Welcome to DU!
The truly grassroots left-of-center political community where regular people, not algorithms, drive the discussions and set the standards.
Join the community:
Create a free account
Support DU (and get rid of ads!):
Become a Star Member
Latest Breaking News
General Discussion
The DU Lounge
All Forums
Issue Forums
Culture Forums
Alliance Forums
Region Forums
Support Forums
Help & Search
Andrew Sullivan: How Obama's Long Game Will Outsmart His Critics
It's Andrew Sullivan, so this critique is not for a liberal audience like DU -- it's squarely aimed at centrists and independents. Share it with all your centrist and independent friends.
Click the link below to read the entire thing.
...
All these decisions deserve scrutiny. And in retrospect, they were far more successful than anyone has yet fully given Obama the credit for. The job collapse bottomed out at the beginning of 2010, as the stimulus took effect. Since then, the U.S. has added 2.4 million jobs. That’s not enough, but it’s far better than what Romney would have you believe, and more than the net jobs created under the entire Bush administration. In 2011 alone, 1.9 million private-sector jobs were created, while a net 280,000 government jobs were lost. Overall government employment has declined 2.6 percent over the past 3 years. (That compares with a drop of 2.2 percent during the early years of the Reagan administration.) To listen to current Republican rhetoric about Obama’s big-government socialist ways, you would imagine that the reverse was true. It isn’t.
...
The great conservative bugaboo, Obamacare, is also far more moderate than its critics have claimed. The Congressional Budget Office has projected it will reduce the deficit, not increase it dramatically, as Bush’s unfunded Medicare Prescription Drug benefit did. It is based on the individual mandate, an idea pioneered by the archconservative Heritage Foundation, Newt Gingrich, and, of course, Mitt Romney, in the past. It does not have a public option; it gives a huge new client base to the drug and insurance companies; its health-insurance exchanges were also pioneered by the right. It’s to the right of the Clintons’ monstrosity in 1993, and remarkably similar to Nixon’s 1974 proposal. Its passage did not preempt recovery efforts; it followed them. It needs improvement in many ways, but the administration is open to further reform and has agreed to allow states to experiment in different ways to achieve the same result. It is not, as Romney insists, a one-model, top-down prescription. Like Obama’s Race to the Top education initiative, it sets standards, grants incentives, and then allows individual states to experiment. Embedded in it are also a slew of cost-reduction pilot schemes to slow health-care spending. Yes, it crosses the Rubicon of universal access to private health care. But since federal law mandates that hospitals accept all emergency-room cases requiring treatment anyway, we already obey that socialist principle—but in the most inefficient way possible. Making 44 million current free-riders pay into the system is not fiscally reckless; it is fiscally prudent. It is, dare I say it, conservative.
...
On foreign policy, the right-wing critiques have been the most unhinged. Romney accuses the president of apologizing for America, and others all but accuse him of treason and appeasement. Instead, Obama reversed Bush’s policy of ignoring Osama bin Laden, immediately setting a course that eventually led to his capture and death. And when the moment for decision came, the president overruled both his secretary of state and vice president in ordering the riskiest—but most ambitious—plan on the table. He even personally ordered the extra helicopters that saved the mission. It was a triumph, not only in killing America’s primary global enemy, but in getting a massive trove of intelligence to undermine al Qaeda even further. If George Bush had taken out bin Laden, wiped out al Qaeda’s leadership, and gathered a treasure trove of real intelligence by a daring raid, he’d be on Mount Rushmore by now. But where Bush talked tough and acted counterproductively, Obama has simply, quietly, relentlessly decimated our real enemies, while winning the broader propaganda war. Since he took office, al Qaeda’s popularity in the Muslim world has plummeted.
...
If I sound biased, that’s because I am. Biased toward the actual record, not the spin; biased toward a president who has conducted himself with grace and calm under incredible pressure, who has had to manage crises not seen since the Second World War and the Depression, and who as yet has not had a single significant scandal to his name. “To see what is in front of one’s nose needs a constant struggle,” George Orwell once wrote. What I see in front of my nose is a president whose character, record, and promise remain as grotesquely underappreciated now as they were absurdly hyped in 2008. And I feel confident that sooner rather than later, the American people will come to see his first term from the same calm, sane perspective. And decide to finish what they started.
