social institutions since Democrats wouldn’t feel compelled to cooperate. The Republican might also have better leadership skills and be able to act more decisively in a crisis – which might be good if they aren’t one of those Republican hawks.

If it was someone like Ron Paul who I can agree with on a couple issues (who, however wrong he may be on others issues is still a hobbit and might be willing to take a knife to Sauron)… I might have to vote Republican for President for the first time in my life.

Otherwise I think I’ll just write Aragorn in, although there is that Supreme Court thing – so it is likely to be a hard decision.

Bizarre. The deal lifts the debt ceiling, preserves entitlement programs, and forestalls any serious cuts – other than to defense – until post-2012.

The sense I get here is that if Obama didn’t somehow magically produce a debt-ceiling deal that provided a single-payer system, 90% marginal rates, and whatever else is on the far left wish list, he would be declared a sell-out.

Really, the rhetoric is almost surreal.

One example:

David @67: He could have ended this weeks ago by announcing that he could and would invoke the 14th amendment and screw you.

That would have extended uncertainty indefinitely and, if it meant no Congressional deal, caused serious financial problems.

I’ve come around to the Greenwald view that dismantling the New Deal is just fine with him.

Yeah, because this deal somehow dismantles the New Deal.

Thomas @69: …enabling Obama to spend another 4 years tearing down the american middle class.

Yeah, Obama, who inherited the worst recession since the Great Depression, has been “tearing down the american middle class” for the last three years. How is he doing that exactly? By failing to magically get far-left policies enacted in a country, and with a Congress, that is anything but far left?

Let’s be clear. I don’t like the cuts in this deal – I’m probably one of the few here who think cutting defense spending is an enormous mistake – and I think cuts in the short-term generally are a huge mistake.

Average estimates have the cuts shaving .1-.2% off GDP, with others claiming .3-.4%. That’s not great.

We don’t have revenue enhancements, but given the GOP position and their control of the House, that’s very hard to get. You’d need clear support from the public, and that wasn’t there in this debate. It CAN be there in a broader election though. So this is an issue to win in 2012.

We’re cutting defense spending at a terrible time. Tensions are growing worse, not better, in East Asia; the Pakistani government just pressured its central bank into a surprise rate cut (Pakistan already has the second-highest inflation in Asia); the direction of Egypt, and increasingly Syria, is uncertain; the direction of Iran is uncertain; and the problem of failed states in Africa continues.

@ Roger:

The myth that Nader was a spoiler in the 2000 election has been debunked statistically. Nader didn’t give us Bush, Republican operatives managed to get the vote count halted, and the Supreme Court voted Bush in 5 to 4. Nader didn’t have enough votes to make up the difference.

Reading Andrew F’s last comment has helped me appreciate the extent to which “moderation” is a personality trait rather than a policy position. I’m a pretty moderate guy, and all I want is incremental change. Objectively, Obama handled the debt ceiling crisis poorly, and the best we can say at the moment is “maybe it’s not as bad as it looks”. Now the Republicans have established that they can use the debt ceiling as a bargaining chip, even though the implicit threat that they’ll default on the debt is at most barely believable. Back when Simpson and Bowles floated their joint plan, it was clearly on the right-hand side of the debate. Now it’s probably to the left of whatever the Super-committee comes up with. If that deal is unpalatable, we have to believe that the Democrats — who wouldn’t call the bluff of the Republicans on the debt ceiling — are going to call the bluff of the Republicans and let automatic cuts to defense happen. The Republican attack ads on how the Democrats “cut defense in a time of war” are probably already sitting on the shelf ready to air come November 2011.

But of course there are far leftists out there in the world, and they’re wrong on the Internet, so Andrew F can beat them up and feel better.

scentofviolets said — “he gives every public indication of not being a man of good character in private.”

It is interesting how even intellectual elites can fall back on magical thinking and mind reading when their own ideology is challenged.

Walt said – “But of course there are far leftists out there in the world, and they’re wrong on the Internet, so Andrew F can beat them up and feel better.”

And passive aggressive despair is no improvement

Get Over It: This Is Who Obama Is
http://www.nationaljournal.com/whitehouse/get-over-it-this-is-who-obama-is-20110727

Many Obama allies thought he’d sold them out on the death penalty. In retrospect, he had not. Perhaps more than any participant, he cold-bloodedly believed that his interrogation law would alter police behavior, while also protecting them from unfair charges of coercion in extracting confessions. Many participants did not see that long-term result as he did. All these years later, he’s been proven correct. You don’t hear grousing about it these days. It’s worked.

