Tearing down the President doesn't help. (updated)

A lot of people are jumping on Krugman's statement about the President:


Evidently a meme is being created that the President is utterly clueless. I don't know if that is what Krugman meant to imply, but that is how it's being interpreted.

This is the same Krugman who declared health care reform a victory for America's soul.

Still, Krugman can find evidence to support his criticism if not the above comment:



But like health care reform, Wall Street reform, withdrawing combat troops from Iraq, and the other policies of this administration, there is evidence that the President is making significant progress in addressing the problems he inherited, many of which have been festering for decades. No one should expect that it was going to be easy, but the President appears to be dealing quite effectively with the world as he found it.

"U.S. achieves biggest one-year deficit reduction in American history"

Trade Deficit in U.S. Shrinks as Exports Climb to Two-Year High

Obama announces trade deals with India worth billions

Big Win for the Obama Administration

Netanyahu agrees to Obama plan of 90 day settlement freeze.

The problem with Krugmam is he doesn't really have to worry about the weight of his words.

It would have been better if Krugman used the piece to hammer the point home about the tax cuts and why the Republicans' claims are preposterous. He also could have, like Robert Reich did, offer solutions or state why they should expire.

Krugman seems intent of focusing on the President and his message. In fact, it seems most of the commentary from the left does this. Where is the left apparatus for helping to get the message out? On the right, every commentary from David Brooks to the WSJ is pushing the Republicans' message.

Krugman doesn't take any of this into consideration as apparent by his comments yesterday that the RW jumped on, leading him to subsequently issue a clarification.

It's as if everyone on the left is oblivious to the media's capacity to distort and block the President's message. Stop talking about how he needs to get the message out and help, especially if you're so vested in the outcome.

This is the current state: RW media hammering their message home and portraying the President as a failure; left claiming not to know what the message is and portraying the President as incompetent

Why is Krugman writing a commentary about the HuffPo piece that was thoroughly rehashed and debunked? The President made a couple of statements since then that completely contradicts the HuffPo claim and reaffirmed his position about not extending the tax cuts.

Also, Krugman's title focused on the statement by Axelrod that was spun in the HuffPo piece as relevant to the lame duck session. He is perpetuating a false notion that House Republicans are a factor. They are not.

This is a huge country and the media has a significant advantage when it comes to controlling the message. President Obama and Democrats won when the left focused on rejecting the right's arguments.

Again, where is the apparatus to help the President get his message out? It cannot be just the President and a couple of spokespeople.

Meanwhile, the WSJ is writing editorials lauding Sarah Palin and John Boehner. They did the same during the Bush administration.

The point is not about criticism. Krugman offers mostly criticism, and often spot on. The problem I have is criticism that plays into RW hands.

Portraying the President as clueless does not help.




Updated to add:

The Obameter: Tracking Obama's Campaign Promises






edited typo

We should place more value on or "brains" than our politicians.

He has some good ideas and not everyone agrees with them. Take his position on quantitative easing. He actually supports this move by the President. Unfortunately, the President's persistent critics, including Sarah Palin, see this as a bad move.

People like Krugman can't inspire a charisma based electorate.

The differences between the Candidate Obama and the President Obama are mind-boggling.

Campaigning is not governing, and differences in style aren't differences in policy.

Some might think he should have realized that.

The point of the OP is that tearing down the President, using Krumgan's words to portray him as clueless, doesn't help.

The point of the OP is that tearing down the President, using Krumgan's words to portray him as clueless, doesn't help.

it's a character flaw...

acknowledge that every Democrat in Washington, not just the President, has the same "character flaw."

it come with the (corrupt) territory...

With Blue Dog help, he is the perpetrator.

Krugman is right on.

Bringing him down. Either by the threat of primary, or simply by weakening him more and more until he'll lose in 2012.

The fact is that some people are going to take his words out of context and imply that he believes the President is unprepared to deal with the world.

Do you believe that?