All these decisions deserve scrutiny. And in retrospect, they were far more successful than anyone has yet fully given Obama the credit for. The job collapse bottomed out at the beginning of 2010, as the stimulus took effect. Since then, the U.S. has added 2.4 million jobs. That’s not enough, but it’s far better than what Romney would have you believe, and more than the net jobs created under the entire Bush administration. In 2011 alone, 1.9 million private-sector jobs were created, while a net 280,000 government jobs were lost. Overall government employment has declined 2.6 percent over the past 3 years. (That compares with a drop of 2.2 percent during the early years of the Reagan administration.) To listen to current Republican rhetoric about Obama’s big-government socialist ways, you would imagine that the reverse was true. It isn’t.
...
The great conservative bugaboo, Obamacare, is also far more moderate than its critics have claimed. The Congressional Budget Office has projected it will reduce the deficit, not increase it dramatically, as Bush’s unfunded Medicare Prescription Drug benefit did. It is based on the individual mandate, an idea pioneered by the archconservative Heritage Foundation, Newt Gingrich, and, of course, Mitt Romney, in the past. It does not have a public option; it gives a huge new client base to the drug and insurance companies; its health-insurance exchanges were also pioneered by the right. It’s to the right of the Clintons’ monstrosity in 1993, and remarkably similar to Nixon’s 1974 proposal. Its passage did not preempt recovery efforts; it followed them. It needs improvement in many ways, but the administration is open to further reform and has agreed to allow states to experiment in different ways to achieve the same result. It is not, as Romney insists, a one-model, top-down prescription. Like Obama’s Race to the Top education initiative, it sets standards, grants incentives, and then allows individual states to experiment. Embedded in it are also a slew of cost-reduction pilot schemes to slow health-care spending. Yes, it crosses the Rubicon of universal access to private health care. But since federal law mandates that hospitals accept all emergency-room cases requiring treatment anyway, we already obey that socialist principle—but in the most inefficient way possible. Making 44 million current free-riders pay into the system is not fiscally reckless; it is fiscally prudent. It is, dare I say it, conservative.
...
On foreign policy, the right-wing critiques have been the most unhinged. Romney accuses the president of apologizing for America, and others all but accuse him of treason and appeasement. Instead, Obama reversed Bush’s policy of ignoring Osama bin Laden, immediately setting a course that eventually led to his capture and death. And when the moment for decision came, the president overruled both his secretary of state and vice president in ordering the riskiest—but most ambitious—plan on the table. He even personally ordered the extra helicopters that saved the mission. It was a triumph, not only in killing America’s primary global enemy, but in getting a massive trove of intelligence to undermine al Qaeda even further. If George Bush had taken out bin Laden, wiped out al Qaeda’s leadership, and gathered a treasure trove of real intelligence by a daring raid, he’d be on Mount Rushmore by now. But where Bush talked tough and acted counterproductively, Obama has simply, quietly, relentlessly decimated our real enemies, while winning the broader propaganda war. Since he took office, al Qaeda’s popularity in the Muslim world has plummeted.
...
If I sound biased, that’s because I am. Biased toward the actual record, not the spin; biased toward a president who has conducted himself with grace and calm under incredible pressure, who has had to manage crises not seen since the Second World War and the Depression, and who as yet has not had a single significant scandal to his name. “To see what is in front of one’s nose needs a constant struggle,” George Orwell once wrote. What I see in front of my nose is a president whose character, record, and promise remain as grotesquely underappreciated now as they were absurdly hyped in 2008. And I feel confident that sooner rather than later, the American people will come to see his first term from the same calm, sane perspective. And decide to finish what they started.
http://www.thedailybeast.com/newsweek/2012/01/15/andrew-sullivan-how-obama-s-long-game-will-outsmart-his-critics.html
68 replies
= new reply since forum marked as read
= new reply since forum marked as read
truly is a gifted writer. And of course, I happen to agree with him. 
Somehow, though, I don't think you'll be subject to the same level of criticism for supporting our president. Great read...thanks for posting!
--the Grand Bargain in "entitlement" "reform"? 
In Sullivan's fluffy pink bunnyland, the worst midterm slaughter of the president's party in modern times apparently never happened. Behold the bitter fruits of the "Grand Bargain"
Social Security and the Future of the Democratic Party
Preliminary research from Strengthen Social Security
1. Public support for Social Security is very high – it is a core value for people so Democrats take it away at their peril.
