Blogs and Stories
The Times Has It Wrong on Obama
Getty Images
The paper's argument that the president is a sellout ignores the fact that he's only caved on things no one knew he cared about in the first place, like farm subsidies.
Is Obama selling out his supporters? Such an article would pretty much write itself about any elected official. After all, as Mario Cuomo once put it, “We campaign in poetry, but govern in prose.” Even so, The New York Times treated us to the front-page news that our president was a sellout, even as it also admitted that it was somehow “inevitable” that Obama would be able to live up to his “bold proposals” and “lofty pledge[s]” of campaigns gone by.
It’s not hard, when you’re calling from The New York Times, to get “experts” to agree with your thesis, however flimsy.
Then again, what The Times first and second paragraphs taketh, the third paragraph giveth back. “Mr. Obama has not conceded on any major priority.” In fact, the only things its reporters find that Obama has caved on are things nobody knew he cared about in the first place. For instance, we learn that “Congressional Democrats effectively killed his proposal to slash farm subsidies by nearly $1 billion a year, and forced him to retreat partially on a plan to require private insurers to pick up more of veterans’ health costs. They also got him to shelve the idea of a commission to buttress Social Security’s finances. And Thursday, Mr. Obama suggested that he would not fight in Congress to renew an assault weapons ban that expired in 2004.”
Let’s take these one by one. First off, did anyone actually vote for Obama, as opposed to either Hillary, Edwards, or McCain, because of his pledge to slash farm subsidies? I mean, it would have been nice, but… (And since when is having your proposal “effectively killed” the equivalent of “a willingness to capitulate?”) Ditto, on the private insurers paying more of veterans’ health care costs. Did that even come up during the campaign? And finally, the Social Security commission thing. I watched the election pretty carefully. Did I go to the bathroom during that part?
It’s not hard, when you’re calling from The New York Times, to get “experts” to agree with your thesis, however flimsy. Interestingly, the guy chosen by the Times reporters for this front-page shocker is unknown to me, and I’m guessing to you, too. “The thing we still don’t know about him is what he is willing to fight for,” said Leonard Burman, an economist at the Urban Institute and a Treasury Department official in the Clinton administration. “The thing I worry about is that he likes giving good speeches, he likes the adulation and he likes to make people happy.”
Ruhhly, is there anything to this story at all?
Actually, according to its authors, perhaps not. They admit that “The extent to which he is willing to yield to lobbyists, Congressional committee leaders and interest groups, however, will be determined as the White House tackles health care and other big issues on a list that seems to grow: Immigration, for instance, is now in the mix.” They give Rahm Emanuel the opportunity to make the opposite case that “we’ve taken on a series of entrenched interests across the waterfront—from education to health care, and the defense industry, and the lobbying industry as a whole.” And there are those anonymous “allies” who point to “his winning the second $350 billion in financial bailout money from a reluctant Congress; a pay-equity law for women; expanded government health insurance for children, including—at his insistence—legal immigrant children; and the $787 billion economic recovery bill that reached his desk, as demanded, by mid-February.” And they further admit that these fights “may end up looking easy compared with the fight on health care, which will most likely require him to stand up to hospitals, doctors, insurance companies and their patrons in Congress. He might have to finance the plan in a way that raises costs for the middle class, perhaps by taxing employer-provided health benefits—an idea he attacked in the campaign.”
So again, what do they have to support their front-page thesis of an allegedly cajones-less presidency? Well, finally we get to the point: “Facing Democratic opposition in Congress, the White House seems prepared to give up on several tax proposals, including a limit on deductions that the wealthiest taxpayers can claim for charitable donations and state and local taxes, which was supposed to help pay for health-care legislation—raising doubts about how the president will finance it.”
There’s that weasel word again: “seems.” Remember journalists use the word “seems” when they want to make stuff up. Perhaps it’s true, but the reporters in question offer not a shred of evidence to support it. And they don’t have to because they said “seems.” (“Seems, madam? Nay it is. I know not seems,” said a wise media critic and a fictional Prince of Denmark.)
