Brent Nyitray
Fairlington Blade
Let the mutherfuker burn!
jnc4p
Kevin S. Willis
Michigoose
lmsinca
markinaustin
Arcanaut
novahockey
quarterback
ScottC
yellojktThis was discussed in the comments to MsJS’s excellent post so I thought I would give it it’s own post.
I’m sure most people are familiar with the story, but in case they aren’t our old buddy Greg has a good summary. This jist is that Axelrod is accusing Republicans of purposefully hurting the economy in order to damage Obama’s reelection prospects.
As several here have already pointed out, this isn’t exactly a new political tactic. However, given the context of the present political situation, I do think it is an interesting development. Nobody in DC is popular right now, but Congress seems to be less popular than Obama. So perhaps placing the blame on the unpopular kid is a decent strategy.
On the other hand (others ponted this out) this move could potentially make Republicans look stronger than they really are and blaming someone else is not generally the kind of leadership people are looking for from their President.
My opinion? Glad you asked. There is some truth to the notion that Republicans want to block anything Obama supports. But I don’t think it’s a nefarious effort to destroy the economy. Given Obama’s general unpopularity, it’s probably not even a bad political strategy (although it doesn’t appear to be making them more popular). Greg frequently cites polls that show Americans support various portions of Obama’s economic and health care plans as evidence of a variety of things ranging from Republicans not listening to Americans to Americans being less conservative and many more. My takeway is that Obama is unpopular and if you put his name next to rainbows, the popularity of rainbows would take a hit. As a result, it makes sense politically for Axelrod to point the finger at Republicans and for Republicans to oppose most anything Obama proposes.
All Things in Moderation 
I have three thoughts, each fairly simple.First, Axelrod is obviously functioning as a surrogate or hitman for Obama.Second, it is another indicator of what a truly awful President and leader Obama is. I remain in awe of how the dominant media has allowed this administration to engage in such doublespeak about partisanship and division, essentially since he took office.Third, it's just plain stupid on the merits of the issue. Republicans don't believe in Obamanomics, and the premise of this absurd attack is that they do.
LikeLike
QB- On your last point, isn't Axlerod correct that at various points in the past Republicans have supported some of the measures Obama is currently promoting? For instance, they once voted for or even advocated for a payroll tax holiday (I think McCain's campaign pushed that idea).Here are 3 reasons why they would now oppose measures they previously supported:1) They thought it would work, but now realize it won't.2) The debt is higher now.3) Obama is unpopular.
LikeLike
"First, Axelrod is obviously functioning as a surrogate or hitman for Obama."Others have argued (and not without credibility) that Obama has often been a surrogate for Axelrod–that Axelrod is the handler, the Rover to Obama's Dubya." I remain in awe of how the dominant media has allowed this administration to engage in such doublespeak about partisanship and division"Technically, the dominant media (ratings, reach) is Fox and AM radio, and they haven't let him get away with much of anything. The New York Times may still give him a pass; I do not know, I rarely read even an article, much less the whole paper. I don't think I've read an entire (not counting classifieds or sports, which I'd never read, anyway) New York Times in about 18 years. "Third, it's just plain stupid on the merits of the issue. Republicans don't believe in Obamanomics, and the premise of this absurd attack is that they do."This is the nut of it. Okay, Republicans are trying to sabotage the economy to hurt Obama. So how are they doing it? By pushing for tax cuts, refusing to entertain tax increases, opposing non-Republican government spending, opposing new regulation and attempting to roll back old regulations–basically, all the stuff they do when *they* are in power. So they also try to sabotage the economy to hurt Democrats when they have the presidency, the house and the senate? This makes no sense. What do Republicans, broadly, think will hurt the economy? High corporate taxes, taxing "the job creators", onerous occupational and environmental regulations, nationalized healthcare, etc. If they were truly trying to sabotage the economy, wouldn't they be going along with the Democrats, believing their policies to be doomed? Except, of course, that would piss of their base, cost them reelection, and much more than targeting Obama, most Washington politicians want continued incumbency, ad infinitum.
LikeLike
Ashot: not supporting measures you previously supported has a long and storied history, but I don't think is the same as intentionally attempting to sabotage the economy. And the excuse given is normally: (a) hey, we still like that idea, but it's not worth having to agree to everything else that's in the legislation. (b) It's too little, too much, expires too soon, has these design flaws that make it different from our proposal, or (c) it's fine as far as it goes, but we also want the president to agree to our entire agenda and give up all of his and also say that we are smarter and better looking than him, or we won't vote for it.
LikeLike
"There is some truth to the notion that Republicans want to block anything Obama supports."As always, Mitch McConnell answered this months ago:“If the president is willing to do what I and my members would do anyway, we’re not going to say no” When President Obama proposed measures that the Republicans support anyway, such as the recently ratified free trade agreements, they pass them. When the President proposes measures that the Republicans oppose, they block them. The obstruction charge is based on the idea that secretively, Republicans believe that President Obama's economic proposals are in fact the right policy (because it's so obvious that they are to progressives) and the only reason to oppose them is political.If the political commiteriat wanted to truly test this obstruction proposition, they would be advocating for President Obama to submit a measure to make all the Bush tax cuts permanent, just to see if the Republicans would block it to be "obstructive". I'm betting that proposal would pass.
