Are Democrat columnists from the same planet?

[Monkeyleg]

I just read this column by David Broder, and I have to wonder: is there another planet in another solar system on which there's a country called "The US" that's governed by a president named Obama?

If not, then David Broder and most other Democrat columnists are absolutely delusional. Don't abandon your goals? Is he kidding? It's Obama's "goals" that scared the living daylights out of most of the country!

The message to President Obama from Tuesday's election could not have been plainer: Don't abandon your goals. Change your way of operating.

There will be a temptation to interpret the Democrats' loss of their House majority and of at least six Senate seats as a rejection of Obama's first-term agenda, the one on which he was elected in 2008.

American voters are not that flighty or unsettled. What happened was that Obama ran into several crises that he and others had not anticipated, and the cumulative weight of those problems ended up frustrating him.

Unbelievable. There have to be two planets. This guy can't be that thick.

[RaspberrySurprise]

I'll take some of what he's smoking.

[grampster]

Broder has become more unhinged as time has moved along.  I sent him a e-mail a couple weeks ago suggesting he get out of the Washington DC alternative universe and check back in to reality.  No response, of course.

[lee n. field]

Democrat columnists are absolutely delusional.

That was the impression I got strongly, listening to a snippet of All Things Considered the other day.  One talking head was yammering on as though the connections between His 0-ness and William Ayers was some kind of Tea Party/Sarah Palin paranoid delusion, instead of well known and accepted fact.

[longeyes]

Why would the cheerleaders be any less delusional than the team?  The liberal pundits provide the conceptual fuel that feeds the beast.  I'm sure we've all heard liberal friends repeat the lunacies of Frank Rich, Maureen Dowd, Paul Krugman, or Rachel Maddow.

[vaskidmark]

It's not Obama's fault:

The Democrats on Capitol Hill were eager to respond, but they did so in the way that they always will. Instead of acting promptly and with discipline, they dallied and used the delays to bargain for better benefits for their constituents and contributors

I don't know why you keep picking on him!  Leave him alone!  http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=kHmvkRoEowc

stay safe.

[HankB]

. . . I'm sure we've all heard liberal friends repeat the lunacies of Frank Rich, Maureen Dowd, Paul Krugman, or Rachel Maddow.

"Lunacies" is the proper term - in his recent writings, Krugman (who won a Nobel prize in economics of all things!  ) asserted that Obama's problem is that he didn't spend enough. He also repeated the lie that it was the GOP that shut the government down during the Clinton administration, when it was actually Clinton's veto that did it.

A couple of decades ago, a person could disagree with many liberals, but still come to an understanding . . . but a good part of the left is SO far divorced from reality these days, I really don't think there's any common ground left for a meeting of minds.

[Doggy Daddy]

really don't think there's any common ground left for a meeting of minds.

It's not the lack of common ground so much, it's the lack of their minds.

DD

[Monkeyleg]

I really don't think there's any common ground left for a meeting of minds.

Jokes aside, the country has moved a bit to the right over the last twenty or so years, while some of the higher-ups in the Democrat party and many, many liberal columnists have moved decidedly leftward. It's near impossible for any kind of "compromise" with Democrats when they're starting at the position of Lenin, and they feel that we're starting at the same position as Reagan.

[AZRedhawk44]

... and they feel that we're starting at the same position as Reagan.

No "feel" about it.  Most of the country is there.  I'm about 10 big steps further to the right (and 7 "up" to the libertarian corner), but I'm weird like that.

[xavier fremboe]

"Lunacies" is the proper term - in his recent writings, Krugman (who won a Nobel prize in economics of all things!  ) asserted that Obama's problem is that he didn't spend enough. He also repeated the lie that it was the GOP that shut the government down during the Clinton administration, when it was actually Clinton's veto that did it.

A couple of decades ago, a person could disagree with many liberals, but still come to an understanding . . . but a good part of the left is SO far divorced from reality these days, I really don't think there's any common ground left for a meeting of minds.

I believe it was Jonah Goldberg who called Krugman's ideas a "drink yourself sober" strategy. 

There was a profile of the no-necked furball here a while back.  He's obviously an idiot (yeah, sure Nobel Prize, but that brand's been cheapened somewhat of late), but it sounded to me like his wife actually gets off of the Nimbus 2000 to help him put the slant in his columns.

