Andrew Sullivan, Obama’s budget, and feeling duped
This could be the beginning of wisdom for Andrew Sullivan. Or, depending what you think of Sullivan, the return to wisdom. Or just a temporary return to wisdom.
Sullivan’s disillusion with Obama seems to have been generated by the President’s latest whopper, which is that his proposed budget features steep cuts in spending, although he ignores the enormous elephant of entitlements that’s filling the nation’s fiscal room and threatening to destroy it. As Obama-deceptions go, it’s really not so great or so unusual, but for some reason it pushed a button for Sullivan. And quite a large button at that:
But the core challenge of this time is not the cost of discretionary spending. Obama knows this; everyone knows this. The crisis is the cost of future entitlements and defense, about which Obama proposes nothing. Yes, there’s some blather. But Obama will not risk in any way any vulnerability on taxes to his right or entitlement spending to his left. He convened a deficit commission in order to throw it in the trash. If I were Alan Simpson or Erskine Bowles, I’d feel duped. And they were duped. All of us who took Obama’s pitch as fiscally responsible were duped.
And Obama just punted on his promise to cut Medicare payments to doctors, as pledged under Obamacare as a core part of the case that health insurance reform would cut the deficit. So congrats, Megan. We can chalk that up as a cynical diversion (even though Obama pledges to find savings elsewhere in the Medicare budget to make up for this lie – a promise we now have no reason to trust or believe).
We now have no reason to trust or believe? Where were you, Andrew, when Obama showed how profoundly untrustworthy he was way back in June of 2008, when he boldly and apologetically broke his solemn pledge on campaign financing? That was the tipoff as to his character, and it occurred long before the election.
But I say better late than never. And Sullivan doesn’t mince words; this guy feels personally betrayed:
…[By ignoring the deficit, Obama] has betrayed those of us who took him to be a serious president prepared to put the good of the country before his short term political interests. Like his State of the Union, this budget is good short term politics but such a massive pile of fiscal bullshit it makes it perfectly clear that Obama is kicking this vital issue down the road.
And towards the end:
To all those under 30 who worked so hard to get this man elected, know this: he just screwed you over. He thinks you’re fools.
Much too narrow, IMHO—Obama thinks we’re all fools. In fact, he thinks everyone in the world besides him is a fool. As for me, I don’t think those under 30 who worked to get Obama elected are necessarily fools; they are merely young, and they were his natural target, vulnerable to his arguments and his charms. What’s Sullivan’s excuse?
This post by Lexington Green at Chicago Boyz describes exactly what I believe may be happening, and why Obama has done this. I have never thought Obama to be stupid; on the contrary, he is smart and he is bold. However, in the end it will all come down to how smart the American people are, and how closely they have been paying attention.
This is the possible scenario:
Obama is not “failing to lead” as some people are claiming. That is all wrong.
All suggestions to that effect are all wrong. Obama knows exactly what he is doing.
Obama is setting up a confrontation and he plans to win.
Obama is betting that he can force the GOP to make their proposed cuts, which he can blame them for, which he can truthfully say he does not support. Then he can attack the Republicans for making the cuts. He will appeal to the people who are suffering from the cuts, and strip away GOP support. They will be angry and mobilized.
Obama then plans to force the GOP into a funding crisis just as Clinton did. Obama plans to destroy the GOP reform wave of 2011 just as Clinton destroyed the GOP reform effort in 1995.
As for the Republicans, it seems that for now they’re not biting. According to Rep. Paul Ryan, the GOP will vote in temporary funding measures through the use of continuing resolutions rather than shut down the government a la 1995.
Let the games begin!
However, in the end it will all come down to how smart the American people are, and how closely they have been paying attention.
We’re doomed.
On skimming Lexington Green’s piece, I think he’s giving Obama too much credit. The “strategery” was obvious, and hardly required diabolical cleverness to come up with. Whoever tackles the fiscal crisis will inevitably come in for some opprobrium, and so the politically expedient thing to do is not to get involved, but kibbitz with vapid pronouncements. (Would Obama do that? Hey, first time for everything!)
