« Repeat after me: Obama didn't "let" Congress write the bill (UPDATED) | fbacon2's Blog

A sad day for TPM (updated)


It seems I only get the energy to post anymore when the editors at TPM do something particularly egregious to get my back up.

Today's entry is the following: Promises, Promises, Promises.

You may have already clicked through to see last weekend's SNL sketch skewering the Obama administration's alleged lack of accomplishments.  The premise of the joke is simple enough: the folks on the right shouldn't be angry because you can't transform America into a socialist/fascist/creamsicle Utopia, if you're not even making it through your to-do list.

The sketch, admittedly, was pretty brutal.  My criticism of the sketch, however, was that it relies on hyperbole, shortsightedness, and selective memory in order to make a point.  That would be fine for satire, but this kind of thinking has become pervasive across liberal circles and in the blogosphere since the summer lull over health care gave way to the August recess and incessant nay-saying and second-guessing.

But here's the question I can't figure for TPM: why pile on with the thoughtless snark? 

I'm talking about David Kurtz supposed cleverness in buying into the premise of a satirical sketch with this missive:

Let's see. There was that time he killed a fly on TV ...
This is a joke, right? Could be.  But from where I'm standing it looks like some more of the shallow snarkiness, lack of patience, and misdirected frustration that has caused many in progressive circles to forget Obama's accomplishments, shortchange progress on other issues, and generally continue a pattern of anti-establishment smack-talk that allows people to feel smart by bad-mouthing the president.
 
My question at this point is if Obama succeeds, not just in passing health care, which I think is more and more probable, but actually boosts affordability and wins on the public option, will he get credit for it?

At the time of this writing, the "Promises" post had over 40 recommendations.  One of the benefits of being hooked into the news 24/7 is that the bloggers at TPM and their audience should have a better attention and a better memory for the substance that underlies the fluff of cable news.  The persistent risk, of course, with this constant news consumption is that we get swept up into short-sighted analysis and conventional thinking. 

Since Obama's been in office, how much of the coverage here and on other sites has been more of the latter?  I appeal to the audience.

We're supposed to be better than this.

UPDATE:  CNN did a fact-check on the sketch, which the Huffington Post just put up.
Here again is why I thought it important enough to challenge the sketch and risk the charge of lacking a sense of humor. (The horror, oleeb!)
 

A comedy routine with mixed results wasn't really a concern to me, especially on a show where people were more likely to remember Lady GaGa cat fighting with Madonna, until the sketch started getting a lot of play on the Internet, and had a lot of bloggers piling on.  David on this site was just one example, but it was disappointing coming from TPM.

CNN spent airtime on it precisely because it was getting traction among news consumers.  I believe people were responding positively to the sketch for the same reasons why they accuse Obama of faltering and selling out, which are largely off base.

How many recommendations does David's post have now?  Seventy?  Come on, folks.

37 Comments

| Leave a comment
user-pic

Will he get credit for passing a good bill?

If Obama gets a bill passed, I assure you that many on the Left will not think it's a good bill, even if it has a public option.

If they do think it's a good bill he won't get credit for it. The story will be that Obama dithered, waffled and almost sold them out until his base rose up and "made him do it".

My question is will Rahm get the credit if we get a good health care bill? I've seen lots of comments blaming Rahm for Obama's decisions. So will Rahm get the praise if Obama wins this?

In any case, I completely agree with your post.

user-pic

I recommended the post, and I would recommend this comment too if I could.

user-pic

If we get the bill we want, I have no problem with every able bodied person who can hold a placard, write a letter, or punch a keyboard, claiming credit for it-- even if it's ex post facto narrative building.

The issue for me is whether we can adjust our advocacy game for the next fight in a way that doesn't automatically assume the worst and needlessly undermines confidence in the president.

user-pic

No.

user-pic

Hope springs eternal.

user-pic

Pass health care? There is no health CARE bill, only a health INSURANCE bill.

user-pic

I agree with your general sentiment, but is there any reason that the President of the United States, who won with a joyful mandate for CHANGE, is there a reason he cannot take the Blue Dogs into a room and tell them that all the $$$$$$ that they are getting from insurance companies don't mean anything if they are defeated next time?