[Perd Hapley]

In the Post-Dispatch, some columnist noted that 65% of white men sans college degrees favored a smaller government that intruded less into economic affairs. He then observed that such a government would create fewer of the jobs they would need. Funny how those unlettered dudes have a much more realistic view of economics.

[Monkeyleg]

In the Post-Dispatch, some columnist noted that 65% of white men sans college degrees favored a smaller government that intruded less into economic affairs. He then observed that such a government would create fewer of the jobs they would need. Funny how those unlettered dudes have a much more realistic view of economics.

Not funny at all. It took years for me to unlearn some of the garbage I was taught in college.

[grampster]

There is so much irony in the maunderings of leftists.  If you watch carefully what they say and do, they most generally are actually saying and doing what they accuse the right of.
 

 

[Strings]

but I'm weird like that.

FIFY...

[MechAg94]

I just read this column by David Broder, and I have to wonder: is there another planet in another solar system on which there's a country called "The US" that's governed by a president named Obama?

If not, then David Broder and most other Democrat columnists are absolutely delusional. Don't abandon your goals? Is he kidding? It's Obama's "goals" that scared the living daylights out of most of the country!

Unbelievable. There have to be two planets. This guy can't be that thick.

I think you are misinterpreting this a little bit though I don't disagree with your conclusion.  Of course he doesn't want Obama to give up his goals. He agrees with those goals.  However, it wasn't just Obama's goals that contributed to his negatives.  He has consistently done the wrong thing at the wrong time to encourage his approval rating to plummet and his opposition to rally against him and stay energized.  He has brushed off anyone that wasn't a cheerleader and failed to seek any compromise whatsoever even when he could have gotten a lot of what he wanted (I think he could have gotten some Republicans to vote for his health care bill had he changed a few things).  His is a poor leader who has surrounded himself with other bad leaders.  Whether or not those things would have changed anything if done different is another discussion all together.

That said, I agree that a lot of columnists are delusional.  After all, the things that Obama has managed to pass are part of why investors are sitting on their money, and we are still sitting at high unemployment, low growth, and skyrocketing govt deficits and debt.  

[De Selby]

Before we hyperventilate, it might be useful to give a little more credit to the OP's article in terms of...

Obama was elected on the image of an old school, FDR type leftist.  He circulated quotes talking about "redistributive change."  

Of course, I always maintained that his policies were essentially the same as those of GW Bush.  But that wasn't his selling point in the campaign, leftist-populist policies were.

Now that he's in office, exactly what leftist/populist achievement can he point to having delivered?  He continued the Bush policies on wall street, Iraq, and Afghanistan.  He delivered Obamacare, which doesn't actually accomplish anything.   It's a program that was more or less silently (and possibly willingly) accepted by the health insurers, which should tell you something about who it favours.  

Actually delivering leftist programs made FDR a political lion.  He did this in a time when the ruling political climate was one of laissez faire capitalism.  He was able to do it by playing the security card, but that's another matter.

Had Obama actually delivered leftist goodies to the voters, November 2010 might have turned out a lot differently for his party.  Leftist handouts nearly always win a significant amount of votes.  

Obama November 2010 was a guy who gave billions to investment banks, escalated a war that's already gone on for almost 10 years, and basically mandated the purchase of expensive yet limited health insurance.

Had Obama November 2010 been the guy who put a couple million people into paying jobs through Federal public works, delivered public health services to those who want it, this might have been a very different election.

[longeyes]

People like Broder can only operate within the cocoon of a few media centers.  To them most Americans are scary, impulsive beasts that threaten the "civilization" that light-bringers like Obama are advancing.  Don't blame the guy too much; it's hormonal.

[Monkeyleg]

Where to begin?

Obama ran as a moderate centrist, eager to work with both parties. When he let his distributionist policies slip (e.g. "Joe the Plumber") people recoiled. He wasn't selling what he intended to actually implement, as he wouldn't have been elected.

He sold himself as the anti-Bush. To the extent that he has adopted Bush policies, he has done so in areas where he has little choice (Afghanistan, Iraq).

He sold health care reform as a moderate change to help a few million people. He assured voters that, for the vast majority, their health care vehicles would remain the same. It's not "delivering anything" now because it doesn't go into effect until 2014, after Obama is in his second term (God forbid).

Health insurance companies have been targets of Obama's attacks. They're not silent. He threw them a temporary bone by giving them new customers by requiring young people who otherwise would be uninsured to get insurance.