From the wikipedia wiki for “Continuing Resolution” –>
“…and provides funding for existing federal programs at current or REDUCED levels.”
Which means the GOP can give Barry veto opportunities at baseline-25%, baseline-20%, baseline-15%, etc. until he finally sees something he’s willing to sign. Do the negotiation in public one CR after another. That way, Barry dithering over signing gets tarred with the shutdown issue – and that’s the setup for 2012.
http://libertyatstake.blogspot.com
“Because the Only Good Progressive is a Failed Progressive”
Andrew Sullivan today:
hate to disappoint my friends on the right and left, but strong criticism of a president does not mean abandonment. Obama remains, in my view, the best chance we’ve had in a long time to address our real problems in a civil and constructive way. That’s why he mattered and still matters.
Which means the GOP can give Barry veto opportunities at baseline-25%, baseline-20%, baseline-15%, etc. until he finally sees something he’s willing to sign. Do the negotiation in public one CR after another. That way, Barry dithering over signing gets tarred with the shutdown issue – and that’s the setup for 2012.
And/or couple severely cut funding for favorite leftist money sinks (e.g., Dept. of Education, EPA) to that for items that actually should be funded (e.g., DoD). Make “Barry” choose between giving some crumbs to his leftist cronies or vetoing their getting anything at all.
Two can play that “between a rock and a hard spot” game.
Also, claw back any unspent stimulus funds and return them to the taxpayers. Let’s see ya veto that puppy, “Barry!”
Let’s see ya veto that puppy, “Barry!”
The Democrats in the Senate will shield Obama from having to actually veto any wacky bills the House Republicans produce, Occam.
I listened to an extensive interview of Paul Ryan on Hugh Hewitt’s radio show.
Through the use of continuing resolutions basically the budget remains at 2010 levels.
Hugh reminded him that the promise was to fund government at 2008 levels.
It also ignores the growth in spending due to entitlements.
It’ll be highly interesting to see how this goes – but I want us all to remember Paul Tsongas.
Democrats are now the pander bears.
Let’s see if Republicans can be the adults.
http://www.hughhewitt.com/blog/g/483cfd75-3c6e-4146-8d0b-72addef8ff21
Or, depending what you think of Sullivan, the return to wisdom. Or just a temporary return to wisdom.
Sanity would have to return to Sullivan first, before anything else.
But I say better late than never. And Sullivan doesn’t mince words; this guy feels personally betrayed:
His outrage at betray is his form of personal self-medictation. Other people beat up women, snort crack, and shoot up heroin. Sullivan here has his outrage. He needs his fix. With Bush, it was the gay thing in the military. With Obama, it’s spending. He needs his fix.
To all those under 30 who worked so hard to get this man elected, know this: he just screwed you over. He thinks you’re fools.
That’s because THEY ARE FOOLS. If you weren’t a fool, you wouldn’t have believed a damn thing coming from Obama’s lying mouth to begin with. There’s a reason the young are foolish and not wise. But the proof is in the pudding. If you don’t want Obama to treat you like fools, don’t act like one. Sullivan and the youngest generation ever to be conned for zero risk is not the definition of wisdom or experience.
I have never thought Obama to be stupid; on the contrary, he is smart and he is bold.
I would say cunning and sociopathic. Not intelligence based upon education, nor boldness based upon courage and daring. Obama has neither education, boldness, courage, daring, or intelligence.
Obama is setting up a confrontation and he plans to win.
Closer to the truth. Not “quite” right, of course, but close.
Democrats are now the pander bears.
The trick is to force them either to save themselves by burning their hard left supporters or to take one in the shorts for “Barry” and the hard left by owning the fiscal crisis they created. The public, given its present mood, is not going to look kindly upon more leftist budgetary profligacy.
That’s because THEY ARE FOOLS.
Indeed. They voted to go into hock for the rest of their lives to support … us geezers.
I told one 20-something he should go into work an hour earlier, and stay an hour later (at the same pay), because that’s effectively what’s going to have to happen for him to pay for all of “Barry’s” pipe dreams and all the Dem entitlements (including Social Security and Medicare – thanks, youngsters!)
