tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-6926413038778731189.post2034072756251396488..comments2023-10-16T07:13:12.123-05:00Comments on A plain blog about politics: Presidential DecisionsJonathan Bernsteinhttp://www.blogger.com/profile/15931039630306253241noreply@blogger.comBlogger4125tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-6926413038778731189.post-54786474282517444592010-08-20T07:50:30.130-05:002010-08-20T07:50:30.130-05:00Yes, the civil liberties business is important to ...Yes, the civil liberties business is important to a lot of us "liberals" (liberal with what, I keep wondering when I hear this term used). And there are quite a few other matters where the President has not exactly taken up the cudgels he led us to believe he would be brandishing during the campaign.<br /><br />The image he has acquired in many left circles is of someone with no particular convictions at all, who is terrified that he won't be re-elected and is appeasing anyone and everyone that might make things difficult for him in 2012. Or, political problems have become so difficult to solve at this point that practically nothing that the left wants can be achieved, so we should just shrug our shoulders and let what happens happen.<br /><br />Or, as most of the "serious people" seem to believe, the left is just a bunch of silly fools who are mostly concerned about their trivial ideological hobby-horses, while the President has much more serious work to do. That is, the left really does need drug testing.JonJhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/18039411264957093739noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-6926413038778731189.post-6218437723777436452010-08-19T21:12:12.003-05:002010-08-19T21:12:12.003-05:00"Most of the time a president's supporter..."Most of the time a president's supporters feel betrayed, even major cases such as... Obama and the public option, the odds are good that the president doesn't fundamentally disagree with his supporters about right and wrong, just about the correct move to make given all the circumstances (which, again, doesn't mean he necessarily is correct about that)."<br /><br />What about Obama's reversal on civil liberties issues (i.e. running against Bush's policies in this area and then substantially continuing them in many respects)? Would you put this in that category, or is this a genuine betrayal?Stephen Frughttp://stephenfrug.blogspot.comnoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-6926413038778731189.post-8696612050803231942010-08-19T18:16:32.016-05:002010-08-19T18:16:32.016-05:00Prof. Ockham, the bottom line is that the liberal ...Prof. Ockham, the bottom line is that the liberal blogs and lefty orgs that are insisting on Warren are basically stomping their feet like children and insisting that they deserve a "win." Not one blog, to my knowledge, has written anything meaningful about the other potential choices. You're not seeing daily takedowns of Michael Barr on dkos and firedoglake. So the claim that "only Warren is acceptable," has not been put into controversy. It's simply something that liberals have repeatedly asserted without providing any reasoning as to why this would be so. And according to the banks that would be regulated, it's probably not true--a lower profiled hire with better connections in D.C. would be worse for them.<br /><br />So the only reason Obama would give in to them is that he could reasonably believe that he's catered to the centrists too much in these first 18 months, mostly at the expense of the priorities of liberals, and he needs to throw the liberals a bone. The entire health care debate centered around what Byron Dorgan, Olympia Snowe, Susan Collins, Joe Lieberman, Bart Stupak and Ben Nelson thought should happen to the bill. The wall street legislation was opened back up so that Scott Brown could take a pen to it. The unemployment extension passed because Snowe and Collins said it could. And there's an election in a few months. The push to nominate Warren only makes sense to the extent that the more ideologically liberal members of the Dem caucus are necessary participants to turn out the maximum amount of votes in November, and to the extent that nominating Warren at some cost to the Prez himself for no other good reason would work to show those liberals that the Prez won't completely ignore them.Markhttp://123456.comnoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-6926413038778731189.post-49579730985828267142010-08-19T16:53:25.712-05:002010-08-19T16:53:25.712-05:00I understand that the political press will always ...I understand that the political press will always frame things this way, but as poli sci prof, do you really think that this controversy is really about whether Obama will make liberals happy? I don't speak for liberals, professional or otherwise, but I support Elizabeth Warren because I believe that she understands what needs to be done as the head of this agency. That belief is based on her writing, her recent performance in her current role, and the public appearances she has done. If Obama is going to appoint Warren to keep liberals happy, he's a fool. He should appoint her because he believes that she can do the job at hand, which is decidedly non-trivial AND she has significant public support. <br /><br />Whether he wants to appoint Warren tells me something important about what Obama values. I think you are contributing to the trivialization of policy into nothing but politics. You are concerned with the ego of Washington politicians and the symbolism of the appointment to the exclusion of the substance. Of course, in politics, symbolism and egos matter, but when they completely crowd out the actual substance of governing, something has gone very wrong. Real people have been hurt by the financial shenanigans that have gone on. More people will be hurt if this agency is ineffectual and that's what this fight is really about. Is it business as usual or not? I think that matters beyond the symbolism, the egos, and perceptions of Obama's manhood.William Ockhamhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/13795149116565627671noreply@blogger.com