Give the US a health care system that helps all its citizens (with ZERO republican votes) and just TRY defeating Democrats for the next couple of decades.

We all know that Baucus and Ken Conrad et al, are bought and paid for. Who do they think they are kidding?

Obama should go for broke over this. Is he afraid of losing Big Insurance? Big Pharma? Did he forget who elected him with millions of $20 donations?

user-pic

He was elected by the same folks as always:
http://www.cfinst.org/pr/prRelease.aspx?ReleaseID=216

user-pic

That's a convoluted premise that you clearly didn't read very well. They compared apples and oranges. i.e. turned a person who donated $100 per month for 10 months into the equivalent of a rich Bush supporter who tossed in $1000.

Despite the headline, the numbers still show Obama took in 49% of his donations from individuals making small contributions - in fact his small donors contributed almost as much as all Bush donations combined. Just look at the swing; +6% Bush to +23% Obama ... that gives a clear picture of Bush's dedicated non-affluent grassroots vs. Obama's.

IMO, you just proved exactly CVille's point - those $20 donations add up to an awful lot of money if the supporters are dedicated.

user-pic

Why do people say that Obama is not doing his job of getting votes and then say that these hold outs are bought and paid for?

Max and Conrad are grown men and politicians, I'm sure they know the consequences of their votes.

And what does go for broke mean?

user-pic
Max and Conrad are grown men and politicians, I'm sure they know the consequences of their votes.
A brewski summit with the prez? Rham directing campaign donations to their PAC? What are these consequences of which you speak?
user-pic

He did say he'd move to reconciliation if a strong PO wasn't in (to me, that means a PO that will start competing with big insurance right off the bat using Medicare infrastructure). Haven't heard a peep about it lately. He'd get high praise from me if he actually did force through real HCR (or rolled back Bush civil liberties infringements instead of extending them and prosecuted high crimes or held the banks accountable for the mess they made and stimulated a jobful recovery or began de-escalating in the ME and reducing our military spending by, say, half or...).

user-pic

Come on, David Kurtz has the right to crack wise every now and then. I think you're being a little hypersensitive to Obama jokes. It's okay, the big guy in D.C. can take it.

And... um... progressives do have a legitimate beef with him on some issues.

user-pic

I don't dispute David's right to say anything he darn well pleases any more than I'd deny progressives the right to gnaw off their own limbs to prove a point.

SNL's sketch barely registered in my mind until I saw the way it was being received on the Internets this morning, and it just ticked off a lot of my complaints about the blogosphere of late. I didn't think the sketch was that funny, not because it offended anyone's sensibilities, but more because I wasn't bought into the premise of the joke.

And this brings us back to the central point, which you mention at the end. Whatever beef progressives have with Obama, how we ever expect to advance a progressive agenda when we try to undermine confidence in Obama is beyond me. Pressure is one thing, but bringing down public trust is something else. My biggest complaint is that a lot of the progressive beefs, especially on health care, have been rooted in misapprehensions, bad assumptions, and unreliable information from the media that has resulted in a lot of wasted energy.

user-pic

I should also concede the possibilities of me being hypersensitive and lacking a sense of humor. I've always assumed my friends were laughing WITH me, but you never know.

At the risk of coming across as even more humor impaired, I'll just add as a general point that the SNL sketches on Obama work best when they play him as the straight man against wild characters, or at the center of a creative premise like this one: http://www.nbc.com/saturday-night-live/video/clips/obama-plays-it-cool/866342/

He's a hard guy to lampoon, especially the way Fred Armisen plays him.

user-pic

I gotta say, the best Obama sketch was when Duane Johnson was on and played "The Rock" Obama. Pure gold.

I don't mean to imply that you have no sense of humor. I'm sure you're a fun-loving person and you can certainly write so no doubt you can laugh too.

