Posted on July 10, 2011 in Roundup
UPDATE: The fact that John Boehner announced just minutes before this went to press that he was rejecting Obama’s deal suggests that our president knew what he was up to. He has just given the Republicans everything they need to commit political suicide. My comment for the week is still worth reading, I think.
Some debts are fun when you are acquiring them, but none are fun when you set about retiring them. -Ogden Nash
Schultzoids and Hamsher Wheels. I’ve been challenged this week by members of the regressive left who are angry with Obama ((You might ask why Obama isn’t more like Bernie Sanders. It is a good question and goes to the heart of my argument. Bernie Sanders enjoys the luxury of being in a position to be the conscience of the Senate. It’s an important role. Someone has to take the stands that are right so that we know what they are. Obama, on the other hand, was elected to be an administrator. His job is more problematic. He must be sure that the country doesn’t stop running or default on its obligations. If Bernie Sanders was in Obama’s position do you think he would allow the Republicans to close down the government and force the nation to cease honoring its bonds? No, he would do what he had to do. Both men are honorable. A president who defiantly allowed the country to fail would not earn my vote a second time.)) . The chief argument they give for their rage is that Obama “hasn’t led like he should have.” One Discordian whined that the president only tries when he is sure he can win. I asked him in return “If you were the manager of a baseball team would you tell your players to swing at every ball?” He replied that it was a stupid analogy because everyone knows that if you don’t swing, you get walked.
Someone doesn’t know baseball ((If a ball goes over the plate and you could have swung at it, the umpire calls a strike. Three of those and you are out. Swinging at a ball which doesn’t go over the plate isn’t a missed opportunity — it’s a waste of energy.)) . Or politics.
These regressive progressives have been infected by a false notion by the Tea Party: politicians must never compromise. But that’s not what we elect politicians for: we elect them to get the best deal that is politically possible. Obama has to deal with the House we elected in November and make compromises on matters like the budget and the debt ceiling or the government will stop, its bonds default ((So let them! some cry. And give the Tea Party what it wants?)) . Elected officials are not dictators nor are they magic fairies that swing their wand and win over the other side — especially not in these times when the Tea Party is controlling the House and is out to destroy the economy so that they can preserve their precious, destructive tax cuts.
Jane Hamsher and Ed Schultz lead the charge here. Given Hamsher’s ties to the Tea Party and Schultz’s former(?) affiliation with the Republicans, it is not hard to think that there is something more going on here. What is clear is that both are playing their followers like Stradivarius knock-offs. And the young people who weren’t around to see good men like Jimmy Carter and John Tunney forced out by Reagan and Hayakawa don’t see that they, too, are the Tea Party.
Who says that the GOP doesn’t tolerate dissent? They love it when stupid confrontation undermines the Democrats.
Be sure to read my comments policy.