Obama team sounds utterly naive about Republican tactics and intentions in NYT mag article

[BurtWorm]

Which I confess I haven't read yet. I'm just quoting David Corn of Mother Jones, who previews it in a disheartening little essay, part of which is below:

http://motherjones.com/politics/2010/10/obama-new-york-times-magazine

...

In the piece, Obama aides note that the president and his team underestimated Republican rejectionism. "Perhaps we were naive," White House adviser David Axelrod remarked to Baker. "First, <the president's> always had good relations across party lines. And secondly, I think he believed that in the midst of a crisis you could find partners on the other side of the aisle to help deal with it. I don't think anyone here expected the degree of partisanship that we confronted." Recently departed White House chief of staff Rahm Emanuel said, "Part of what <the Republicans> were doing was not just making us grind it out. They were souring the country on the mood of the country."

Obama noted that it was probably a mistake to incorporate Republican-style tax cuts into the stimulus to win over GOPers and that he should have let the Republicans push for such tax cuts, so he could then score political points by accepting them as a bipartisan compromise. In other words, he couldn't deal straight with Republicans because they were not straight shooters. Give them a good-faith compromise at the start, and they'll hit you with a two-by-four.

Some Democrats and progressives have been saying from the start that Obama had failed to recognize this fundamental fact of life. But even as the president and his aides indicate to Baker they've learned this simple lesson the hard way, Obama also signals that…maybe he hasn't.

Obama told Baker that he's optimistic he could find common cause with Republicans after the elections: "It may be that regardless of what happens after this election, they feel more responsible, either because they didn't do as well as they anticipated, and so the strategy of just saying no to everything and sitting on the sidelines and throwing bombes didn't work for them, or they did reasonably well, in which case the American people are going to be looking to them to offer serious proposals and work with me in a serious way."

...

[villager]

1. Sadly, they behave that way, too...

n/t

[treestar]

2. That was not unreasonable. Never has an opposition party been

lockstep, in bad faith, this way.

[BurtWorm]

10. They've been this way since 1994.

Kind of hard to miss how lockstep they've been if you're paying even the slightest bit of attention.

[kenfrequed]

15. Hmm mostly yes.

I agree. I find it odd that the big blue wave of 2006 and Obama's election was a sign to some democrats to go even more moderate. It is a failed tactic and a stupid concilation to a bully that would never compromise on anything.

[treestar]

17. Not so, this is the first time they have filibustered everything - they

have abused that procedure, and they vote in absolute lockstep against every single bill this session.

[BurtWorm]

21. I guess impeaching Clinton for a blowjob or stealing the 2000 election wasn't clear enough a signal

that these people are out of their fucking minds, huh?

[Better Believe It]

26. Nor was Republicans hitting Democrats on the side of their heads with a 2 by 4.

Where's the love?

[bettyellen]

29. they have seriously upped the ante w/ Obama w/ the fillibusters, emboldened by the disrespect

that the media and racist republican shills have heaped on our president. there has never been such an egregious disrespect for the executive office. Obama seems to be trying to gently show them up for what they are w/out being combative or nasty himself. Poor fella is mistaken if he thinks he'll change the T Baggers hearts or minds.

[Better Believe It]

24. What filibusters? The fake, phantom, pretend ones that Democratic Senate leaders accept and ....

don't try to stop?

[county worker]

27. You know something, most DUers get it and get it very early on. They knew there was a housing bubble

about to break, they knew there was no WMDs in Iraq, they knew Cheney was a lying mofo about Enron and he blackouts in CA. I think the President is at least as smart as DUers. So I think it is very unreasonable!

[sabrina 1]

31. And most of us, even people like me who was not really into

politics until a few years ago, already knew that there is no negotiating with Republicans. I really hope they are not serious when they say they thought they could and that they still believe they can after the electin if Republicans gain a majority. That is simply mind-boggling. Don't they know what Republicans did to Clinton? Are they blind, naive, deaf, ignorant of recent history, willfully ignoring it, or what?

This makes me very nervous about the future no matter who wins.

[leveymg]

3. The "team" isn't as smart as we thought they were, or

"Hope and Change" was actually political Kabuki Theatre - they got what they really wanted all along, and we got taken, again.

Either way, disaster.

[BrklynLiberal]

4. "Perhaps we were naive," ??!!! Did they pop out of the cabbage patch the night before the election?

How could they have been so much more naive than the people that elected them????????!!!!!!!!!!!