The fact is that Obama will be judged on the basis of what he ultimately accomplishes. So far, he’s passed a massive stimulus bill, and promised to end George Bush’s foolish war in Iraq, redirect U.S. foreign policy in Europe, the Middle East and Latin America, close Guantánamo, and end the CIA’s practice of torturing terrorist suspects. He’s raising taxes on the rich, allowing stem-cell research, and giving the EPA the right to regulate greenhouse gases. He’s even making nice to Castro and high-fiving Hugo Chavez. You’ve got entire segments of the Republican right flipping out over both his socialist and fascist tendencies simultaneously.
Is he taking “softer stands,” as The Times front-page headline insists? Well, he’s president now. It would be amazing if he didn’t. That is the way things actually get done in politics, after all. Even so, however, in a front-page headline, the paper manages to leave its central and remarkably mundane thesis somehow unproven. You might even say it made some “bold proposals” and “lofty pledges” from which it quickly backed away.
Eric Alterman is a professor of English and journalism at Brooklyn College and a professor of journalism at CUNY Graduate School of Journalism. He is the author, most recently, of Why We're Liberals: A Handbook for Restoring America's Important Ideals.
10 Power Food Combos
Divya Gugnani is the CEO and founder of BehindtheBurner.com, an emerging culinary media brand that creates expert-based content about food, wine, mixology, and nutrition.
How Obama Wins in 2012
As vice chairman of Public Strategies and president of Maverick Media, Mark McKinnon has helped meet strategic challenges for candidates, corporations and causes, including George W. Bush, John McCain, Governor Ann Richards, Charlie Wilson, Lance Armstrong, and Bono.
How Barack Beat Bibi
Peter Beinart, senior political writer for The Daily Beast, is associate professor of journalism and political science at City University of New York and a senior fellow at the New America Foundation. His new book, The Icarus Syndrome: A History of American Hubris, will be published by HarperCollins in June. Follow him on Twitter and Facebook.
The 'Delusional Left' Wins
Eric Alterman is a professor of English and journalism at Brooklyn College and a professor of journalism at CUNY Graduate School of Journalism. He is the author, most recently, of Why We're Liberals: A Handbook for Restoring America's Important Ideals.
The Only Hope for Mideast Peace
Eric Alterman is a professor of English and journalism at Brooklyn College and a professor of journalism at CUNY Graduate School of Journalism. He is the author, most recently, of Why We're Liberals: A Handbook for Restoring America's Important Ideals.
Playing the Fear Card
Eric Alterman is a professor of English and journalism at Brooklyn College and a professor of journalism at CUNY Graduate School of Journalism. He is the author, most recently, of Why We're Liberals: A Handbook for Restoring America's Important Ideals.
Angellight
GOP operatives (Party of No and Darkness), are now criticizing Pres. Obama because he showed strength of character and decency by not engaging in a school yard brawl with leaders who are supposed to be engaging in Dipolomacy! This is leading by example rather than getting petty and in the gutter with leaders who were allegedly disrespectful to the U.S. Those leaders are the ones who looked weak and ignorant, not Pres. Obama. GOP says to stay calm and positive is weak, but to be strong one must get angry and blown out of proportion like a leaf in the wind when one is provoked. I say rather that it shows strength to maintain one's position of calmness to stay fixed in one's position to be a peacemaker and to show others and the world that the U.S. President does not get down in the gutter when others are throwing barbs at him and it shows Discipline. GOP claim "he allowed himself to be Disrespected"! How could one allow themselves to be disrespected, however, Pres. Obama could himself have become disrespectful to others and made the U.S. look bad if he had engaged in tit for tat, but that is the old way, and Change has come to the U.S. We know longer have a Cowboy in the whitehouse, but a peacemaker and diplomat who shows us that we do not have to get angry when others get angry with us. We don't have to get that way!
Yesterday, while watching Pastor Charles Stanley who preached on staying silent in the face of evil, and that we had to show the strength of character that Jesus Christ did when confronted with enemies and confrontation -- that is to be silent and not engage in the confrontation but to stay responsible with the response given in the face of such challenges!
