Another day, another
Jackson on the nightstand:
I spent many years working for senior Democratic Senators such as Lloyd Bentsen and House Democratic leaders beginning with the legendary Speaker Tip O’Neill, and have never seen any president of either party insult so many members of his own party’s base and members of the House and Senate as Mr. Obama has in his weeks of tirades against liberals on trade.
In Mr. Obama’s speech at Nike last week, his comments to Matt Bai of Yahoo over the weekend, and White House press secretary Josh Earnest’s comments to reporters on Monday, Mr. Obama and his White House staff have repeated a string of personal insults directed against prominent liberal Democrats in Congress, liberal Democrats across the nation, organized labor, and leading public interest and environmental groups who share doubts about the TPP trade deal.
That's the voice of Brent Budowsky, who is dealing with the anger stage of his own personal and political Kubler-Ross scenario:
Mr. Obama’s tirades on trade have included accusations that these liberal Democrats are ignorant about trade policy, insincere when offering their opinions, motivated by politics and not the national interest, and backward looking towards the past. Obama’s repeated attacks against Sen. Elizabeth Warren (D-Mass.), in which he charged that Warren’s concern about the trade bill is motivated not by a reasoned view of what is right for America but by her personal political motivations, is one of the most dishonest and repellant examples of character assassination and contempt by any American president, against any leading member of his own party, in my lifetime.
Of course Ms. Warren, the most nationally respected liberal leader in American politics, is motivated by what she believes is right for the nation. Doubts about the trade bill are not limited to Ms. Warren. They are shared by the leader of Senate Democrats, Sen. Harry Reid (D-Nev.), the leader of House Democrats, Rep. Nancy Pelosi (D-Calif.), and a majority of Democrats in the Senate and House as well as a significant number of leading liberal economists.
For the President to suggest that he knows more about trade then all of them do, and that they are all ignorant about the trade bill and trade policy, is staggeringly false and contemptuous of many who have been working on trade policy far longer than he has and know far more about trade, in truth, than he does.
But he does, Mr. Budowsky. Just ask him. And get in line, pal.
12 comments:
1) I've said it before but it bears repeating: I wish Obama was half the liberal a lot of you guys seem to think that he is.
2) For a guy that spent years working for Tip O'Neal and Lloyd Bentson, he sure does seem to have a thin skin. "... one of the most dishonest and repellant examples of character assassination and contempt by any American president, against any leading member of his own party, in my lifetime?" Please. It's politics. Grow up and grow a pair.
He may be right. After all, this trade bill has been kept locked in a back room, and Congress must ask permission to enter, one at a time, and may not even take notes on the bill. It's the most transparent administration in history. Transparently imperial, that is.
1) I've said it before but it bears repeating: I wish Obama was half the liberal a lot of you guys seem to think that he is.
Obama is a Chicago politician. That means he's about power more than ideology. And now that his power is starting to wane, he's moving into grifter mode like Bill Clinton did. He'll make trade agreements now because he needs to make nice with the rich people he's bashed. Warren isn't as far along the career path as Obama yet, so she's still chanting "four legs good, two legs bad," at least for public consumption.
Please. It's politics. Grow up and grow a pair.
Sexist. ;)
A more liberal president with more character would be preferable to Obama. I think that I will remember him primarily as a dishonest man. (To look back, Bush's primary fault was a lack of modesty with regard to America. Clinton had appetites.)
But Mark, he could "grow a pair" like Bruce Jenner is doing......see, was Brian being so sexist after all? :^)
Better not continue with that one.
Seriously, I'll agree with Brian that where Obama is depends on where you are, and that those in politics ought to have some thicker skin--at least unless they've got the media covering for them.
Regarding the issue at hand, I also have to admit that I think that the "liberal" wing of the Democratic Party is on the side of the angels here. Not because I particularly agree with them on trade, but rather because I simply don't trust Obama in terms of personal honesty or understanding of economics. Throwing the crowbar in his spokes in this matter is simply the right thing to do.
when Obama and the GOP unite for a trade deal that means the devil is in the room.
Gino said...
when Obama and the GOP unite for a trade deal that means the devil is in the room.
Could be.
One thing worth noting is that if memory serves, implementing "free trade" via GATT was something like 28000 pages. NAFTA, about 14000. Now call me weird, but whatever one's views on free trade, I would hope we could agree that it ought not require multiple thousands of pages to enact it into law.
Which means that NAFTA, GATT, and other such laws and treaties are about anything BUT free trade. One can argue whether they were better than or worse than the previous situation, but please don't tell me they're about free trade.
By the way, Brian, I think you're on the board in the Dead Pool.
Mark, that comment to Brian can be interpreted a couple of different ways!
And let it be said; I am glad to live in a country where they don't blow people up with antiaircraft artillery for nodding off during meetings. Didn't Stalin at least have a little bit more plausible rationale and methods?
You would think, wouldn't you, that Obama would be able to openly display the legislation and point out its many obvious positives, while opponents point to specific negatives? But neither side can, because the whole thing is a pig in a poke, to be accepted by Congress sight unseen!
Ha! I knew my strategic ambiguity would pay off!
(Also...anti-aircraft gun? Damn.)
Post a Comment