They hate me, they really hate me
CBS News political director John Dickerson
This post originally appeared on Slate.
When you are on the Fox News' ticker for the wrong reasons, it's time to put things into context.
On the eve of the president's inauguration, I wrote a piece about what President Obama needs to do to be a transformational rather than caretaker president. I was using a very specific definition of transformational presidencies based on my reading of a theory of political science and the president's own words about transformational presidencies from the 2008 campaign. It was also based on these givens: the president is ambitious, has picked politically controversial goals, has little time to operate before he is dubbed a lame-duck president, and has written off working with Republicans. "Bloodier-minded when it comes to beating Republicans," is how Jodi Kantor put it in the New York Times. Given these facts, there is only one logical conclusion for a president who wants to transform American politics: he must take on Republicans--aggressively.
For me, this was a math problem with an unmistakable conclusion. Some people thought I was giving the president my personal advice. No. My goal was to make a compelling argument based on the facts. I used words like "war" and "pulverize," and some have responded with threats to me and my family. ("Go for his throat!" some have counseled, echoing the headline.) These words have also liberated some correspondents (USUALLY THE ONES THAT TYPE IN ALL CAPS!!!!) from reading the piece or reading it in the spirit in which it was written. But there were also almost 2,000 other words in the piece, which should put that provocative language in context. What's been lost in the news ticker and Twitter threats is the argument of the piece: This is the only plausible path for a bold, game-changing second term for a president who has positioned himself the way President Obama has. Indeed, the piece accurately anticipated the forceful line the president ultimately took in his inaugural address with his call for collective action and failure to reach out to Republicans. Brit Hume said Obama's speech confirms for all time the president's essential liberalism. The New Republic's Noam Scheiber precisely identifiedthe speech not merely as liberal but an argument for liberalism.
Some correspondents have asked why I didn't advocate that Obama embrace House GOP spending plans or some other immediate compromise, a more pleasant outcome than the prospect of even more conflict in Washington. There's no evidence, however, that the president is in a compromising mood. (Again, see second inaugural.) This piece was written from the viewpoint of the reality as it stands, not a more pleasing future we would all prefer to inhabit. That reality (and the initial piece) includes an unpleasant fact to some Republicans: The GOP is in a state of disequilibrium. For evidence of that disarray, I rely on Rep. Tom Cole, Sen. Rand Paul, participants at the House GOP retreat, and Ramesh Ponnuru at the National Review. (As I mentioned in the piece, Democrats have their own tensions, too.)
People see my article as an argument for one-party power, which is impossible since I posit that Obama's second-term conflict with the GOP will be the first step leading to its rebirth as a majority party. Some assume I hate Republicans. This latter charge will confuse my close relations, who are not only proud conservatives but among Fox News' most ardent fans (the two groups not necessarily overlapping). Indeed, one of the many reactions I received on my reporting on the tensions within the Republican Party came from a family member who wrote: "Barack Obama is the best thing ever for those who believe in conservative principles because it would show that with hard work, regardless of race, anyone can achieve, and it would give Republicans a few years in the wilderness to get back to a coherent philosophy. Now I believe that Obama will help conservatives because he will make them better. He has totally figured out how to use technology to deliver mass customized messages to individual voters and now citizens. Ultimately, this is a great boon to democracy. He is smart and articulate. He is tough and ruthless. All of this will make conservatives and Republicans raise their game. Ultimately, that is good. ... I look forward to a Republican Party that is a worthy adversary and a worthy advocate. Barack Obama should inspire us conservatives to be better, not to be whinier."
You can disagree with that analysis, but it is in keeping with the theory of political transformation that I was articulating as I considered the central question on the eve of Obama's second term: What is the pathway for transforming American politics given the president's current posture? There may be another way to solve this math problem, but I still don't see it.
Popular in Politics
- FBI director acknowledges domestic drone use 151 Comments
- Obama and Berlin: Faded echoes meet new realities 77 Comments
- Obama on NSA programs: Americans "not getting the complete story" 259 Comments
- Next up for Obama: Major effort on climate change
- Immigration reform would cut deficit, analysis shows 82 Comments
- House Republicans pass 20-week limit on abortions 598 Comments
- Michelle Obama and daughters tour Berlin Play Video
- IRS readying to pay $70M in employee bonuses, senator says
Should we not expect that our eected officials, at every level in government, to consistently demonstrate civil debate regarding the subject at hand, without interjections or graft. Time and again we hear gov leaders, on both sides of the aisle, cede their civic duty to represent all their electorate by championing legislation to satisfy the personal beliefs of an elite few.