I do disagree with Obama's economics. Whether someone is unprepared to deal with the world or not is an opinion. He would just be approaching it from a different belief or economic stance than myself. My college education included a minor in economics, so I'm looking at it from that standpoint. Therefore I understand Krugman's frustrations.

:eyes:

My hyperbole meter is broken.

A-c-c-o-u-n-t-a-b-i-l-i-t-y. :think:

Serious question. I'm not among those calling for resignation or aggressive primary challenges, but if he's moving in a direction we don't like, engaging in strategy we don't like, what to do?

Not to compare the two on any significant level, but what do you think Obama should do with regard to the GOP, when they are proposing bad policy and moving the debate in the wrong direction? I think some tearing down is in order there at least, and I would be the first to cheer if we saw some.

I think the major difficulty is that the president has promised, and continually references, bipartisanship. But what that means is by definition partly determined by the acts of the other side. If they are some nasty, mercenary people, bipartisanship can be something truly evil for the country. Yet in today's political discourse, everyone claims it as a good, and Obama's under pressure to cite it as a promise fulfilled. To do this, isn't his course of action rather dependent on the GOP?

Are you suggesting that the choices are: "shoring him up" and "tearing him down"?

I know you see "shoring up" as a loaded phrase, so reclassify it as "strong support" if you like. In any case, we have three options, which all seem to do little to nothing.

And I think that's the major problem for us. We are so completely not relevant to the decision process in Washington as individuals that it almost doesn't matter what we do. There is now one accountability moment for politicians, and it's elections--the very moment where the voice of voters is at its most binary and restricted. If Obama thinks earmarks are the burning issue in voters' minds, I think he pays far more attention to the Beltway inside baseball nonsense than the voters, and that's a problem.

He really, really, -really- shouldn't want to be David Brooks's or Tom Friedman's favorite president. You will see a collective glazing over of America if he goes that route. These guys will praise anything and everything that is embraced by "bipartisan," "serious" people. Frequently, however, such things represent unserious dithering and are extremely biased in favor of the wealthy and business, precisely when neither of these groups can vault us out of our hole.

...Obama. I support Obama's presidency whole-heartedly, even though I disagree on certain aspects of education policy. I often speak out about my difference of opinion...but I refrain from disrespecting the President. I am glad he is our President.

I think Krugman does the same...usually...on economic policy. His criticisms often provide 'wiggle room' on economic policy debates. This can help President Obama. I hope Krugman, too, will refrain from disrespect or attacks on the President (and usually he does). He has a huge audience, so the impact of his criticism is greater than mine. :7

...nice to 'see' you! :hi:

"I hope Krugman, too, will refrain from disrespect or attacks on the President (and usually he does). He has a huge audience, so the impact of his criticism is greater than mine."

Well said. As I stated in the OP, it's not clear that Krugman's meant to imply this, but that is how it's being interpreted.

...any criticism is often spun and used against President Obama and his policies. The GOP and their media mouthpiece are famous for doing that...it is to be expected. I don't think that means we can't criticize policy or debate issues...just that we should know and expect our words can and will be distorted. It's what they do.

But debate is critical to our democracy...so I would never want to shut that down. I'm pretty sure President Obama wouldn't either. :hi:

Notice how the far-centers & conservatives never attack their politicians- and their party is always better off for it.

The far left lets the media fool them into being unhappy and saying bad things about politicians- we dont need that kind of wishy-washy attitude in our base.

If we could just have more far-centers and conservative Democrats in our base, then no one would be asking questions and saying bad stuff about centrists, and we could get more centrist legislation passsed.

conservatives and poison our party and impede our country's progress.

From where I stand, they still control the party and call the shots.

If there were more of them, then there would be less complaning about centrism and more fighting to advance centrism.

Complaining & tearing down the Presdient jut b/c he agrees with us far-centrists instead of you does not help.

part of the problem within the Democratic Party. The only reason they are in the party is because business and money have steadily infiltrated and corrupted the party.

