Bad luck? Bad faith?

Welcome to our community

Be a part of something great, join today!

Denny Crane

It's not even loaded!
Staff member
Administrator
Joined
May 24, 2007
Messages
73,114
Likes
10,945
Points
113
On MSNBC, they talked a lot about this article this morning.

http://www.washingtonpost.com/opinions/bad-luck-bad-faith/2011/08/18/gIQAD2IWOJ_story.html

Bad luck? Bad faith?
By Charles Krauthammer, Published: August 18

“We had reversed the recession, avoided a depression, got the economy moving again. . . . But over the last six months, we’ve had a run of bad luck.”

— President Obama, Decorah, Iowa, Aug. 15


A troubled nation wonders: How did we get mired in 9.1 percent unemployment, 0.9 percent growth and an economic outlook so bad that the Federal Reserve pledges to keep interest rates at zero through mid-2013 — an admission that it sees little hope on the horizon?

Bad luck, explains our president. Out of nowhere came Japan and its supply-chain disruptions, Europe and its debt problems, the Arab Spring and those oil spikes. Kicked off, presumably, by various acts of God (should He not be held accountable too?): earthquake and tsunami. (Tomorrow: pestilence and famine. Maybe frogs.)

Well, yes, but what leader is not subject to external events? Were the minor disruptions of the current Arab Spring remotely as damaging as the Arab oil embargo of 1973-74? Were the supply disruptions of Japan 2011 anything like the Asian financial collapse of 1997-98? Events happen. Leaders are elected to lead (from the front, incidentally). That means dealing with events, not plaintively claiming to be their victim.

Moreover, luck is the residue of design, as Branch Rickey immortally observed. And Obama’s design for the economy was a near-$1 trillion stimulus that left not a trace, the heavy hand of Obamacare and a flurry of regulatory zeal that seeks to stifle everything from domestic energy production to Boeing’s manufacturing expansion into South Carolina.

He sowed, he reaps.

In Obama’s recounting, however, luck is only half the story. His economic recovery was ruined not just by acts of God and (foreign) men, but by Americans who care nothing for their country. These people, who inhabit Congress (guess which party?), refuse to set aside “politics” for the good of the nation. They serve special interests and lobbyists, care only about the next election, place party ahead of country. Indeed, they “would rather see their opponents lose than see America win.” The blaggards!

For weeks, these calumnies have been Obama staples. Calumnies, because they give not an iota of credit to the opposition for trying to promote the public good, as presumably Obama does, but from different premises and principles. Calumnies, because they deny the legitimacy to those on the other side of the great national debate about the size and scope and reach of government.

Charging one’s opponents with bad faith is the ultimate political ad hominem. It obviates argument, fact, logic, history. Conservatives resist Obama’s social-democratic, avowedly transformational agenda not just on principle but on empirical grounds, as well — the economic and moral unraveling of Europe’s social-democratic experiment, on display today from Athens to the streets of London.
 
I knew the dem blame game wasn't going to wash. Not to mention the fact it's an out and out lie. I am really disappointed with Obama. I was pulling for him at one time but he's proven to be another Nixon of sorts.
 
Obama's not like Nixon.

He's a lot like Jimmy Carter, meaningless Nobel Prize and incompetence and all.
 
Obama's not like Nixon.

He's a lot like Jimmy Carter, meaningless Nobel Prize and incompetence and all.

Well, maybe Nixonesqe in that he seems to have a paranoia about blaming others for his faults is what I meant. He's turned out to be a huge disappointment- even to his own political party.
 
Well, maybe Nixonesqe in that he seems to have a paranoia about blaming others for his faults is what I meant. He's turned out to be a huge disappointment- even to his own political party.

He is a disappointment but come on, Clinton was blamed by republicans for almost all of the bad stuff in Bushs first term and a half. that's the irony here, and something Rs and conservatives are good at (and Ds and liberals), passing the blame to others
 
Clinton was blamed for creating a secret panel with his wife in charge to try and push universal health care on us. It wasn't popular then or now.

Clinton accepted that elections do matter and was willing to accept the opposition's best ideas. Obama hasn't figured it out yet.
 
Clinton was blamed for creating a secret panel with his wife in charge to try and push universal health care on us. It wasn't popular then or now.

Clinton accepted that elections do matter and was willing to accept the opposition's best ideas. Obama hasn't figured it out yet.

Wait...so it's good to accept the oppositions best ideas? Since when do republicans do that?
 
He is a disappointment but come on, Clinton was blamed by republicans for almost all of the bad stuff in Bushs first term and a half. that's the irony here, and something Rs and conservatives are good at (and Ds and liberals), passing the blame to others

There's a little to what you say, but I really don't recall that two years into his presidency Bush was blaming Clinton for every single thing wrong with the country as well as any of Bush's failed policies. Obama is blaming Bush and the GOP for, literally, every single thing gone wrong during his administration. That's just plain crap. He brings unaccountability and the blame game to a level it has never been to before.
 
There's a little to what you say, but I really don't recall that two years into his presidency Bush was blaming Clinton for every single thing wrong with the country as well as any of Bush's failed policies. Obama is blaming Bush and the GOP for, literally, every single thing gone wrong during his administration. That's just plain crap. He brings unaccountability and the blame game to a level it has never been to before.

Some of what he's blaming is true, but be real...people STILL blame Clinton for the bad things that happened during Bush's terms.
 
Some of what he's blaming is true, but be real...people STILL blame Clinton for the bad things that happened during Bush's terms.