This is what I take issue with: "how we ever expect to advance a progressive agenda when we try to undermine confidence in Obama is beyond me."

I don't think anyone's trying to undermine confidence in Obama, they're just criticizing when and where they think it's due. But mostly I'm against censoring ourselves for fear of making the wrong joke or saying the wrong thing or not speaking in the best interests of "the agenda" whatever that may be.

user-pic

I might have to give you The Rock sketch: again, putting the dry character in an off-the-wall situation. Chris Rock had talked about why it's hard to make fun of the guy: http://www.cnn.com/2009/SHOWBIZ/01/19/chris.rock.kill.the.messenger/index.html

The criticism on Obama I'm talking about is one that takes some bad assumptions about tactical decisions and institutional constraints in government and blows them up into (I'm stealing now) what NCSteve calls the Corporate Illuminati kind of conspiracy. http://tpmcafe.talkingpointsmemo.com/talk/blogs/the_commenter_formerly_known_as_ncsteve/2009/10/somebody-asked-for-some-arm-tw.php?ref=recdc

We start imputing motives and undermining confidence. When Paul Krugman wrote his "Trust" column, for example, he wasn't making an argument as much as expressing a bellyfeel that probably had a harmful effect when it solidified a meme among progressives and the commentariat. I agree with folks like Mike Lux who say that the fate of the progressive agenda, like it or not, is bound to the fate of Obama for the next couple of years. When his numbers are up, he has greater freedom to act. The ones who benefit from falling popularity and confidence are his opponents.

user-pic

I think Fred Armisen's portrayal is awful. Get The Rock to do it.

As for the larger issue that you raise? MSNBC's First Read cell phone message yesterday read "Obama: a do nothing President?"

SNL does a sketch, and the political media takes it to be a serious analysis of the president. And voila! A meme is born.

Rec'd post.

user-pic

Yep. The busiest president since FDR has a sketch done about him and NBC puts that title up. Sad.

But who has the guy's back? I expect Beltway reporters to act like lemmings, but what about us?

user-pic

Hum, seems like you are just as 'popular' as ever.

Old timer, eh? Can't say I remember you. Maybe TPM hasn't changed. Maybe you have.

user-pic

I've been called a lot of names, but I've never been called "popular" before, let alone in quotes.

For anyone interested in my blogging history on this site, you're free to check out my profile page: http://tpmcafe.talkingpointsmemo.com/talk/blogs/fbacon2/.

I've been a regular follower since the prez race began in 2007, a fairly regular commenter since the beginning of the year, and an infrequent poster. There's a definite theme to the posts, and that's because I'm usually motivated into writing when something on the site annoys me. Doesn't make for a good representation of how I feel about TPM (I'm a big fan), but there you go.

user-pic

Er, I see blogs from 2009, no earlier. Not that I don't believe you, I'm just a cynical chicken.

I'm crazy about TPM, and Josh, in particular.

I tend to blog when something is bothering me, and tend to comment, whenevah.

At any rate, nice to meet you.

user-pic

Likewise. Josh is my favorite. David's great, too. He just got me on a bad day today. The reporters here are top-notch. I've razzed Brian Beutler a few times for his obsessive tea-leaf-reading on the public option story, but other than that and a few flashes of sensationalism, I have no complaints.

I didn't really start blogging anywhere until just before the election.

user-pic
We're supposed to be better than this.

LOL. And you're surprised when you don't get the joke?

user-pic

PS. On second thought you are right... At least they redeemed themselves later with this gripping commentary on the evils of the system...


http://www.nbc.com/saturday-night-live/video/clips/digital-short-on-the-ground/1163292

Didn't they.

user-pic

'Twas gripping indeed. My dad's not a phone, either.

user-pic

Mostly this is a post without substance about another post without substance.

