Bernstein vs. Greenwald

[BzaDem]

http://plainblogaboutpolitics.blogspot.com/2010/06/presidency-is-weak-really.html

--snip--

Weighing in on Glenn Greenwald's claims about Barack Obama, the Democrats, and the Lincoln/Halter primary:

Greenwald: "What happened in this race also gives the lie to the insufferable excuse we've been hearing for the last 18 months from countless Obama defenders: namely, if the Senate doesn't have 60 votes to pass good legislation, it's not Obama's fault because he has no leverage over these conservative Senators. It was always obvious what an absurd joke that claim was; the very idea of The Impotent, Helpless President, presiding over a vast government and party apparatus, was laughable."

I don't know how to respond to this nicely: this is ignorant nonsense that betrays a deep lack of understanding of how the government of the United States works.

--snip--


--snip--
So the distribution of votes matters enormously, which is why I link to statistical accounts of the ideological spectrum in the Senate all the time. What they'll tell you is that all Democratic Senators have voting records more liberal than all Senate Republicans; that most Senate Democrats are quite liberal; but that the 50th Democratic Senator (Baucus, or Tester, or someone like that) isn't all that liberal, and the 59th Democratic Senator even less so. Moreover, it's pretty obvious that the dozen or so least liberal Democrats, with one or two exceptions (mainly Joe Lieberman) come from states that aren't very liberal at all. Add it all up, and the odds are that had Obama staked everything on a strong public option, he could easily have wound up with no health bill at all, no banking bill, 35% approval, a GOP landslide in 2010, and dim prospects for 2012.

All of which is very frustrating for liberals. Pretending that their allies are really their enemies, however, is a particularly self-punishing way of dealing with that frustration.
--snip--

[Winterblues]

1. Pretending that their allies are really their enemies,

In a Democracy you get to vote. One DEMOCRAT faced off against a more Conservative DEMOCRAT. If the first Democrat had won he certainly would not have opposed many Democratic ideals. The other has a track record of doing just that. With allies like that we don't get "Change you can believe in"

[Mz Pip]

2. There's a pretty big difference

between "The Impotent, Helpless President" and the Superman President some seem to have projected onto Obama. Greenwald seems to be doing his best to trow out hyperbole, but I think Berstein is right on this one. Presidents are not dictators.

[HughMoran]

3. Greenwald doesn't care about "ignorant nonsense that betrays a deep lack of understanding of ...gov"

He's got a band of angry followers to feed - they're hungry for inflammatory rhetoric.

[katandmoon]

4. Glenn Greenwald is a very accurate nerve-hitter.

[leveymg]

5. Democrats who are against the public option, financial reform, etc. really aren't liberals or Dems

I hate to tell you this, but the Blue Dogs are a party unto themselves, and they've done a damn effective job of bending the White House and Senate leadership to their will, not the other way around.

But, "it takes two to tango". If Obama had really wanted a public option and real banking reform, he would have fought for it. The outcome - an insurance industry bailout and a toothless banking bill -- says at least as much about the real agenda of the President and his circle of closest advisors than it does about the Blue Dogs, who really are dependent upon the White House and the DNC for their survival. So long as they continue to block the progressive agenda, they are not our friends, and we don't need them.

[burnsei sensei]

13. I really want the Blue Dogs isolated.

I want them miserable, uncomfortable in every gathering of liberals.
They don't belong with us, or even close to us.
They are . . . Republicans.

[depakid]

6. What a sorry pience of apologist writing

One suspects the author doesn't even believe it himself... because it really is THAT delusional and lame.

[BzaDem]

8. Your description would be correct if applied to Greenwald's rant.

As for Bernstein's respone, that not only is spot on but few at all actually knowledgable about government would disagree. Your reaction reminds me of the "liberals" here who oppose healthcare reform and financial reform, who are contributing to Obama's 35% approval, and would probably welcome a 2010 GOP landslide to "teach Democrats a lesson." These people are a very loud squeaky-wheel group here, yet make up less than 10% of the actual Democratic party.

[depakid]

11. Greenwald is factual and his analtsis spot on and well documented

this baseless and speculative drivel isn't even worthy of a comment.

[WeDidIt]

12. Greenwald is full of shit

He spews ignorant bullshit that his followers lap up like Beck's followers lap up Beck's ignorant bullshit.

Beck and Greenwald, same shit, different assholes.

[Individualist]

10. +1

[jefferson_dem]

7. Well done Professor Bernstein.

I'm happy to see someone call out Greenwald's irrational hyperventilations. Greenwald might mean well but he routinely reveals rank naïveté about how politics actually works.

[EFerrari]

9. 'Is the idea of an "Impotent, Helpless President" a joke? No, it's basic American politics.'

LOL

This guy wants to pick a fight with Greenwald to drum up some traffic.