Obama is a pragmatist and his strategy apparently worked in Illinois. I guess we will see if it works on the national stage also.

But, for Obama, it also meant a strategic set of notions about finding mutual agreement among people with the most divergent of motivations

The reason this is necessary is because finding mutual agreement works, forcing others to agree against their will through political or other forms of domination does not work. Unfortunately those on both the Left and the Right feel their particular ideology is so important they are tempted to use force to get their way. (Force is anytime you do not have full agreement from the other side.)

Then, as now, he was also about seeking resolutions, not just bashing the rich. It was intellectual empiricism and streetwise practicality all at play. It was about doing a deal and moving on.

The horror.

Don’t you just love the marketplace of ideas! As in all marketplaces, the failure of a competitor allows the remaining participants to modify their offering. Capitalists win, commies lose! While this is true, it remains to be seen if the public will buy the fully de-contented capitalist offering, or demand remnants of the old offering. I argue we are seeing the high water mark of Reganomics/trickle down. After 30 years the evidence is clear that the average voter is not better off and the country is portrayed as broke. How can you argue this is a success? The pendulum will swing.

our president is obviously frodo baggins. the ring is a terrible weight on his shoulders and he is trying to stay alive to destroy it. in the end…. he will… but the road ahead is fraught with trouble. at least medicare is safe and he will let the evil bush tax cuts go. but… he, being rational expects others to be rational. when they arent, its a surprise to him. the tea klux klan has finally exposed itself to be the enemy of reason and the enemy of the people…. i fully believe things will be better…….. and i will support president obama in the next election.

@Andrew F: You’re simply making up your sense you get of what quite a few people here want(ed).
No one is talking about single payer, we’re talking about abject capitulation on the debt ceiling (which is only the latest in a long line, unless you are a True Believer, of failures to stand for anything). You may well believe that putting lipstick on a turd is transformative. I do not.

This deal does not leave social programs intact. It will all but kill medicare as providers drop it in droves. Social Security will be next in line. Already, Mitch McConnell has stated that this deal is the template for further negotiations. Nice work.

I fail to see how actually invoking the constitution would create uncertainty. Rather, it would be a significant step in acknowledging that the whole debt ceiling BS is, and always has been, unconstitutional.

Others of you: get over these silly Ron Paul fantasies. My god, the man is a loon. I intend to vote third party or write-in.

Does that mean I want Romney appointing Supreme Court justices? Hell no. But I wish we had a better president than Obama.

Nah. Obama doesn’t appoint SCJ’s. Remember, he would have appointed someone with a much better record than his last pick[1] . . . but the votes just weren’t there ;-)

[1]Funny how that never came up when Bush the Lesser gave us treasonous liars like John Roberts.

Sigh. The fact that you are unwilling to admit that Roberts blatantly lied during his confirmation hearings, Anderson, marks you as something less than serious.

I’ve never understood people like you who a) want to win every battle, and b) want to be considered serious.

Perhaps Obama is Frodo as Kevin says… but I see him standing at mouth of Mt. Doom claiming it for his own… but is there a Gollum to tear it from his finger (perhaps Ron Paul… who, while having the courage of his convictions is still a nutter and would hopefully throw himself into fire as did Smeagol).

Whatever cards the President was handed I have not seen him call a bluff or demonstrate the moral fortitude to stand up for core democratic principles when it counted… at least since he became President. While the administration may have a pretty good list of accomplishments, many have come at a very high cost to the future of America. His advisers appear to be telling him he can get re-elected using the magic power of triangulation and he seems more interested in that than leading the country out of crisis. But the President has failed to show the American people that he is willing to risk his Presidency for the good of the country… so triangulation just makes him a compromised compromiser and self-serving politician instead of a pragmatic leader.

Obama supporters can make all the excuses for him they want, but the American people are not looking for excuses. If Obama is Frodo he needs to caste off the influence of the ring. If he is Theoden Obama supporters need to send Gandalf to wake him and break Sarumans spell. Obama needs to become “Presidential” and start leading the country if he whats to win back my vote… and if he does that he will win a lot more than my vote. He could even become a great President instead of either a footnote or historical embarrassment.

Unfortunately, he has locked in the right of the Health Insurance and Banking industries to suck the economic blood of the nation. With this bad dept deal he has also guaranteed we will be taking austerity measures to flog our faltering economy and dismantle the waning middle class (elvish settlements)… so it would take truly heroic action to turn things around.

Perhaps I’m just an Obama-worshipper looking for a reason to support my idol, but here goes:

After the disaster of the Bush Presidency, many a conservative persuaded themselves that they didn’t “really” support Bush. They “held their nose” when they voted for him, because the alternative, Kerry, was worse. Kerry being, after all, a baby-killing traitor who wanted to destroy America.