They have also sold us all the fallacy that liberals can't win in working class districts and that the country as a whole is conservative.

The conservatives have been better at co-opting the message and the frame in each party. But, they are not Democrats, they are wayward republicans, and the are destroying the only party that welcomes liberal ideals.

n/t

Besides, I am not, nor am I capable of, 'tearing down the president or his ideological soulmates'.

Sorry, but all you have to do is turn on the TV- all the journalists are saying this is a center-right country.

Even if we had the resources & fighting spirit to counter such framing, it would not be in our interest to do so.

Turn it off!

I simply do no accept that conservatism is our only option or that it is the best we will ever get. Sorry, conservatism is the disease and must be fought where ever it rears its ugly head.

When people are asked on specific issues, where they land, liberalism wins out. It is the labeling and the messaging (as well as bigotry and indoctrination) that lead people to believe that this country is center-right.

It is laziness and fear that lead people to believe that liberalism is inferior and cannot be victorious. Sorry, I will not accpet defeat, I will not accept the disease that is conservatism to spread unchecked or unanswered.

There you lefties go again- always wanting the center to do really, really hard stuff.

This is just like Iraq- where you wanted DEMS to stick their necks out and say there was no WMDs and no reason to go to war with Iraq. The rest of the media was saying there were WMDsa and was listing MULTIPLE reasons for going to Iraq.

The left would have made us say differently, making us all look like out-of-touch idiots. Fortunatley the adults in charge made sure that we went along with conventional wisdom.

No different now.

"This is just like Iraq- where you wanted DEMS to stick their necks out and say there was no WMDs and no reason to go to war with Iraq. The rest of the media was saying there were WMDsa and was listing MULTIPLE reasons for going to Iraq.

The left would have made us say differently, making us all look like out-of-touch idiots."

What WMDs? What other multiple reasons? Damn, us lefties are usually right.

No different now.

"Fortunatley (sic) the adults in charge made sure that we went along with conventional wisdom."

Dear god, you cannot be serious. Did you/ do you support the war in Iraq? This is fascinating, really. Please tell me more.

Please tell me more about the adults and the Iraq War.

that no one likes to see blue dogs re-elected, even one who voted against health care reform.

n/t

:)

n/t

isn't this like shooting fish in a barrel...

Isn't it time to let them in on the joke?

Here's one for your next post... :sarcasm:

:hi:

spin:

The claim that using Krugman's statement to imply that the President is utterly clueless is tearing him down?

or

Claiming that I'm not sure that is what Krugman meant to imply?

or

something else?

But in particular the idea that this president's problem is that the criticism of the president from the left is somehow the problem that is stopping him from sticking to his principles.

the point: "But in particular the idea that this president's problem is that the criticism of the president from the left is somehow the problem that is stopping him from sticking to his principles."


The OP is not about constructive criticism. Do you believe that claiming that the President is utterly clueless is constructive?

Classic example of ProSense misquoting.

I said, "But in particular the idea that this president's problem is that the criticism of the president from the left is somehow the problem that is stopping him from sticking to his principles"

You said, "The OP is not about constructive criticism. Do you believe that claiming that the President is utterly clueless is constructive?"


Where did I claim that the OP was about constructive criticism?

The OP is also not about the President's principles, and you weren't misquoted. I simply responded to your comment.

It was a cute attempt.

Still have yet to properly answer this....But in particular the idea that this president's problem is that the criticism of the president from the left is somehow the problem that is stopping him from sticking to his principles

Hey, that's easy! Anyone can do it!

;)

Constructive would be "grow a pair for f*ck's sake!" Or "Single-Payer, stupid!" or "Take care of Working People instead of Goldman Sachs' elites, fella'"...

Those are all constructive...

It seems very disrespectful not too.

Message removed by moderator. Click here to review the message board rules.

Was that necessary?

:shrug:

but I hope you read my whole post and didn't stop at the first sentence...

Go to the front page and read the commments in that thread.