If they do, I haven't seen it. Seriously. Despite the fact he was a poor President, Bush took more accountability than most Presidents I've seen. And it's also true that every President inherits a certain amount of problems from prior ones and then they get hit for it. All I;m trying to say is that Obama and the dems are still trying to push their failed policies off on Bush and it isn't right this far along.
 
Wait...so it's good to accept the oppositions best ideas? Since when do republicans do that?

Geez, I can think of many.

No child left behind (education)

GHW's clean air act (environment)

Reagan tax hike to save SS

...
 
Geez, I can think of many.

No child left behind (education)

GHW's clean air act (environment)

Reagan tax hike to save SS

...

wasn't NCLB a Bush thing? And the other two examples you give are from pre-92? Really?

I'm saying that complaining that Obama doesn't "accept" the other sides best ideas is funny when the Republicans have turned themselves into a party that refuses to publicly acknowledge anything Obama or Democrats suggest or want to do. They refused to back down from the default crisis, unless they got the vast majority of what they wanted (and Obama gladly obliged), they butchered the healthcare debate (which he should've saved until later on, and instead worked on jobs/economy), and they pretty much have said "you do it our way or we'll force you to do have a 60-40 vote total". And that was just when they were in the minority, now do you honestly think they'd willingly pass anything that he proposes?
 
If they do, I haven't seen it. Seriously. Despite the fact he was a poor President, Bush took more accountability than most Presidents I've seen. And it's also true that every President inherits a certain amount of problems from prior ones and then they get hit for it. All I;m trying to say is that Obama and the dems are still trying to push their failed policies off on Bush and it isn't right this far along.

Some of it is because in trying to FIX those failed policies they've ran into people who refused to change them.

If you're trying to fix something, and the other guy is at fault, you shouldn't have to then compromise greatly towards his pov (i.e., the proposed tax hikes that wouldn't have a great impact on 99% of us).

I wish that senate and house would cap their salaries at 100K myself, that could save them money. But they will never give up what they want (which is why, imho, their concern over the deficit and budgetary issues is pure bullshit. They talk a good talk, but don't do anything about it when it comes to personal impact).
 
wasn't NCLB a Bush thing? And the other two examples you give are from pre-92? Really?

I'm saying that complaining that Obama doesn't "accept" the other sides best ideas is funny when the Republicans have turned themselves into a party that refuses to publicly acknowledge anything Obama or Democrats suggest or want to do. They refused to back down from the default crisis, unless they got the vast majority of what they wanted (and Obama gladly obliged), they butchered the healthcare debate (which he should've saved until later on, and instead worked on jobs/economy), and they pretty much have said "you do it our way or we'll force you to do have a 60-40 vote total". And that was just when they were in the minority, now do you honestly think they'd willingly pass anything that he proposes?

You asked for examples, and I chose one from each of the last 3 republican presidents.

Education is a democrat thing. A lot of neocons would do away with the dept. of education altogether. NCLB is a great example because W reached across the aisle and got now dead Ted to sponsor it in the senate.
 
Oh, and at this point, they shouldn't pass anything Obama proposes unless it's an actual good idea.
 
wasn't NCLB a Bush thing? And the other two examples you give are from pre-92? Really?

I'm saying that complaining that Obama doesn't "accept" the other sides best ideas is funny when the Republicans have turned themselves into a party that refuses to publicly acknowledge anything Obama or Democrats suggest or want to do. They refused to back down from the default crisis, unless they got the vast majority of what they wanted (and Obama gladly obliged), they butchered the healthcare debate (which he should've saved until later on, and instead worked on jobs/economy), and they pretty much have said "you do it our way or we'll force you to do have a 60-40 vote total". And that was just when they were in the minority, now do you honestly think they'd willingly pass anything that he proposes?

Debt Ceiling Debate: Boehner and Obama had a deal. Then, after they agreed on the mix of cuts and tax increases, Obama wanted to raise taxes another $400B without any cuts. It represented a 50% increase in the amount of taxes and would have led to a complete repudiation of what the GOP promised the voters. What would you have done if faced with the same circumstance? When someone isn't negotiationing in good faith, your only choice is to walk away.

Healthcare Debate: It never went to committee. The Republicans never had any input into the bill. The public, election after election, kept yelling "stop". They elected a Republican Governor in purple VA. They elected a Republican Governor in deep blue NJ. And finally they replaced the "Liberal Lion" of the Senate with a Republican in MA. When faced with a filibuster, rather than negotiating on health care, the Democrats used a technical trick (budget reconciliation) to pass the most massive government instrusion since the creation of Medicare.

The Budget: There wasn't one proposed for almost two years by the Democratic-controlled Congress. Why? Because they didn't want to put their spending and taxing goals on paper. The closest Obama came was giving a speech, one so vague that the Director of the non-partisan CBO stated "We don't score speeches".

One side brings up concrete ideas for debate, the other side demagogues the specifics of those concrete ideas without presenting their own. One side brings bills to committee for debate, the other side creates bills behind closed doors and demands a yes or no vote.

Sometimes the best the opposition can do is act as a brake. Each side doesn't have to be equivalent. I used to be a proud DLC Democrat. This generation of Democrats doesn't come close to resembling the folks that made me a Democrat. These "radical", "unreasonable" Republicans are voting for budgets significantly larger than the ones they opposed during the Clinton era. The narrative is that the right has gone too far right and the left has remained reasonable. However, looking at the facts, the opposite is true.
 

Users who are viewing this thread

Back
Top