This is how conservatives “reason.” And I have every desire to avoid this insanity, so when I hear myself saying “I will reluctantly vote for Obama, because the alternative is worse,” I shudder. Vote principle, not party, I think, so to be as different from a Bush voter as possible. BUT. . .

Isn’t it simply true that Obama is better than any republican, just as it was simply false that Kerry was a baby-killer? Isn’t the current crop of GOP hopefuls simply the WORST collection of politicians. . . of people. . . ever? Worse even than Bush?

When a conservative says that “anybody is better than a lib” they are responding to the voices in their head. When liberals say that “Anybody would be better than a conservative” they are responding to the facts on the ground, no?

Obama is a MAJOR disappointment in many, many ways. and perhaps a third party is what’s in order here.

But when I vote for Obama as the lesser of two evils. . . as I still intend to do. . . I’m not sure I’m being a party stooge, or an Obama worshiper. I’m just someone who doesn’t want to be ruled by a creationist, or an objectivist, or a neo-confederate. . . or by some combination thereof.

I agree we need a much better president than Obama. But surely the only real alternatives are MUCH worse.

Feel free to tell me I am wrong, and that I should stay home or vote for a third party. I am genuinely open to persuasion here.

In short. A vote for a President, Senator or Congressperson who can’t stand up to hostage takers isn’t a vote for some lessor evil — it is a vote for the hostage takers because it will be the hostage takers that will rule.

It seems clear that a large number of liberal/progressive/dems are unaware of the rich irony of the moment. Not only do we have many active opponents of the Bush-Cheney wars now staying silent or offering excuses for a similar program of regime change in Libya under O. We are also seeing right now, in real time, the appropriation of their most odious rationale: “if you don’t vote for O, the (tea-party) terrorists will win.”

This is the politics of fear at the crudest level. And not even original. Odious stuff.

Walt @80: Now the Republicans have established that they can use the debt ceiling as a bargaining chip, even though the implicit threat that they’ll default on the debt is at most barely believable.

It’s been used this way before. In the future, hopefully, the debt ceiling will be addressed at the same time as the budget – or better yet, will be repealed.

If that deal is unpalatable, we have to believe that the Democrats—who wouldn’t call the bluff of the Republicans on the debt ceiling—are going to call the bluff of the Republicans and let automatic cuts to defense happen. The Republican attack ads on how the Democrats “cut defense in a time of war” are probably already sitting on the shelf ready to air come November 2011.

The GOP isn’t that stupid. 2012 is going to be about the economy, absent a second 9/11 or a major international war involving the US.

But of course there are far leftists out there in the world, and they’re wrong on the Internet, so Andrew F can beat them up and feel better.

Not my intention, and apologies if my tone conveyed that impression.

David @88: we’re talking about abject capitulation on the debt ceiling

Yeah, but it wasn’t. Very little actually changed.

This deal does not leave social programs intact. It will all but kill medicare as providers drop it in droves. Social Security will be next in line. Already, Mitch McConnell has stated that this deal is the template for further negotiations. Nice work.

“All but kill Medicare.” This is based on what?

I fail to see how actually invoking the constitution would create uncertainty. Rather, it would be a significant step in acknowledging that the whole debt ceiling BS is, and always has been, unconstitutional.

The 14th is shaky constitutional justification for the President to unilaterally ignore the debt ceiling. Relying on the 14th means that the US debt payments are themselves legally uncertain – and rather than getting a clear Congressional resolution, we get a long litigation with an uncertain outcome.

Noen @82, imho, has this exactly right.

kidneystones said – I don’t see how you can argue that voting for a man who is promoting the agenda of your/our political opponents is the path to victory.

I don’t see Obama’s agenda as antithetical to mine. I’m a liberal, not a Leftist. You have absolutely no evidence that Obama is advancing the conservative agenda.