LikeLike
Kevin- After I posted that comment, I thought, wait, if the payroll tax holiday is part of any tax increase or other policy they oppose that would be another reason they would oppose something they previously supported.jnc- First, glad to see you here and hope you contribute often. Second, "As always, Mitch McConnell answered this months ago:“If the president is willing to do what I and my members would do anyway, we’re not going to say no” Maybe I'm misremembering things, but I felt that compromise used to be an option. That quote from McConnell seems to all but rule out compromise.
LikeLike
Ashot, moving the goalpost is also now politics as usual. Recall that the individual mandate was an R idea posed to save the insurance industry from Hillarycare in '93.I think BHO has been a successful FP POTUS following the Bush41-Baker mold. Pick your battles, limit them, do a diplomatic full court press, engage allies. I vote for POTUS on FP grounds, generally.On domestic politics his footing has been unsure, at best. Theoretically, going after health care costs was the way to deal with long term looming deficits. Theoretically, helping alternative energy startups was a way to transition from dependence on ME oil (just not the most efficient way, by a mile). Theoretically, a capital infusion in the banking system would start lending again. Theoretically, cash to the states would save needed teacher and public safety jobs. However, the auto rescue bankruptcy actually worked and that was 50 times cheaper than ARRA.The R reluctance on the auto rescue bankruptcy was an issue that I thought was fabricated on politics, by the Rs, only.The opposition to ARRA, such as it was, to TARP, such as it was, and to ACA all seemed to fit conservative principles to me. In fact, the auto rescue bankruptcy was a model of what many Rs wanted instead of TARP. So on the whole, BHO is running against the R HoR and the Rs are running against BHO. Not news, really.
LikeLike
I am happy to entertain the idea that Obama is Axelrod's puppet. Six of one, half a dozen of the other.The claim that Rs are opposing what they previously supported is a wildly overbroad (and thus highly inaccurate) generalization on multiple levels. Which Rs, on which issues, in what context, etc.? On something like a payroll tax holiday, for most Rs less taxes are generally better. But most informed Rs with some economic sophistication think a temporary payroll tax cut, while not unobjectionable, will not do a lot for the economy, particularly when the programs it funds are in such trouble and are ballooning our debt.A few years ago, Obama was alongside Ds like Reid and Pelosi calling Iraq a failure and a loss and obviously relishing the prospect of the damage they were doing to GWB. I don't take seriously this sort of rhetoric from Ds about "unprecedented" behavior. Heck, within a year of taking office, Biden called the surge a great success … of the Obama Admin.
LikeLike
Btw, note to all:I am getting into a very busy time and probably will be scarce for some time (at least scarcer than usual).
LikeLike
"Here are 3 reasons why they would now oppose measures they previously supported:1) They thought it would work, but now realize it won't.2) The debt is higher now.3) Obama is unpopular."Reason four: It's part of an overall bundled package that on net, Republicans oppose. However, Republicans have also proven recently that they can play the game of cherry picking proposals that the other party has supported in the past, and also that they can do it better. Over before it began"The President put forth a jobs bill, which didn't make it through the congress, as expected. This jobs bill was highly touted as containing "ideas" that Republicans had proposed in the past and therefore, it should have "something for everyone." Needless to say, the GOP wasn't interested in any one from column A and one from column B negotiating. After the defeat of the big jobs package, the Democrats announced they were going to propose popular pieces of the bill and force the Republicans to prove once and for all that they don't care about the plight of the average American as they join together in Scrooglike conformity.Unfortunately, the Republicans decided not to play (surprise!) and are instead proposing their own combinations of the most toxic conservative elements of the President's bill and the President is apparently signing on, thus signing into law a terrible GOP policy while simultaneously giving them a "bipartisan" win. "
LikeLike
Having watched Axelrod back when he was working the Chicago circuit, I'd say he's not a puppet master. He's smart and speaks his own mind, but in the end does what he's told.I view his statement as a trial balloon looking for a breeze to carry it forward. Doesn't matter whether it's true or not. Axe works in the realm of what is perceived to be true. That's his role.As an aside, I found it quaint that Greg complained about low readership on Sunday morning and boom! out comes a rare Sunday post that gets a front-page link. Hit count goes up, problem solved. What a way to run a blog.
LikeLike
"Maybe I'm misremembering things, but I felt that compromise used to be an option."It certainly has been, although there have been times of very little compromise between various sides (see: civil war). Arguably, when you look at what injustices the crown was inflicting on the colonies, one could see room for compromise there, rather than armed revolution–but that's not the path we took. And I'm not said that we aren't presently an 18 state subject of the British crown.Which is to say, we've had periods (and not just during civil wars) of very little compromise. Indeed, not only was there not much compromise from FDR, he governed (for the most part) well to the left of his campaign rhetoric, and was not as conciliatory, once in office, that he perhaps implied he would be when running. But sometimes it's the unreasonable people who refuse to compromise who advance the agenda (for good or for ill).