Had Obama actually delivered leftist goodies to the voters, November 2010 might have turned out a lot differently for his party.  Leftist handouts nearly always win a significant amount of votes.  

Yes, in the past, handouts have bought votes. This time, maybe for the first time, the public is seeing the debt and is truly frightened by its enormity. When they know that their children's future economic well-being is being hocked, they pull back. This is why the Democrats lost, and it is the point to which the liberal Democrat leadership and punditry (and apparently you as well) are pathologically oblivious.

Obama gave money to banks while at the same time attempting with varying degrees of success in nationalizing  them, along with many other private sector companies. This is also something most voters didn't like.

Obama promised to pursue "the good war" (Afghanistan) thinking that it would be a cake walk, and promised to get us out of "the bad war" in Iraq. Iraq is winding down in large part because of the success of the surge, which Obama opposed during the campaign but took credit for this year. He had no idea what he was getting into in either war (or in winning office, for that matter), and now is going to have us bogged down in Afghanistan for a long time, or have us cut and run and let the Taliban take over again. He had to fire a top general who not-so-cryptically told the public his opinion of the losing strategy being pursued.

Had Obama November 2010 been the guy who put a couple million people into paying jobs through Federal public works...

The stimulus plan put a lot of people to work...on government jobs. It was a public works stimulus, not a private sector stimulus. While private sector unemployment was skyrocketing, public sector unemployment dropped like a rock. It was a payoff to AFSCME and SEIU, a bribe to labor unions paid for by private sector workers.

Yeah, if Obama had been the socialist that he should have been, the Democrats would have won. He should have "drunk us sober".

Congratulations, De Selby. You're now in the same elite club as David Broder, Eugene Robinson, Maureen Dowd, Eleanor Clift, Chris Matthews, Keith Olbermann, and all of the other intelligentsia.

As for FDR, he knew absolutely nothing about economics and applied this lack of knowledge to the US economy, nearly destroying it. To his credit, he was a very good wartime leader. Obama shares the first quality with FDR, but not the second.

[roo_ster]

Before we hyperventilate, it might be useful to give a little more credit to the OP's article in terms of...

Obama was elected on the image of an old school, FDR type leftist.  He circulated quotes talking about "redistributive change."  

Uh, no. 

Libertarian and right-ring troglodytes knew he was an unreconstructed socialist, but his primary message and the one the MSM worked to project was "post-racial, centrist guy."

Now that he's in office, exactly what leftist/populist achievement can he point to having delivered?  He continued the Bush policies on wall street, Iraq, and Afghanistan.  He delivered Obamacare, which doesn't actually accomplish anything.   It's a program that was more or less silently (and possibly willingly) accepted by the health insurers, which should tell you something about who it favours.  

He increased domestic spending by leaps and bounds.  He intruded on bankruptcy proceedings to reward political supporters.  He has run down America most every foreign policy speech.  He imposed a mandate on every citizen to buy something they may not want.  He has worked had to see taxes raised on everyone to include the death tax.

Actually delivering leftist programs made FDR a political lion.  He did this in a time when the ruling political climate was one of laissez faire capitalism.  He was able to do it by playing the security card, but that's another matter.

Only in revisionist historian dreams.  Hoover was a statist political progressive who used the power of gov't to manipulate the economy.  The difference between Hoover and FDR was in degree.

Had Obama actually delivered leftist goodies to the voters on the rhetoric he ran on during the general election and the MSM pimped for him, November 2010 might have turned out a lot differently for his party.  Leftist handouts Not scaring off independent voters nearly always win a significant amount of votes.  

FTFY

Obama November 2010 was a guy who gave billions to democrat-dominated investment banks like Goldman-Sachs and plenty of other political constituencies like the educrats, the labor unions, and such, escalated a war that's already gone on for almost 10 years, and basically mandated the purchase of expensive yet limited health insurance increased the cost of medical insurance 20% over what it was expected to increase and caused hundreds of thousands of employees who had been covered, to be dropped by their employers due to cost, increased regulation, and mandates covering the minimum insurance policy.

FTFY

[Perd Hapley]

DeSelby makes the mistake of seeing only policy and platforms, and presuming that most voters think this way. Barack Obama is not just a set of policies; he is also a very snide, snarky, divisive, dismissive president, whose administration has committed a series of blunders and missteps. The same goes for the Congressional Democrats. Their policies would have aroused much less rancor, had they conveyed any sense of respect for American ways. But when you promise a "fundamental transformation" of the nation you're elected to lead...