Krugman: The President Is Missing

[ProSense]

The President Is Missing

By PAUL KRUGMAN

What have they done with President Obama? What happened to the inspirational figure his supporters thought they elected? Who is this bland, timid guy who doesn’t seem to stand for anything in particular?

I realize that with hostile Republicans controlling the House, there’s not much Mr. Obama can get done in the way of concrete policy. Arguably, all he has left is the bully pulpit. But he isn’t even using that — or, rather, he’s using it to reinforce his enemies’ narrative.

<...>

You might have expected the president’s team not just to reject this proposal, but to see it as a big fat political target. But while the G.O.P. proposal has drawn fire from a number of Democrats — including a harsh condemnation from Senator Max Baucus, a centrist who has often worked with Republicans — the White House response was a statement from the press secretary expressing mild disapproval.

What’s going on here? Despite the ferocious opposition he has faced since the day he took office, Mr. Obama is clearly still clinging to his vision of himself as a figure who can transcend America’s partisan differences. And his political strategists seem to believe that he can win re-election by positioning himself as being conciliatory and reasonable, by always being willing to compromise.

more

What channel is Krugman watching?

President Obama: "let’s not try to sneak political agendas into a budget debate"

Obama Threatens to Veto House GOP Bill As Lawmakers Predict Shutdown (updated)

"President Obama and the House speaker, John A. Boehner, faced off in the Oval Office."

[Safetykitten]

1. "What channel is Krugman watching?" The one you have blocked.

[ProSense]

2. Does that make sense? n/t

[Cali_Democrat]

3. LOL

Zing!

[ProSense]

4. Explain it to me:

Krugman is watching another channel, which I supposedly have blocked and that apparently didn't carry the President's press conference so Krugman missed the very real event? That explains why he thinks the President is missing?

"Zing!"

Really?

[Name removed]

6. Deleted message

Sub-thread removed by moderator. Click here to review the message board rules.

[BklnDem75]

5. Fox?

[JTFrog]

14. Keep watching FOX with Mr. Krugman.

I'll keep blocking it.

[polmaven]

19. So you agree

that Krugman is apparently watching Fox.

[donheld]

7. Sorry, but I'll trust Mr Krugman over you any day.

[ProSense]

8. OK. Krugman,

March 2010:

Health reform is back from the dead. Many Democrats have realized that their electoral prospects will be better if they can point to a real accomplishment. Polling on reform — which was never as negative as portrayed — shows signs of improving. And I’ve been really impressed by the passion and energy of this guy Barack Obama. Where was he last year?

more

Thanks for sharing.

[donheld]

10. Do you Read Mr Krugman all the time?

Just asking

[cali]

9. Krugman is absolutely correct. The weak president has let the repukes

frame the debate. Easily seen, read and heard.

[ProSense]

12. "The weak president has let the repukes"

Oh please.

January 2009: $1.2 Trillion Deficit Forecast as Obama Weighs Options

WASHINGTON — Changes in Social Security and Medicare will be central to efforts to bring federal spending in line, President-elect Barack Obama said on Wednesday, as the Congressional Budget Office projected a $1.2 trillion budget deficit for the fiscal year.

“We expect that discussion around entitlements will be a part, a central part” of efforts to curb federal spending, Mr. Obama said at a news conference. By February, he said, “we will have more to say about how we’re going to approach entitlement spending.”

<...>

Krugman, December 2008:

<...>

Just to be clear, I’m not arguing that trying to reduce the budget deficit is always bad for private investment. You can make a reasonable case that Bill Clinton’s fiscal restraint in the 1990s helped fuel the great U.S. investment boom of that decade, which in turn helped cause a resurgence in productivity growth.

What made fiscal austerity such a bad idea both in Roosevelt’s America and in 1990s Japan were special circumstances: in both cases the government pulled back in the face of a liquidity trap, a situation in which the monetary authority had cut interest rates as far as it could, yet the economy was still operating far below capacity.

And we’re in the same kind of trap today — which is why deficit worries are misplaced.

One more thing: Fiscal expansion will be even better for America’s future if a large part of the expansion takes the form of public investment — of building roads, repairing bridges and developing new technologies, all of which make the nation richer in the long run.

<...>

Repeating "weak president" doesn't make it a fact.

[Hawkowl]

27. The results are weak

Maybe you just have a hard time understanding English? If Obama gets his ass kicked on every major issue, and comes out to the right of Nixon and Goldwater on the political spectrum, he is weak.

I think you should change your handle from Prosense to Pro-Shill.

[Donnachaidh]

35. an even better change

Pro-Shrill. :eyes:

[treestar]

26. They control the House~!

Besides, you were probably calling him weak when the Democrats did.

[vaberella]

11. And this is why you shouldn't quote the man. Tomorrow if not next week, he'll change again.

It's up and down, east and west with this guy. That is how he rolls and I get tired of seeing him quoted on DU---as though significant. It's like he's writing in a public diary---rather than to people who take stock in his words. Don't waste your time on posting him.

[JTFrog]

15. He eventually gets around to every prospective out there.

That way he can at least get it right once in a while.

That's why he's under the bus here every other week.

[vaberella]

30. To me he's a typical economist. They make hypothesis and if it fails...oh well.

Most people though like to take economists at their word. When they don't realize their word is all hypothetical.

