"In (Partial) Defense of Obama" Ben Heineman-The Atlantic

[Cha]

Quote:Many liberals are furious with President Obama over the policies in the debt ceiling deal. But, as usual, their critique--Paul Krugman's is one example--ignores, or is naïve about, the hard realities of divided congressional politics.

When a "yes" vote was required to extend the ceiling, how should the president have negotiated with a Republican House which had been transformed by the 2010 election and which had a sizable number of ideologically driven republican members who wanted to say "no"? That is the key question.

In 2010, the Republicans, recall, gained 63 seats--the most by an opposition party in the mid-term election since 1938--with most new members sharing one idea: restrain spending. By analogy, in 1994, Republicans gained 54 seats, took back the House and made the Clinton presidency largely defensive and impotent until after the 1996 elections.

Quote:Exhibit A of liberal fury on policy accompanied by little political analysis was Krugman's column the day after the deal: "The President Surrenders." In the harshest possible language, Krugman roasts the policy and the president. On the politics, he says that the prior Democratic Congress, in its waning days, could have extended the debt limit in December 2010 (true, but the Democratic Congressional leadership, at the time, wanted the Republicans to bear some responsibility). Elsewhere in the piece, he says that the administration should have threatened to use questionable authority in the 14th Amendment to raise the debt limit unilaterally, even though the great weight of authority believes such a reading of the constitution is wrong.

>And More<
http://www.theatlantic.com/politics/arch...ma/243013/

Another analysis taking a look at the whole situation that needs to be seen in response to the bazillion who're incapable of understanding reality.

Thanks to The Obama Diary for the heads up.

Oh and yeah..

Quote:Liberals should be working every congressional and senatorial race, starting yesterday. Grassroots politics against conservatives, not Olympian op-eds against President Obama, is the best answer for liberal critics of the debt-ceiling deal.

[KonaKane]

Yeah I'll bet that was just killing him to come up with that headline. He had to put the "partial" thing in there as a salve to his ego.

[Cha]

(08-05-2011 04:10 PM)KonaKane Wrote:  Yeah I'll bet that was just killing him to come up with that headline. He had to put the "partial" thing in there as a salve to his ego.

Did you read it? Especially, the last paragraph? It's perfect. I edited it in.

Edit..I don't really understand the "partial", either. It's a big dose of reality, imo.

[yowzayowzayowza]

Good stuff!!! Thx for the post.

[nofurylike]

excellent!
thank you for posting that, Cha!

PERFECT!! : "Liberals should be working every congressional and senatorial race, starting yesterday. Grassroots politics against conservatives, not Olympian op-eds against President Obama, is the best answer for liberal critics of the debt-ceiling deal."
ABSOLUTELY!!!
thanks, again!

[Velleity]

I agree whole 100% with the notion that the reality of the politics are being ignored, and I think it is important to point that out as this article does. However I think it is important to have commentary that ignores the politics.

This debt ceiling deal really does suck from an economic perspective. Cutting spending, and even the bare notion of cutting spending, right now detracts from our prospects for recovering our much needed prosperity.

I think we can say that we still approve of PBO but I don't think we can be saying that we approve of this policy, even if we can excuse it as the best PBO can get from these psychotic "conservatives."

I do see a difference between a Krugman and, say, a Cenk or a Norman Goldman. Calling the policy bad is one thing. Calling the policy bad and saying that PBO is at fault goes a few steps ahead.

[RoyGBiv]

(08-06-2011 06:23 AM)Velleity Wrote:  I agree whole 100% with the notion that the reality of the politics are being ignored, and I think it is important to point that out as this article does. However I think it is important to have commentary that ignores the politics.

I've been trying to think of a way to say this that cuts past the rhetoric and morality tales that infect such discussions, and I think what you say here may start to touch on it.

Sometimes Krugman, et al make comments that attack the politics because of the policies without understanding the politics. Other times they simply critique the policies and explain what they'll do. There is a not-as-subtle-as-some-would-make-it difference here. Describing, for example, what is fundamentally wrong with the debt deal in terms of economic policy doesn't require discussion of the politics. If Krugman would learn to separate those more often, he might get less flack.

Though -- and I'm going to be more blunt here -- I suspect that a lot of people who dislike Krugman tend only to pay attention to him when he says something they don't like. I started to see that rather clearly as 2008 gave way to 2009. The people who loved/hated Krugman in the Democratic camp completely switched, many just outright stealing the rhetoric their former opponents had been using to lambast him. And a lot of that has been stolen from what right-wingers have been saying about him for years. I guess when one is out to kill the messenger, creating new weapons isn't a high priority.

I've said it before and will continue to do so. Krugman's economics are solid, and he has an ability to see into policy in a way that many of his colleagues can't. He also happens to be a good writer relative to other economists and so can communicate complex ideas in ways people who care nothing for economics can understand.

