So I went to Lawyers Guns and Money to get my fair share of abuse. Once again Lemieus is arguing that the presidency is in fact very limited in its powers domestically and that what Obama did with his health care legislation was all he could have done. Lemeius’s posting is in response to Atkins at Hullabaloo.
This defense of Obama by Lemieus and other is always that Obama didn’t have the votes for something that he never tried. Why didn’t he try it? Because if he had tried it he would have lost and then it woud have been a disaster for the democrats and progressive politics in general. This argument works for everything apparently: the stimulus for instance could not have been bigger because then it would not have been passed and things would be really badright now. It goes on and on.
These arguments are nuts. Among the very first people Obama appointed were Summers, Geither, and Emmanuel. What does that tell one? That he had progressive goals? None of Obama's policies in my mind were ever developed as anything other then massive wealth redistribution upwards to the rich.
Well that is what he did and he did it such a ham handed fashion that he gave the country back to the republicans just two years after his “land slide.”
I like to think of Obama as the 1919 Chicago Black Sox or if one wants to be more generous as someone who rides to work every day on the short bus
Of course the other response to this entire argument is that it really doesn't matter if Michelle Bachmann is president, if what they argue is true.
UPDATE: I went back and commented on Obama's choices of Emmanuel, Summers and Geither as his top advisers as far as economics and domestic matters went. Pointing out that these should have showed us all just what Obama was about and that his real goal was to transfer money into the hands of the wealthiest. One person pointed out that was OT, which is more or less correct, although I would now think that in fact it really isn't since LG&M argument is that Obama was trapped by circumstances into do what he has done with most of his domestic stuff. This would indicate that is just what he really wanted to do.
However, what was more interesting was at three (I haven't bothered to go back since last night, so it might be more now) people said that really those were the people that he needed to choose since he needed people who had the expertise in Wall Street and had the Street's confidence. I did ask if they were sure that Krugman wasn't available, but that was really just snark. The more I think about it the more I think that it is impossible to have a rational discussion with people who think that way.
Obama appoints two people (more but let's talk about only Geither and Summers) one of whom let the crash happen on his watch the other of which was working for those industries that caused the crash, not to mention that Summers has his own issues with equality of the sexes. In other words Obama dug deep into the effluvium of the ruling class to get his most trusted advisers and these posters are cool with that.
ONE LAST DAMNED UPDATE AND THEN TO WORK: I did make the mistake of going back and reading more comments. The arguments seem to be that he couldn't have done anything else and these were the best people he could have really gotten. That's it. And if I believe anything else, even for a second then I just do not understand what goes on in the real world.
If the argument is that a president (black or white) other than Obama couldn't have done more and gotten better people than it is bullshit. If the argument is that Obama couldn't have done more or gotten better people then I'll buy it.
Of course the other response to this entire argument is that it really doesn't matter if Michelle Bachmann is president, if what they argue is true.
UPDATE: I went back and commented on Obama's choices of Emmanuel, Summers and Geither as his top advisers as far as economics and domestic matters went. Pointing out that these should have showed us all just what Obama was about and that his real goal was to transfer money into the hands of the wealthiest. One person pointed out that was OT, which is more or less correct, although I would now think that in fact it really isn't since LG&M argument is that Obama was trapped by circumstances into do what he has done with most of his domestic stuff. This would indicate that is just what he really wanted to do.
However, what was more interesting was at three (I haven't bothered to go back since last night, so it might be more now) people said that really those were the people that he needed to choose since he needed people who had the expertise in Wall Street and had the Street's confidence. I did ask if they were sure that Krugman wasn't available, but that was really just snark. The more I think about it the more I think that it is impossible to have a rational discussion with people who think that way.
Obama appoints two people (more but let's talk about only Geither and Summers) one of whom let the crash happen on his watch the other of which was working for those industries that caused the crash, not to mention that Summers has his own issues with equality of the sexes. In other words Obama dug deep into the effluvium of the ruling class to get his most trusted advisers and these posters are cool with that.
ONE LAST DAMNED UPDATE AND THEN TO WORK: I did make the mistake of going back and reading more comments. The arguments seem to be that he couldn't have done anything else and these were the best people he could have really gotten. That's it. And if I believe anything else, even for a second then I just do not understand what goes on in the real world.
If the argument is that a president (black or white) other than Obama couldn't have done more and gotten better people than it is bullshit. If the argument is that Obama couldn't have done more or gotten better people then I'll buy it.
No comments:
Post a Comment