The light bulb over his head – admittedly a low wattage one – flickered a bit as he mulled that one over.
IT: yup, that’s why I put “temporary return to wisdom” for Sullivan in there.
Andrew writes today:
Sorry. Didn’t mean to repeat.
Andrew does not matter.
I can’t single out Obama for his lack of leadership on fiscal policy. Unsustainable spending, taxing, borrowing, and printing has been going on for many decades. What Obama has done is take the hand basket to hell from the back seat of a Cadillac and put it on a Triton rocket. IMO, the acceleration of debt under Obama is what has caught the attention of 30+% (?) of the population and given birth to the Tea Party. The rest of the population is expecting “happy days are here again” to arrive with a check in the mail endorsed by the dear leader.
IMO, a leader who was serious about the federal debt would be driving home a rather viscerally harsh message to the people and propose resetting the 2012 budget back to 2000 levels (for example). No politician I know of has the guts to do so.
Some of Obama’s supporters agree that his budget is a ploy, and at least a few are delighted by that, and are hoping for budget showdown. I was startled by Stan Collender’s frankness in admitting that he is hoping to see just that, and assumes that Obama will gain from it, politically.
(Collender, it will not surprise you to learn, says nothing about the effects of a showdown on the economy.)
Occam says,
“… the public is not going to look kindly upon more leftist budgetary profligacy.”
Lets hope and change this is true, but I remain skeptical.
Honestly, why does anyone care what Andrew Sullivan thinks any more? He’s proven himself time and again to be a wishful and useless idiot. I doubt anyone of consequence really pays attention to him anymore so why are we?
Obama may be smart, but I don’t think he is that smart. He is ruthless and can play games, but he lacks the substance. He’s copying a game play because he lacks the ability to come up with his own, but its been done, and everyone now knows the play.
I’d agree with the thrust of the article(s) that Obama is trying to pull a 1995, and that if he succeeds, it will be a major loss for the USA in the longer run. But his chances are slim. Obama is no Clinton. He doesn’t have the experience Clinton had in playing the other side, and while he has surrounded himself with a ruthless crowd from Chicago, I’m not sure they are very good at playing the game under a blaze of publicity either (Chicago has a lot more shadows). Put simply, Obama is trying to copy a play with a second-rate team with no element of surprise.
The Republicans on the other hand should be a little smarter in the way they approach the whole thing. It’s a trap, but the difference is, this time they know it. That doesn’t mean the ambush won’t work, but it does make it much more likely it will fail.
Obama has a few other major problems over the next two years that Clinton didn’t have. Clinton presided over a rebounding economy, whereas Obama probably won’t. Aside from his mismanagement of the economy (which has been quite extraordinary), Obama is likely to face two years of turmoil across the Middle East. At this point it is possible we could be seeing revolutions and coups from Algeria to Turkey to Pakistan: pretty much every country in the entire region except Israel is at risk (and Israel is at a different risk as a consequence). Add to that the continuing debt issues in Europe, the continued collapse of the economies of rogue states like North Korea and Venezuela, and its looking like a rocky road.
Regardless of how all that pans out, it is very difficult to see a scenario that does not include rising oil prices. Put that together with the effects of US monetary policy and the business regulation frenzy, and the economic outlook by late 2012 probably won’t be pretty.
Obama looks like he will be on the wrong side of almost every issue. In this case, he has made his opening play, but it isn’t a very smart one. At a time when the people of the US are increasingly worried about the state of their economy because of high government debt. Obama goes hell-for-leather for more.
Sigh.
Obama is not “tricking” the right. The only question in this budget is what will be cut, nothing else.
Obama has already abandoned the ‘left’ and many of them have been calling him a liar for two years now.
I like how Neo and you all (hey, I still have a soft spot in my heart for you guys and gals) consistently seem to put up posts about what kind of 11 dimensional chess player this guy Obama is. Guy almost ..almost..governed like a Republican and gave us a watered down version of Romneycare when his party controlled both the House and Senate with arguably veto proof majorities. Ironically, Obama is, according to people on THIS site, gutless and nutless when it comes to foreign policy (assuming he’s not secretly pushing the Islamic agenda, hey, I honestly don’t know what his “goals” are either) but when it comes to domestic policy, the Republicans can never be too careful.