We do ourselves no favors by pretending Obama's economic policies have been perfect. They haven't, and it is at least arguable whether they have been anything more than a giant bandage. It is perfectly acceptable to argue that he did pretty much all he could have done politically, but even so, that doesn't all by itself make the policies good ones, and those policies should be criticized.

[yowzayowzayowza]

(08-06-2011 02:04 PM)RoyGBiv Wrote:  Sometimes Krugman, et al make comments that attack the politics because of the policies without understanding the politics.

Yep, thatz been my issue: passing penultimate judgement of the President/Dems on policy w/o political context, frame doesn't match the function.

[Velleity]

(08-06-2011 02:04 PM)RoyGBiv Wrote:  We do ourselves no favors by pretending Obama's economic policies have been perfect.

Obama has not been perfect. Krugman is not perfect. We are not perfect.

Perfect is not possible for mere humans.

[Velleity]

And in his blog Krugman is blaming Republicans.

http://krugman.blogs.nytimes.com/

Quote:And yes, it is the madness of the right: if not for the extremism of anti-tax Republicans, we would have no trouble reaching an agreement that would ensure long-run solvency.

Quote:How can that be, when Republicans love tax cuts? The answer is, they don’t. They love tax cuts for the rich. Tax cuts for ordinary workers, many of whom will be those hated lucky duckies whose incomes are too low to pay income tax, are if anything something Republicans dislike.

Also, the GOP is against any idea that (a) comes from Obama (b) might help the economy before the 2012 election.

[Cha]

Quote:Last month, the Professional Left took aim at the President for the dismal jobs numbers in June, and just yesterday, Paul Krugman, on the occasion of the stock market plunge, declared in the New York Times, "we are not now and have never been on the road to recovery," while throwing in a gratuitous jab at the President for not podium pounding "Truman-style."

Quote:Actually, come to think of it, Paul Krugman the rookie politician may think it apt to attack the President over Thursday's stock market slump and simply avoid crediting the same President for the long-term recovery of the same, but the Paul Krugman of 2009 told us that the stock market, uhh, doesn't mean anything! From April 7, 2009, on the Rachel Maddow show:

Quote:KRUGMAN: I mean, instead of things getting steadily worse—the Dow is terrible, right? The stock market, by my count, has predicted six of the last one recoveries, right? It doesn‘t mean anything.

And here is Krugman yesterday:

Quote:Thursday’s more than 500-point plunge in the Dow Jones industrial average and the drop in interest rates to near-record lows confirmed it: The economy isn’t recovering...

http://www.thepeoplesview.net/2011/08/ro...gmans.html

Whiplash Krugman.

[RoyGBiv]

(08-07-2011 02:53 PM)Cha Wrote:  Whiplash Krugman.

Krugman -- and many, many other economists -- have consistently stated that the DOW is not a good indicator of recoveries but that an extreme drop combined with interest rate levels can be a measure of economic contractions.

Think of it this way. No one ever uses the term "market correction" in respect to a sudden increase in the market. That phrase is used to describe sudden drops. Investors often artificially prop up the market in pursuit if the next great thing they don't want to miss, and then when reality strikes, there's a sudden sell-off that serves as a "correction" and a clearer indicator of where the economy actually is.

There is no whiplash here.

[KonaKane]

On the whole I respect Krugman, but if he does much more of this he is going to become a Tom Friedman clone; another columnist who sticks his finger in the wind and jumps to the head of any oncoming parade as if he started the thing.

[Cha]

(08-07-2011 02:57 PM)KonaKane Wrote:  On the whole I respect Krugman, but if he does much more of this he is going to become a Tom Friedman clone; another columnist who sticks his finger in the wind and jumps to the head of any oncoming parade as if he started the thing.

He's a really good concern troll.

http://krugman.blogs.nytimes.com/2010/11...and-obama/

[KonaKane]

For the record, Will Pitt is also a Tom Friedman clone.

*ducks*

[Cha]

(08-07-2011 04:25 PM)KonaKane Wrote:  For the record, Will Pitt is also a Tom Friedman clone.

*ducks*

Oh, I forgot about him..whoa was he ever disingenuous. You have to be when your compass is your finger in the wind.

[RoyGBiv]

(08-07-2011 04:25 PM)KonaKane Wrote:  For the record, Will Pitt is also a Tom Friedman clone.

*ducks*

Oh my ....

(You have to imagine that spoken while channeling George Takei.)

This might truly crush him. He thinks he's HST.

[nofurylike]

(08-07-2011 04:25 PM)KonaKane Wrote:  For the record, Will Pitt is also a Tom Friedman clone.

*ducks*

(aside: why "*ducks*"? )