If you vote for O, you’re going to get more wars for regime change – We are ending the wars in Afghanistan and in Iraq. Our actions against Libya are just and humane.

attacks on the New Deal — Saving medicare and SS is attacking the New Deal? Putting them on a firm foundation is necessary to ensure their future. Medicare recipients (and I am one) withdraw more than they put in. How can that possibly continue?

massive unemployment — Obma is already calling for measures to increase employment. You can criticize them as ineffective but you can’t say he wants higher unemployment. That’s Alex Jones level crazy.

greater disparity between the rich and poor — On what evidence do you base your claim that Obama desires an increased disparity between the rich and poor? I know of none.

crippling cuts in the standard of living for many African-Americans — This can be laid firmly at the feet of the previous administration. It was the financial collapse of 2008 which harmed the AA and Hispanic communities. Obama bears no responsibility for that. He saved the economy from even further collapse and a 2nd great depression. I see that as a positive.

and progressive apathy and outrage — Other people are not responsible for your feelings.

the left always folds in when dealing with the WH — I don’t know what you mean by left, to me it means those who desire a Marxist socialist economy, a command economy, rather than a free market. I don’t want that. I’d like a mixed economy. But as far as I know there is no Left in the US. If you mean that the progressive caucus should put more pressure on the WH I don’t see how they can. They simply do not have the votes in either the Senate or the congress to have much influence. You should change that. I fail to understand how destroying pres Obama and not re-electing him would help the progressive caucus or the movement. Could you explain to me how that works?

Starting a third party is unwise. Even the Tea Party isn’t dumb enough to try that. The US is *not* a parliamentary system. It’s a two party system. So until we throw away our constitution and adopt a new one (good luck with that) intelligent rational people will work within the current system for what they want. It is irrational to employ a strategy that has no hope of success.

I agree with Kidneystones. The party that loses the WH becomes, to an extent, anti-establishment. I like anti-establishment. It’s healthy to be anti-establishment. I sympathize with anti-establishment. And I don’t like to sympathize with wingnuts.

What are the odds that Obama will think better of running again? Unless the economy is miraculously improving, he might figure his chances negligible. I didn’t think I would be saying this but now it doesn’t appear unlikely any more. At this point the only good thing is that the Reps don’t have a credible alternative. Maybe there is a chance for a progressive candidate after all. Of course, I hasten to add, only when the victims of the recession finally wake up and start organizing.

Yes. 89 says:
Seriously, you know that a majority of Americans didn’t want the debt ceiling raised in any event. This means the majority of Americans are incredibly stupid, but you have to work with the voters you have not the voters you wish for

But the purpose of political parties is not to do what ‘the voters’ want, but to represent a segment of the population, including the un-serious and dirty hippies. If a party stands for something other than getting more power, then, when ‘the voters’ want something else, it better be in opposition as a minority. But it seems that ‘getting elected’ is the main (and uncontroversial) goal of each party and each politician. Oh well. So much for ‘democracy’.

Just to put the opposing view, here’s what Charles James Fox said in his History of the Early Years of the Reign of James II:

“Add to Argyle’s problems that where spirit was not wanting among his supporters, it was accompanied with a degree and species of perversity wholly inexplicable, and which can hardly gain belief from any one whose experience has not made him acquainted with the extreme difficulty of persuading men who pride themselves upon an extravagant love of liberty, rather to compromise upon some points with those who have in the main the same views with themselves, than to give power (a power which will infallibly be used for their own destruction) to an adversary of principles diametrically opposite; in other words, rather to concede something to a friend, than everything to an enemy.”

@113, again, parties (and O is a member of one) don’t represent “the American people”, they are supposed to represent their constituency, which is only a segment of the whole thing. To represent the whole people you need a king.

Nah, that’s not what I hear, at least when a Republican is elected. Then they (the media) are usually talking about him having a ‘mandate’, and that no one should be surprised that he will pursue ‘conservative’ policies.

neon writes…

This is my last response to you and after that you’re welcome to consider the field, such as it is, yours. You sidestep your own fundamental claim: that O is a progressive democrat. His record in the Senate demolishes that fiction.

As for your response to me, you’re not arguing, you’re making stuff up. At no point did I employ the term “desire” in regards to any of O’s policies. I don’t believe Bush or O desires income inequality or the death of US service people. Desire doesn’t factor into the decision, or at least I hope it doesn’t. Politicians pursue policies and those policies have consequences. O is committed to a set of policies that have had the effect of destroying the African-American middle-class. The HAMP debacle is his. Refusing to hire directly, unlike FDR, is his decision. The decision to increase the number of troops in Afghanistan was his alone. Congress provided funds at the President’s request. Gitmo is open, not closed. You flat out ignore your progressive president’s pet war in Libya, which he continues to argue isn’t really a war.

Intentions don’t matter a fig to most people, I’m afraid. It isn’t about the intentions or the “desires,” it’s about the results. O is committed to policies that have made life much, much worse for the unemployed and the poorest in America. As for your remarks about O’s India policy, I suggest you do a little more reading. You couldn’t be farther from the mark.

If you’re not prepared to even acknowledge the progressive president’s pet regime change project in Libya, paid for by the US taxpayers, I don’t really see how you can claim to be addressing my argument at all.