That is what Pres. Obama did -- who continued to radiate the energy of goodwill and kept his cool in the face of childishness adversity and really showed leadership qualities and also emulated Christ's teachings....., the teachings the GOP frequently profess they live by. Really?
scough
This may be the most brilliant thing ever written, but I could not finish reading it. What's with capitalizing every other word? Did you get past sixth grade? Just asking.
YARROW
I'M SORRY TO SAY, I'M AFRAID OBAMA IS SELLING OUT TO BIG MONEY, HE PROMISED TO ROLL BACK THOSE TAXES FOR THE MOST WEALTHY, AND NOW HE WANTS TO JUST LET THEM EXPIRE IN 2011, THAT IS TOO LONG, AND HE ALSO PROMISED TO RAISE THE SS CAP
MTFinch
I TOTALLY AGREE, BUT THERE IS MORE THAN MEETS THE EYE HERE. I HOPE YOU CAN HEAR ME, IT IS LOUD IN HERE.
penscott
Alterman is apparently a part of the Obama PR machine.
So far Obama has persuaded Congress to do only things that Congress already wants to do. He totally caved on earmarks.
His worst breaking of a campaign pledge is to reduce partisanship.
Every speech he makes derides the Republicans.
ldcreo
The Republicans don't need President Obama to deride them. They are much too busy doing it to themselves. Stop whining...
AndreainNY
Don't blame the Republicans. Obama is the one who promised to lead in a bipartisan fashion.
Too bad no one asked him how he expected to do this in such a divisive political environment. Maybe he didn't know Republicans would oppose him.
Brendino
What is bipartisan? He tried to court a lot of Republicans early on, but they all decided to reject him. Bipartisanship involves two parties, and the GOP has not made any intention about playing nice on any issue so far.
AndreainNY
Gee. Were there different Republicans in office when Obama was runnning for president and made this promise?
No, in fact, the conditions were very much the same as they are today with respect to Republican support for Obama's intiatives when he made that promise.
And yet he promised. I believe he wrote about it, too.
ldcreo
Thank you Mr. Alterman. It is amazing to me how every time our President makes a move, there is just so much accusation that he is either too soft or to arrogant or not soft enough or apologizing, etc. etc. etc. Where were all of these people when George Bush was doing his dirty work? So they shut their mouths when the idiot was in town. But now, when there is someone intelligent and insightful and integrous, they suddenly all "seem" to have an opinion. Enough!
opedanderson
Well.......duh!
Of course he is. He promised everything under the sun. No one could live up to all that.....
Not going after the Bushies for torture is the worst, in my opinion.
allonfla
Excuse me - that was not a campaign promise that was wishful thinking by Liberals. I'm starting to get the feeling that your group sees Obama only as a tool to make your ideas mainstream - you show no real concern about the costs (and I'm not talking dollars). I've been accused of drinking the Kool-Aid but that award goes to those that are outraged at Obama about his decision on torture.
Didn't you see this coming? How many times has Obama been asked about prosecuting those that tortured? And how many times did he dance around the question or simply said we have to move forward? I've known since before he got elected that he wouldn't prosecute while the Kool-Aid drinkers acted like a woman who thought her man would change once they got married and had kids.
I'm glad he's not prosecuting - it's not going to put food my table, or get companies to start hiring again nor will it fix the economy. This is what mainstream America is thinking. They don't care about torture or who did it as long as they are worried about if they will have a job tomorrow.
If the Left wanted this then you should have done a better job of making the public aware, rather than waiting on Obama to pick up the slack.
Dave1959
Nothing new as far as Liberals and Leftists go .. never know where you stand with the
Bulldoglover100
As opposed to KNOWING the Republicans will destroy our economy, will start wars they can't finish and will bring us the largest governement entitlement in history with Drug Medicare.......thanks but no thanks I think I will stay with Obama keeping 75% of his promises
flyoverland
Is it spring break, or does this guy just have a lot of free time?
This comment has been removed by The Daily Beast's editors.
Ritarita
So is
Yours
jack.
Ritarita
And
Since I know
What's
Coming
Allow me
michaelslevinson.com
michael stephen levinson
Candidate for President
MTFinch
I have decided to stop reading and posting on this site, but I have to tell you that you are very funny. Liberal weirdo, but very funny. Just joking.