LikeLike
*I'm not sad. Not "I'm not said". For pity's sake.
LikeLike
Gotta go.But first:http://www.cnn.com/2011/10/31/opinion/frum-republican-tea-party-scenarios/index.html?hpt=hp_t2
LikeLike
"I found it quaint that Greg complained about low readership on Sunday morning and boom! out comes a rare Sunday post that gets a front-page link."I guess the front page link explains all the new folks with their excellent, in-depth analysis of why Democrats/Republicans are stupid and evil, and why their opposite numbers are noble and upstanding and most attractive. Seriously, some of the threads were: "You're stupid." – "I know you are, but what am I?"
LikeLike
"Recall that the individual mandate was an R idea posed to save the insurance industry from Hillarycare in '93."Recall, too, that the Republican proposal, like Dubya's SS reforms, did not get broad GOP support.
LikeLike
"are instead proposing their own combinations of the most toxic conservative elements of the President's bill"They say "toxic", we say "awesome!" And who says we don't do compromise?
LikeLike
"And who says we don't do compromise? "The ironic part is that progressives often castigate the Democrats for not standing on principle and caving on things like extending the Bush tax cuts. At the same time, they excoriate the Republicans for doing exactly what they say they want the Democrats to do, i.e. stand on principle. As a general rule, once these sorts of positions are staked out in public I assume the interest is political positioning not trying to achieve compromise. I wrote off the Presidents jobs proposal once he released all the offsets and every one was a tax increase. Apparently, not a single piece of existing government spending is suitable to cut to fund his new jobs initiatives.
LikeLike
"However, the auto rescue bankruptcy actually worked and that was 50 times cheaper than ARRA.The R reluctance on the auto rescue bankruptcy was an issue that I thought was fabricated on politics, by the Rs, only."Keep in mind that the Obama administrations original auto proposal was just another blank check to the existing companies with no restructuring requirement through bankruptcy, which they wanted to avoid at all costs (remember, no one would by a car from GM if it was in bankruptcy due to warranty concerns, etc). What actually ended up happening pretty much matches the proposal that Mitt Romney and others put forward for a prepackaged bankruptcy.
LikeLike
I'm of the opinion that a lot of this from Axlerod is just political positioning for a Presidential campaign. I think the thing to remember is that Congress has the lowest approval rating in decades and it's a bi-partisan seniment. If Republicans want to run on Corporate tax cuts and anti-regulation I say go for it, they haven't accomplished much since taking over the House in the way of an improving economy. And if Obama and team want to run on a populist sentiment, they can try. A lot of Dems do blame the Republicans for obstruction of an agenda that might have helped turn the economy around so Axe et al are just reflecting back what they're hearing from boots on the ground. It doesn't mean it's true necessarily, but it may be a good campaign strategy.I haven't seen much from any of the Republican hopefuls that resonates with most of the middle class people we talk to, and no they're not all Democrats, au contraire. What small business owners want (remember 75% of small businesses have fewer than 20 employees) is an increase in demand, in other words we need people to spend again. Most of us know this won't happen anytime soon so we try to stay in the game until Americans pay down their debt. I never hear politicians discuss this. They're always scheming a way to attract votes that have very little to do with reality, IMO.
LikeLike
I did not know WMR proposed a prepackaged involuntary bkcy. I actually did propose it months earlier, during the GWB final year, in order to clean house of bad management and keep the assets productive, rather than have them stripped and sold as salvage. In my plan, only GM would have been saved, and someone would have bought Chrysler's newest and best plant – JEEP Toledo – out of liquidation.So when BHO first talked about structured bkcy I accounted him a boy genius.So if WMR proposed this, too, it makes it more ironic that Rs opposed it.I also thought there was active Canadian participation in both planning and execution.
LikeLike
Every president needs a pitbull who can say things the president can not say directly. It's usually the vice-president, but I don't blame for not trusting Biden with this message.
LikeLike
"Every president needs a pitbull who can say things the president can not say directly."And most people that oppose a President want a person behind the scenes to villify and blame. First, it backs up their view that the President is a follower not a leader. Second, it lets them say nastier things that they can't really say about a President without disrespecting the office. That comment is not aimed at you, QB. You already said you don't really care wheter Obama is the puppet or puppeteer.
LikeLike
"I did not know WMR proposed a prepackaged involuntary bkcy.""The American auto industry is vital to our national interest as an employer and as a hub for manufacturing. A managed bankruptcy may be the only path to the fundamental restructuring the industry needs. It would permit the companies to shed excess labor, pension and real estate costs. The federal government should provide guarantees for post-bankruptcy financing and assure car buyers that their warranties are not at risk.In a managed bankruptcy, the federal government would propel newly competitive and viable automakers, rather than seal their fate with a bailout check."Let Detroit Go Bankrupt
LikeLike