They are either being disingenuous, or assuming that everyone reading the article is an idiot.
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
" In other words, he couldn't deal straight with Republicans because they were not straight shooters. Give them a good-faith compromise at the start, and they'll hit you with a two-by-four "

Good faith Compromise!!!!!!!!!!!??????????? WTF!! The repukes were given the entire family fortune right up front, and still rejected it!!!!!!!!!! There were no "compromises" involved. The repukes were given everything they NEVER even had to ask for..and they still said no.



I am beginning to think that the man is on some sort of heavy duty drugs...or he has been watching a totally different reality than the rest of us here out in the real world.

Obama told Baker that he's optimistic he could find common cause with Republicans after the elections: "It may be that regardless of what happens after this election, they feel more responsible, either because they didn't do as well as they anticipated, and so the strategy of just saying no to everything and sitting on the sidelines and throwing bombes didn't work for them, or they did reasonably well, in which case the American people are going to be looking to them to offer serious proposals and work with me in a serious way."

[BurtWorm]

11. You sum it up perfectly!

As does that cartoon.

:applause:

[The Magistrate]

5. True, Sir: What Part Of 'They're Rabid Weasels Out To Fuck You!' Does the Man Fail To Comprehend?

[JDPriestly]

6. We told them so. That's why they struck out at us.

Because they didn't want to have to admit that they were wrong and we were right.

They should have started prosecuting members of the Bush administration as soon as Obama took office. Torture is simply illegal. As is wiretapping in violation of the Fourth Amendment and paying off your friends with kickbacks in government contracts, i.e., Halliburton being allowed to cheat.

[librechik]

19. word--they just wanted to avoid the hard choices and look good

which has come back to bite them in the ass

[QC]

7. They're not naive. n/t

[WinkyDink]

8. I'm just Jane Schmoe, and I know not to trust elected Republicans. Jeez Louise.

[Doctor_J]

9. Naive or complicit?

The incompetence is so severe that I am wondering if they were told that they're warming the Bush family throne for 4 years while Jeb readies himself. "You will pretend to govern for 4 years. That will give us time to rehabilitate the Bush name so that Jeb is electable. We'll take it from there. In exchange, everyone will become rich and you won't be assassinated".

[Autumn]

12. Naive? My ass, no way in hell

any of those people in the White House are naive. Let's try for something else shall we?:eyes:

[BurtWorm]

13. So this is a clever ploy to sucker punch the pugs after November?

Sure. That's the ticket.

[Autumn]

14. Yeah, sure a sucker punch.

not sure who's getting it but that's the answer.

[BurtWorm]

16. You mean we're getting sucker punched?

I thought, given your avatar, that might be where you were coming from.

[Autumn]

18. You should never make an

assumption. Might be that I don't have Hillary as an avatar for political reasons. She did something very nice for someone I love. Politically , there isn't a lot of difference between her or Obama.

[BurtWorm]

20. Never say never.

;-)

Now I know where you're coming from. Your point is well taken.

[rgbecker]

22. Its the MSM killing off another intelligent president...Just like Jimmy Carter.

America apparently doesn't deserve a thoughtful gentleman for president.

[LonePirate]

23. The man is a fool if he thinks the Rs will be more cooperative after the election.

I grow more ashamed of his stupidity with each passing day.

[bettyellen]

30. you're a fool thinking he actually believes it. he's showing us he gave republicans the opportunity

to be art of the solution, and that they declined. setting up a narative. he shouldn;t lower himself to acknowledge their distain, which makes him better then me.

[county worker]

25. This is kind of like going to a game and you have the best quarterback in the league.

But the coach puts in the second string quarterback because he doesn't want to run up too many points against the opposition. You end up losing a few games but the coach says, well we'll do better next time and keeps putting in the same second string quarterback.

After a while you quit feeling like you're going to have a good year.

[jgraz]

28. Can you sue a president for political malpractice?

No reason... just asking...

[pgodbold]

32. Obama has battered spouse syndrome. He just keeps on coming back for more! nt

[sabrina 1]

33. He and his whole administration do seem to desperately want

approval from the far right wingnuts. He eg, thinks that the Teabaggers are just 'passionate' about what they believe, 'ordinary folks with concerns about this country'. At the same time they have no qualms about slamming the people who elected them. Clearly they are not interested in our approval.

Battered spouse syndrome, or it's just a game to keep up the illusion of a democracy.