Cute as it is, Obama is beholden to a certain form of identity politics and the bankers/big money guys. No one else.
So as I say, the only real question is what is going to get cut , not whether there will be cuts. Of course, I don’t think these cuts are really going to save us or anything, I tend to lean more towards the views expressed at the Market Ticker and Zero Hedge..but whatever. It’s all kabuki anyway.
Steve D: I see Sullivan as an indicator of a possible trend of disillusionment with Obama on the part of his former supporters. That’s why I pay attention to something like this, but not to much else that he says.
Brad: I do not think Obama is clueless (“gutless and nutless,” as you say) on foreign policy. I think what he does is intentional.
Brad says, “Its all kabuki anyway.”
Here, you & I are in 100% agreement. Obama wears many masks and assumes many identities. However, he is a hardcore, true believer in the ideology of the left.
Well Neo I’ll give you that. He has shown himselfto be fairly reliable “flipper” on many issues but he’s usually the among last ones to do so. On this issue in particular, he’s come so late that to the party that he probably thinks he’s the first one to arrive… lol
sort of a reverse canary..
good grief I should type more slowly… and proof read..
Obama has already abandoned the ‘left’
*Snickers* Sure, like how he abandoned Rev Wright, his grandmother, his political ally Bill Ayers, and all the rest.
Funny how Obama keeps getting more extreme Leftist people to abandon after they said he just abandoned some previous ones. They keep rotating in… from somewhere.
The light bulb over his head – admittedly a low wattage one – flickered a bit as he mulled that one over.
He’s got it dim to save power. Must be.
Neo:
I apologize. I should have been more clear and said some of you guys. Unlike views that I’ve thought you’ve held in the past (the importance of foreign policy vs domestic) I was thinking more of some of the commenters here rather than you. And to be fair there’s a fairly diverse group here in that although most of the people here arrive at a similar foreign policy conclusion they do so for different reasons.
For instance, take Art’s posts. I probably disagree with his conclusions half the time, but even when I do, his posts are long, thought -out , and usually contain at least some nuggets of fact, so it’s not usually a total waste to at least skim them and I often read them through. And that’s why I come back here at least a few times a week. Sometimes it’s fun to go into the “lion’s den” and test one’s courage that way, and I can do so here. I can also sometimes have nice pleasant conversations and learn things as well.
You’ve got a good blog going.
Parker:
I meant the budget is kabuki, though I will agree that many of our politicians from both parties put on a good show as well.
I know some of this is normal in politics -even absolute despots like say, Stalin, sometimes have to put on a show. But I think our current congress(on both sides of the isle) and current President have taken it to new levels, and even when they’ve discussed important matters such as war and peace, the discussions have been carefully framed and certain facts and reasons left out. The Tea Party isn’t quite as corrupt , nor are a few senators (Ron Paul comes to mind) but their influence is currently muted. Check out Pauls recent hearings on the Federal Reserve, for instance, as an example of some thing that should be getting much more press and political attention but isn’t.
In short, I suspect we disagree in that you think the kabuki is all one way and focused in or on the character of one very corrupt and somewhat inscrutable man, whereas I think he is merely a symptom of rot which is really too wide spread for either of the two major parties to curtail because they are both too complicit in it.
whereas I think he is merely a symptom of rot which is really too wide spread for either of the two major parties to curtail because they are both too complicit in it.
So you think the reason the Republicans cut off welfare under the Clinton years because they wanted to do…. what, increase the dependence of welfare slaves on the government or white rich class?
When talking about symptoms, one needs actual… symptoms.
The “right” isn’t who he is trying to trick. He’s setting up a budget fight. He’s trying to trick the middle.
To the extent this is true, is simply indicates how childish and silly the left is. He hasn’t abandoned them. He simply has’t been able to toe the line they want, and they are having a hissy fit.