Ritarita
Give it up
Finch
You're not
Going
Anywhere.
Bulldoglover100
Eric...were you trying for comedy??? Because to an educated person this is just more Republican obstructing...which is why you guys KEEP losing elections. Obama has done as much as possible when one takes into account the fact that he has had to fight the Republicans every step of the way to HELP the American people out of the hole the REPUBLICANS put us in!
Oh and a comment to Dave1959......we do know where we stand with the Republicans though don't we? LARGEST government entitlement in history with Drug Medicare and we know they will throw our economy down the stool and we know they will start wars they can't finish...think I will take Obama keeping 75% of his promises.
sonofloud
Obama and the Democratic party sold out when Obama bought the most caucus votes and "won" the Democratic nomination.
Dave1959
The point is simply this .. During the election, obama made promises he then knew he would be unable to keep !! He and his administration are in the process of just winging it now ... It amazes me that so many US citizens were blinded by last years election con and still seem so naive !!
Bronco38
Obama is your classic slick mouthed far left socialist and as far as I'm concerned...he and his administration as well as several members on the Hill are true enemies of the state period!
He is an overt godless heathen and ripe for his socialist even communist pandering. Throwing our money around like a drunken bum, Every socialist leader we are surrounded by cheese up for photo ops but give him nothing! Muscles through policy before the reps on the Hill can even read it..that is malfeasance of office for all of them. I'm glad the Pope rebuffed him and his ilk and the folks at all the tea parties were looked down upon...great keep it up you frick'in elitist...2010 is coming...and we can repeal that abortion you call a stimulus package...this guy is an empty suit and must go!
SlaveRevolt
Obama isn't a far left anything. Elitist? Yes. Empty suit? Definitely.
mavin1620
Good, thoughtful article. The problems are complex and will take time to repair. I read the right-wing-nut blathering, and wonder who they think is going to fix things? The only McCain with an idea is too young to run for president for another twelve years. Rush Limbaugh has to buy his airwave presence, and Michelle Bachman is a liar. Bush did more to destroy capitalism than all the left-wing Dems could have dreamed of doing. I am the managing partner in three small businesses. Obama hasn't helped me yet, either, howeve, when all boats rise, so will mine.
beastie13
I voted for Obama and I expect him to fight big money lobbyists.
How will he finance Health Care for us all?
During his campaign he make it clear he was going to include health insurance companies, as Hillary's plan did, in his health care reform agenda. That is a sell out right there. And too bad because that is going to cost us trillions more than a Single Payer plan which would lower other government budgets significantly.
Contrary to what's being touted by popular news - the majority of Americans want a single payer system (as reported by Fairness and Accuracy in Reporting FAIR) that includes everyone and leaves out paying high premiums to profit-driven health insurance company fat cats.
The only way he can finance real health care reform in reasonable way is by backing a bill like HR676. And yes the top 5% earners would pay a little more than the rest of us.
Imagine school budgets going down by 24% and state and county taxes being reduced by 16%-24%. Health Care is crippling are economy.
Love you man, but get with it Obama.
NYUKULELE
Yes. I voted for Obama (and donated to his campaign) because he promised to slash farm subsidies, and to reinstate the assault weapons ban, and to rein in Wall St.
While people are losing their jobs, he says the economic fundamentals are strong. Getting Wall Street's con game back up and running is more important than getting people working.
He dissed internet users -- who funded his campaign with 10s of millions of dollars -- for asking if he would legalize marijuana.
He filled his cabinet and staff with insiders and lobbyists, many of whom are tax dodgers.
Obama's just another slick Demoblican. I'm ashamed that I didn't vote for Ralph Nader. The only hope for change that is left now is to hope that Obama is a one term president.
This country needs a GENERAL STRIKE to wake up this slick con artist and his crony government.
VOTE GREEN PARTY!
Thank you.
As a first time user, your comment has been submitted for review. It can take anywhere from a few hours to a day or two for your comment to be reviewed, depending on the time of week and the volume of comments we receive.