However, the second guessing and nay-saying is indeed problematic: it didn't start nearly early enough, and if people had been more realistic about Obama during the primaries then perhaps we could have nominated someone who actually took left wing positions on economic issues. Too little, too late.

user-pic

If Obama gets a bill passed, it will be because he used his Socialism-Messiah brainwashing. If he doesn't, it'll be because the Rethuglicans are Real True Americans and they saved us all from the evil Commie Muslim.

No win situation, in my opinion. But I'll bet money that's how it will play out.

user-pic

I know I have said this a hundred times but jobs are the most important thing to our economy. With the rest of the industrialized world doing healthcare via a centrally managed scheme we are screwed on a competitive basis if we can't cut our healthcare cost differential. That pretty much means single payer just like our competition to get us on par with their costs.

For years now the mantra out of Washington has been free trade. From the U.S. perspective that works just fine. But only if we rearrange our economy so we can compete on cost. That means we have to rethink our entire economic framework. That has been ongoing on the wage side already but on the profit side we haven't done a thing and in fact have gone the opposite way. Nor has there been the slightest willingness on the tax side to invest in our public infrastructure to gain the necessary systemic efficiencies in transport, communication or energy.

Healthcare is important but it's only one piece of this puzzle. If jobs are ever coming back we have to assess all our costs and make the necessary investment in every area. Because of our circumstances that means some cutting into profits for a period while we remake the country. I don't see we have a choice in this. We can bite the bullett or be really screwed.

Congress and Wall Street are fixated on the next quarter profits but they need to be looking at the longer term. They should be looking at writing down the mortgage losses to free up capital to finance our future. It'll hurt for a while but we have no way out of the mess they made otherwise. We have urgent capital requirements that can't wait for the six or eight years it'll take on the slow boat (to China). We were already marking time with Bush for eight years. If we continue that way we'll be two decades of standing still while everyone else is moving at light speed. Without a doubt that is the really screwed scenario I referred to above.

user-pic

I think President Bush summed up the current business philosophy when he said, "That's in the future and we'll all be dead by then, so who cares." Or something to that effect.

Wall Street doesn't care because it doesn't have to care. When the well is dry here, they'll just move to a new well. And this is, in fact, the history of empire. What they have is a failure of imagination - they can't imagine that there might not be a new well.

user-pic

I can see that the author of this post is an Obama apologist. I must not be one of the deluded progressives who think that Obama actually is a liberal. What has he done for the left lately? Everything that's most important to us, he's given us the shaft. FISA....torture....wars....and now the biggest shaft is likely to be with health care reform. If he actually does help push a bill through with a robust public option (in other words, a bill that isn't simply a gift to insurance companies) - then i'll be happy to say that I support this guy. But otherwise....I have to say that the SNL skit really hit the nail on the head.

Seriously, people like the author of this post need to come to terms with reality. You expect real "hope" and "change" when the first thing he does after winning the election is hire people like Tim Geithner? Give me a break....

user-pic

Partly right, partly wrong. Nothing in the way that he's governed says that he's as liberal as we thought he was. The problem (to me at least) is that he's starting from such a deep hole that the only way for policies (health care, tax regression, etc) to get back to any kind of equilibrium would be for him to push truly "liberal" solutions. His attempts at compromise are self-defeating. (See, e.g., the failure to consider single payer, which was a huge tactical mistake).

Had we not had an ongoing felony operation in power for 8 years, the level of frustration would be, I think, much less.

user-pic

Interesting. He's about as liberal as I thought he was going to be after watching him for two years and remembering that the biggest gripe the progressives and netroots had with him before he won Iowa was that he wasn't combative enough. There was going to be an inevitable clash with liberal expectations on issues like national security, but slowly we've seen the reemergence of a liberal version of defense, complete with tackling the defense budget, to renewed emphasis on diplomacy and other tools of statecraft. State secrets and detentions are the most problematic outliers.

On domestic issues, I still argue that the biggest disagreements have come over prioritization and sequencing. The necessity of taking things in turn, and putting some agenda items first, have created the perception that the others aren't important or are getting shafted. We'll get a sense over the course of the first term if I'm right about this.