The image of GOP leaders portrayed in 2012 was of an elite group(including the guys that funded their super PACs)of old white guys who are strict, religious, and easily digress to their uncivil adolescent flaws when they don't get their way.
And you have suggested they conduct themselves with de corum. You have acknowledged the strengths and position of the President, whom they despise and recommended the GOP (man)up their game.
Lots of hate going around the GOP. Hate means you're spot on!!
Congratulations!!
Keep pushing for responsible action and maybe you can move the country off the stuck button.
--------------------------
JGG000010 replies: "how you can call it 'bi-partisan'....And if you seriously believe that we can provide healthcare to 320M people at half the cost of other "industrialized" countries you are out of your freaken skull. Remember when obama claimed the healthcare bill would be deficit neutral"?
--------------------------
Alright bubba, obviously you have nothing but the usual fox/rush republican talking points, since I CLEARLY listed the republican IDEAS that made it into the PPACA -- and you failed to debate every one of them! LOL!
Of course the PPACA is 'deficit neutral' with all the revenue sources within it, and the CBO is sticking with their claims that it will reduce our deficits by over $1.15 Trillion in the next 2 decades!
My point that went completely over your head, was that the only way we can get a handle on our health care costs, is single-payer universal health care that would cost us HALF of the current private-market, for-profit insurance industry-run health care debacle -- but unfortunately, to placate the bozo republicans, SP-UHC as well as the public option were taken off the table early-on in the bi-partisan health care debate!
Stick with the facts, instead of your usual right-wing republican talking points!
The "ideas that you clearly listed" aren't worth debating.
The debate was whether or not the bill was bipartisan and whether or not it was crammed through. And then in your latest post you say, "the only way we can get a handle on our health care costs, is single-payer universal health care". Well, Cletus THAT ISN'T THE BILL OF GOODS OBAMA SOLD. And he also sold that "if you liked your present coverage you'd be able to keep it". And he also sold it on the basis that it was "not a tax" and the only way it got through the supreme court was by declaring it a TAX. And you are telling me to "stick to the facts"???? You're a kool-aide guzzling fool.
When you can finally read and comprehend Section 1302, Section 1312, Section 1333, and Section 6801 of the PPACA, as well as understanding it is a private-market plan for expansion of the for-profit insurance industry, then we can discuss this without your endless fox/rush/drudge republican talking points! LOL!
Sure they did, but since it was propagandized by the right-wing sources, you fox/rush parrots still haven't read the PPACA or know what's in it!
Many republican ideas like the "mandate" were incorporated within the PPACA:
Section 1333: Formation of interstate compacts, that lets families and businesses buy health insurance across state lines
Section 1312: Formation of health care exchanges, that allows individuals, small businesses, and trade associations to pool together and acquire health insurance at lower prices, the same way large corporations and labor unions do
Section 1302: Entitled "the Waiver for State Innovation," and it gives states the power to junk the whole of the health-care plan -- that means the individual mandate, the Medicaid expansion, all of it -- if they can do it better and cheaper.
Section 6801: Encourages states to develop new malpractice systems and suggests that Congress fund the most promising experiments
The PPACA is a private-market plan, since not only was single-payer taken off the table, but so was the public option.
------------------
Instead of spewing your lies and deceptions heard from the usual right-wing sources, try reading the PPACA for the first time, and completely understand that it was a bi-partisan effort with many republican ideas incorporated within, instead of a "librul" effort trying to bring SP-UHC to America like the rest of the industrialized world, at half the cost!
And how you can call it "bi-partisan" is just mind-boggling.
Nobody even read that freaken bill. Even Nancy Pelosi said "you've got to pass it to see what's in it". And if you seriously believe that we can provide healthcare to 320M people at half the cost of other "industrialized" countries you are out of your freaken skull. Remember when obama claimed the healthcare bill would be "deficit neutral"? Do you still believe that load of crap?
All you have is conspiracy theories and the usual fox/rush/drudge far-right agitprop meant only to incite the far-right with LIES!