[Name removed]

13. Deleted message

Message removed by moderator. Click here to review the message board rules.

[Liberal_Stalwart71]

16. Why is it that Krugman never seems to go after the Republicans? He's a smart man.

He knows that Republicans now dominate the House and that we can't get any legislation through the House now that the Teabaggers control it.

What would Krugman have Obama do? Make lofty speeches??

[Bunny]

21. You don't think Krugman went after Bush?

[Liberal_Stalwart71]

24. That's not the point. My argument is that Krugman is a reasonable man.

He knows about how the institutions in government work. It's really not that difficult.

If you have a House now controlled by wingnut Republicans/Teabaggers who refuse to compromise on anything and who would rather shut everything done, what then does one expect Obama to do?

Even when Democrats controlled both the House and the Senate, Obama's biggest detractors were the Blue Dogs and the corporatists. Without enough of them coming over to our side, we have a stalemate. In the Senate, the same thing. We NEVER had 60 votes, even though we had 60 Democrats because we had milquetoast corporatists and Blue Dogs that refused to accept more progressive pieces of legislation.
Not to mention, record-breaking filibusters from the Republicans.

So, I ask again, Krugman is well aware of the institutional constraints that face a president. With Bush it was different. He had no respect for our institutions. And he had no respect for our laws and the Constitution.

[Overseas]

17. Let's not sneak political agendas in? Right wing agendas are steamrolling in

to the budget.

I'd be glad for no political agendas and more common sense-- not crushing the poor and middle class to keep those tax cuts for the rich going.

[JoePhilly]

18. Apparently, we need more bluster.

[joentokyo]

20. It is not a question of which channel; it is a question of understanding what you are

watching. If you watch, you will see no difference between the Republican agenda and what the White House espouses. The two parties do a lot of posturing, but they are sucking up to the same corporations for donations. They support the same agenda: the club George Carlin told you that you are not a member of.

[ProSense]

22. No, it's a question of making sense

"If you watch, you will see no difference between the Republican agenda and what the White House espouses."

And that doesn't.

[Logical]

23. I think Obama shows too much respect to the GOP....

And I think complimenting Boehner about sweeping his dads business floors or calling Tom Colburn a good friend is not helpful. I wanted more of a fighter and someone who would go on TV and call them out.

The "No Drama Obama" is not something I like.

But, not voting for Obama in 2012 is criminal as a liberal. I will vote for him no matter who the GOP runs.

[treestar]

25. It is helpful

You soften them up. It's not hard to compliment Boner on his floor sweeping and it does not affect anything.

DUers talk about what they would do in these situations but it just proves why they are DUers and Obama is President.

[Logical]

28. I would like to see Obama call them out. Would not hurt him but help him. n-t

[polichick]

29. Apparently you're not...

..."exhausted of defending" him.

[ProSense]

33. Give it time

Maybe I'll eventually join the chorus of: Obama sucks, is worse than a Republican and can't do anything right.

[polichick]

34. Nah, but maybe the chorus of:

Obama far too often refuses to fight for Democratic solutions (like the budget offered by the Progressive Caucus), choosing inexplicably to adopt Republican framing and policies instead.

[ProSense]

37. "like the budget offered by the Progressive Caucus,"

which should have been passed when they had the majority.

Republicans are passing all kinds of bills that have no chance of making it out of Congress.

Democrats couldn't even pass the President's 2011 budget, which was sent to Congress in February last year.

[polichick]

38. Well, Congressional suckatude notwithstanding...

...it's going to be sickening to watch the prez move closer to Ryan's plan than to the progressive plan.

[yurbud]

31. How could anyone post that first link you gave as a defense of Obama?

It is a nonsensical statement that denies reality and frankly, insults the people who voted for him.

We expect him to govern by a different set of ideas than the GOP, otherwise, we wouldn't have voted for him.

Instead, we got someone who does what Krugman said: he pre-compromises, then compromises some more.

If Obama went to buy a car, he'd end up paying above retail, especially if the salesman was a Republican.

I was glad to see Obama threaten to veto a GOP bill. That should happen more often.


But as Robert Reich recently said, Obama has surrendered the debate by accepting the government spending is the problem with our economy, not the tax cuts the GOP demands for the rich or even more fundamentally the sociopathic behavior of Wall St.

[ProSense]

32. Um

huh?

[DCBob]

36. I dont now why Krugman loves to bash the President so much.

This is really a cheap shot. I guess Paul is under pressure to spew more sensational headlines to sell more papers.

[Lydia Leftcoast]

39. Read the online comments

Krugman is not alone.

[DCBob]

42. Probaby paid trolls..

According to latest polls most Americans approve of the way the Presisdent is Obama handling these negotiations.

[Lydia Leftcoast]

43. Yeah, all 680 of them are paid trolls

:sarcasm:

[vaberella]

40. No worries---when the budget details are out he'll be singing praises again.

The man is a fickle ass wipe.

[Hippo_Tron]

41. Krugman has some good points this week

BTW I don't doubt that the President is a Democrat and I plan to vote for him in 2012. But his whole above the fray mediator approach isn't going to work unless the economy gets better and cutting $30 billion in discretionary spending isn't helping.

[Stoic]

44. The Reality Channel. n/t