On single-payer, I've seen this argument a lot, but I don't think it's really tenable because none of the major Dem presidential candidates really entertained it during the campaign. The plan we came out with was going to be our starting point, since most of the big three candidates had similar plans. One could argue that Baucus and other committees should have scheduled hearings about it to get the argument on the record, but no one would have given much credibility that it was the Democrats' real starting point. I agree with Lawrence O'Donnell who said that the real place to begin with single-payer for the Democrats would have been in the 90s, followed by 15 years of laying the groundwork for that issue.

user-pic

Obama is gaining in inches, not big steps. So it's not easy to see his progress unless one is willing to go back and re-live the Bush/Cheney Regime's abusive tenure. It is curious that there are few Obama-bots as there were Zom-Bushes. I think that is a good thing. We were not served by the unquestioned loyalty of the Zom-Bushes in any way, shape or form. So why we would seek to replicate that is beyond me. He remains stable, and perhaps that is the best we can hope to have as we dig our way, y inches, out of the crater left when Dick, Dubya, and the Zom-Bushes blew up this democracy.

user-pic

A little thin skinned are we Bacon?

This is just more Obamamaniac paranoia. Kurtz' comment was humorous. You've just lost your sense of humor. I'd recommend you take a break from defending Obama at every turn. It'll keep the blood pressure in check.

user-pic

Please read Dean's post today for part of why Obama is getting the reaction from us crazy lefties that he is. To which I would add lack of torture investigations, the continuation of suspension of Habeas Corpus, and the waving the white flag over the climate- An existential threat that our lack of action that is starting to cause me to think that we are no longer a serious country. These are p

I understand that you seem very happy with Obama's record. I have yet to see what exactly his "accomplishments' are (save winning the election). Seems to me he has made a lot of easy calls and ducked the hard ones. Sure I will credit him if he passes a decent health care bill, just like I credit Bill with passing an underfunded Americorp or hiring 100k police officers, ending welfare, and generally running a clean executive branch and reasonable foreign policy. Not bad, the alternative was much worse but hardly progressive.

So far I am not impressed with the current Health Care plans or the various proposals for the public option, but that is a different discussion. But I will credit him and still lambast him because most of my friends are out of work and the financial industry is running the country. Not exactly what I voted for.

Saturday Night Live got it exactly right- he has so far been very ineffectual. I still have hope but I am not going to apologize for laughing.

user-pic

As Bill Murray told Sigourney Weaver in "Ghostbusters," I don't think you're crazy.

I do disagree with your bleak assessments. On torture investigations, they are limited, but with potential (see Sheldon Whitehouse's comments). I think they made a mistake in not signing on for the Truth Commission, allowing the investigations could proceed but with Congress taking the responsibility. They tried to avoid a political problem by keeping it in DOJ, and now they have both the political problem AND the investigation blow-back. On climate change, where does the white flag talk come from? I saw Naomi Klein say something similar, but I honestly don't take her very seriously. Obama to his credit pushed cap-and-trade in the House in the middle of health care because he new big stuff needed to happen in the first year. Problems with the progress or shape of the legislation lie with Congress--like almost everything else.

If we're slamming him for Copenhagen, I'll just add that they seem to be exploring their options absent major action in the Senate. You don't want to get too far ahead with a treaty requiring ratification and end up in another Kyoto problem.

As for the banks and jobs, I agree that this is going to be make or break the presidency, but I also agree with Barney Frank that the administration was right to bring the system back from the abyss and then tackle the regulations. That comes next, along with (hopefully) more job creation.

I wouldn't say I'm happy with the record. More that I like to think I appreciate what they're up against and see them moving in the right direction.

Leave a comment

fbacon2

user-pic

Following: 8
Followers: 6

Posts
Comments & Recommends


Favorites

All Reader Posts
How to use myTPM

Advertise Liberally
Share
Close Social Web Email

"To" Email Address

Your Name

Your Email Address