• Numerous surveys show that 75% to 80% oppose cutting Social Security benefits to reduce the federal deficit. The public understands it has no relationship to the federal deficit because they pay special taxes for it.
• 2010 election eve/day poll showed STRONG opposition to Social Security cuts – 73% Democrats, 72% Independents, 72% Republicans, 61% Tea Party.
• 7 out of 10 voters oppose raising the retirement age. It is especially strong among blue collar voters: non-college men and especially non-college women, which are core labor constituencies in the key battleground states.
2. Democrats have limited credibility on Social Security issue at this point in time.
• Democrats used to crush Republicans when voters were asked: who do you trust to better handle Social Security? Today, they are losing badly to Republicans.
• Election Day 2010 voters favored Republicans on Social Security 31% to 28%. But
• Oct. 2006 poll: 48% Democrats to 20% Republicans
• Oct 2002 poll: 43% Democrats to 20% Republicans
• Oct. 1998 poll: 44% Democrats to 21% Republicans
• Same pattern is true for Presidents:
• Obama on 2010 Election Day: Voters said Republicans could be more trusted than Obama on Social Security by 33% to 26%.
• Bush in 2005: Democrats in Congress were favored over Bush on Social Security by 50% to 37%.
• Clinton in 1995: He was favored over Republicans in handling Social Security by 53% to 34%.
3. A damaged Democratic brand on Social Security will spell electoral disaster in 2012 and beyond.[This section is still being researched; we are looking at Senate races to make the strongest case. Obama believes he can win in 2012 even with a large loss among seniors, as long as he comes close to replicating his large surge in 2008 (a big if), although they have not said how large the seniors loss can be.]
• Democrats will not win seniors in 2012, but we must hold down our losses to a manageable level – maybe a 10% advantage for Republicans – if we are to hold (or at least minimize losses in the Senate and make up lost ground in the House.
• 2006: Republicans had no advantage among seniors – 49%-49%, when Democrats won big in congressional races.
• 2010: Republicans had a 21% point advantage among seniors – 59% vs. 38%.
• 2008: Republicans had an 8% point advantage among seniors – 53% vs. 45% in a wave election favoring Democrats
• 2004: Republicans had a 5% point advantage among seniors – 52% to 47%
• 2000: Democrats had a 3% point advantage among seniors – 50% to 47%
• 1996: Democrats had a 7% point advantage among seniors – 50% to 43%
• Beyond 2012, Republicans will have an easier time garnering the support of baby boomers if Democratic support for Social Security becomes blurred, an outcome that could impact national politics for many years.
4. Cutting Social Security will demoralize the Democratic base.
• It will be very hard to motivate activists in the party if the President leads the effort to cut Social Security. It will be seen as a betrayal of everything we have worked decades for.
• For unions in particular, the union leader’s credibility with its
own members will be at great risk if the President leads the effort to cut Social Security.
5. The President can and should build support for his reelection and congressional Democrats by embracing Social Security as a crucial component of the economic security of American families. He should emphasize that:
• In an economy that is increasingly risky, it is the only program American families can count on to provide effective life insurance for their young children, disability insurance and retirement protection.
• Social Security as a core part of his commitment to protecting the middle class.
6. Protecting Social Security would be a bipartisan bonanza for the President and regain ground lost due to Republicans on Medicare.
• The President wants to be seen as working with Republicans. Why not ask them to join him in pledging to not cut Social Security. He will hit a grand slam with the public, which wants no cuts to the program and would like both parties to work together to protect the program. It will be a surprise move to the Republicans and put them in a box.
• Republicans were very effective in the 2010 campaign skewering Democrats as Medicare cutters. This was probably the single greatest attack Republicans had on Democrats with older voters. This could happen again with Social Security. The way to get this age group back is to go on offense on Social Security.
...fault that liberals sat home in 2010.
Koch brothers buying elections: $100+ million.
Teabaggers invented out of thin air: millions of dollars.
The erosion of the Democratic party by supposed liberals, buying into the propaganda: Priceless.
Most self-destructive people I've ever seen.
Fuck the Koch brothers. Fuck the narrative that Democrats are worse than Republicans on Social Security. They bought and paid for that meme, they deluded people with that meme. And it worked! How do we know that? Because the "teabaggers" got out 9% more votes than the Democrats. It's factual, that's how it happened. They actually got us to sit home through propagandistic voter suppression, convincing people it didn't matter.
