Tuesday, July 12, 2011

President Obama's Choice: Betrayal Or Redemption

It's not a stretch to say that President Obama is an enigma, not only to racist crazies on the right and most Republicans, who regard a black president as inherently exotic, but to liberals and progressives who are increasingly alarmed by his political leanings. If the President's "Grand Bargain"— an unfortunate term dripping with the sarcasm of Nancy Pelosi's voice as she uttered it — bargains away Medicare, Medicaid, and Social Security, he will have imperiled his reelection. Whether or not we, his base, choose individually to vote for him. The Democratic Party's greatest achievements, the "Big Three" as Big Eddie calls them, are not bargaining chips to be used in a deal with purveyors of evil on the right.

The President's weird compulsion to sell out to the Republicans, his willingness to lurch rightward, so unlike Truman (a RIDICULOUS comparison by the idiot pundits) given that "the buck stops here" was bolted to "Give 'Em Hell" Harry's desk, has had the infamous and utterly disgusting Beltway Media, the Idiot Punditocracy, as partner and co-conspirator in this kabuki theater. Consider their running, carefully crafted narrative.

The New York Times, as distinct from individual commentators like Paul Krugman and its editorial page, ran a story exalting the President's "centrist stance" (odd choice of words for a front page headline) in the debt ceiling negotiations. How often have we heard President Obama described as "the adult in the room"? On Hardball, the old Fox-hound Major Garrett, D.C.-connected up to his eyeballs, said Republicans "privately" conceded the President was winning the messaging war for 2012, or simply "12" as hip IPsters like Chuck Todd prefer to say.

Politics is one thing. But what does any of this have to do with people's lives, with millions of seniors and the poor in this country for whom any benefits cuts will have a devastating impact, for whom preserving the Big Three isn’t just a D.C. parlor game? Most of the Idiot Punditocracy have a financial stake in this. They could care less about Social Security and Medicare. They just couldn’t give a damn.

But when it comes to their portfolios, their highly leveraged investments in the stock markets, well that’s a different story. Unlike the Republicans (e.g., Eric Cantor) the Idiot Punditocracy are more exposed financially, since they do not have the politician's corporate and Wall Street sugar daddies to soften the hit and line lobbyist second careerist pockets with millions once they cash in their puny government salaries (which we pay) for the big corporate bucks.

Still, the Idiot Punditocracy isn't nearly as exposed as the rest of us are. They’re richer than most of us. Unfortunately, unlike progressive media and patriotic millionaires and billionaires, like Warren Buffett, the IPsters’ job security depends on playing ball with the powers-that-be. Competing for sources, too. Besides, they’re ideologically predisposed to hang with the corporatist right wing, anyway.

Here are two PRIMO CNN examples. First, fake muckracker Anderson Cooper browbeats a twenty-two year old Daily Caller crapagandist. Hey, anyone can make fun of a silly young wingnut chick writing for a right wing propaganda rag. What did you expect, Coops? I mean, really, they’re unwittingly hilarious. Poor Huff Post, though. Coops just compared Arianna-AOL to the Daily Caller. Ouch — low blow. Let’s hear it, Arianna: “Ah Wah Saw Passed!”

Lecturing the wingnut chick, Coops drops this bit of apparent self-projection: “Maybe you want to prove you’re ideologically on the right side …” Hmm … for a dude who falsely claims to be neutral is this just more of Coops’ biting satire?

Second, CNN IDIOT-SUPREME Jessica Yellin makes a plaintive plea to the White House. Keith takes it from there:

It's amazing how the Idiot Punditocracy has so successfully spun this manufactured Washington crisis. The President plays right along. He actually said he wanted a "FAIR AND BALANCED" approach, and did not wish to "RELITIGATE THE PAST." Karl Rove's head must be exploding while Charles Krauthammer goes orgasmic. "Relitigate the past" is Obama Code for caving. The President is ever reluctant to upset his GOP pals, John Boehner and Mitch McConnell — whose stated goal is to do “everything” he can to make Obama a one-term president.

President Obama has a tendency to fold when he considers a disadvantageous political landscape without once factoring in his capacity to change it with bold, proactive action. This is where he differs from FDR and Harry Truman. Neither were averse to taking on institutional and political "sacred cows" such as the Supreme Court and the GOP. They may have lost a battle or two, but it was this signal they'll FIGHT that kept the Democratic Party's foot in the door and the New Deal safe. By contrast, President Obama is very much like Bill Clinton, the triangulator-in-chief. The President even tells us he's "bent over backwards" to accommodate the VILE Republican schemes. Well golly-gee-whiz, isn't that special!

Any objective observer could deduce that Republicans hold the strongest hand, largely as a result of their insane willingness to tank the U.S. and world economies to gain power, knowing confrontation-averse President Obama would put Medicare, Medicaid, and Social Security (which has nothing to do with our debt; the program is fully solvent for the next 26 years on its current trajectory) on the table. In return, the President asked for practically nothing save a few corporate tax breaks and revenue-neutral tax loophole closings. SOME BARGAIN.

The Republicans must be holding out for total and complete capitulation. President Obama is running the risk of being THE FIRST DEMOCRATIC PRESIDENT TO DRIVE A STAKE THROUGH THE HEART OF THE NEW DEAL. There is one word, and one word only to describe this, if indeed it comes to pass: BETRAYAL.

Or, as Keith was saying:

No comments: