CBS Political Director URGES President To DECLARE WAR On The GOP

[Segami]

Over the weekend the President got some advice that I am sure has tea baggers more than a little on edge. The real treat is the advice didn’t come from a trusted advisor or Democratic strategist; no it came from CBS political director John Dickerson. Just a few days before President Barack Obama goes before the nation to start his second term Dickerson urges him to “go for the throat” and “declare war on the Republican party.” some unusually harsh advice from an interesting and unsuspected source.



Dickerson made the comments on a posting at Slate.com where he is the chief political correspondent. In the posting he also states:

“The president who came into office speaking in lofty terms about bipartisanship and cooperation can only cement his legacy if he destroys the GOP. If he wants to transform American politics, he must go for the throat.”

http://www.slate.com/articles/news_and_politics/politics/2013/01/barack_obama_s_second_inaugural_address_the_president_should_declare_war.single.html

According to the article Dickerson figures that President Obama has about 18 months till the term lame duck starts getting attached to his name and states that “Obama’s only remaining option is to pulverize. Whether he succeeds in passing legislation or not, given his ambitions, his goal should be to delegitimize his opponents. Through a series of clarifying fights over controversial issues, he can force Republicans to either side with their coalition’s most extreme elements or cause a rift in the party that will leave it, at least temporarily, in disarray.”



This is just a guess but I’m thinking Republicans are less then thrilled at anyone recommending this kind of game plan moving into heated debates on gun control and the debt ceiling.





http://www.addictinginfo.org/2013/01/21/cbs-political-director-urges-president-to-declare-war-on-the-gop/

[el_bryanto]

1. I'm always uncomfortable about that warfare rhetoric

Of course Republicans are far more prone to use it ("Our goal isn't to work with Democrats, it's to defeat them.&quot . But the implications are that our political rivals and enemies are to be destroyed. In fact, while there are plenty of venal corrupt Republicans and conservatives (including many of their intellectual leaders) - most Republicans and Conservatives are probably good people who want what is best for America and just have bad ideas about how to accomplish it.

Bryant

[JoeBlowToo]

2. sorry but they do not want "what is best for America"

That's a typical rah-rah patriotic phrase used to distract you from the fact that they are serving their masters. They believe that America would be better if billionaires and corporations had free reign because those are the Republican sponsors and their paychecks and fortunes depend on their benefactors getting a return on their investments.

Do the Democrats do any better? A bit, but they are still beholden to the big money boys and have to tiptoe around because of that fact.

[el_bryanto]

4. That's another discussion; the role corporate money plays in politics

which, as you point out, does kind of distract from all this. Two counter points. one - i don't think our legislators are simply bought and sold corporate shills. Of course they are that, but that's not all they are. I suspect that in order to run for congress or political office, most start out wanting to do good (by their own beliefs), and even upon reaching Congress, a kernel of that remains.

Two - even setting aside our representatives, there's still value in assuming that our fellow citizens who support Republicans and describe themselves as Conservative want what is best for America.

Bryant

[Atman]

14. It is much more than MONEY. It is a mindset. A sense of special privilege.

Any wealthy Republican I know -- and there are quite a few -- shows absolute disdain for "people on the dole," which is EVERYONE who isn't wealthy. If you're not skiing with them or yachting with them or joining them at the club for a cigar and a martini, you're just not worthy. You didn't work hard enough, and they feel there is no obligation to help anyone out.

Also, what does "best for America" mean if you hate 47% of its people and think they're all just out to steel your stuff? "Best" in this context means getting rid of them.

[olegramps]

12. When they have reduced the working class to servitude you won't be singing that tune.

The Repukians are intent on destroying unions, outsourcing every job and returning society to the robber barons golden era of absolutely unrestrained capitalism.

[el_bryanto]

15. Well assuming that happens i imagine i'll be saying "I remember back when we could be friends

but those days are long past."

Bryant

[graham4anything]

3. Where was CBS when they character'd assasssinated Dan Rather?

memo NEVER proven false

info WAS TRUE, never denied by Bush

Janet's Nipple was used as blackmail by CBS to sell Dan down the river.

why shouldn't CBS be political though? Fox is.
a winner does what a loser won't.

[Kolesar]

20. Every broadcaster was afraid Bush/Cheney would send the FCC after them

For that matter, publishers were afraid too. Cheney used to call newspaper editors and intimidate them.

That tabloid in Florida got anthraxed after exposing the bush girls as drunks.

[randr]

5. We need to see the current incarnation of Republicanism flushed down the drain

[asjr]

6. How odd. This from a network that just bought Condaleeza Rice!

[eShirl]

7. President: "Please proceed, Republicans."

[marble falls]

8. Good idea, so long as they don't go "Fox" on them.

[Avalux]

9. Meh. He just wants conflict to make his job more exciting, and get higher ratings. n/t

[railsback]

10. Misleading

FOX is going ballistic over there, as if some other network was trying to crowd into their territory of being strictly biased.

But..

“The president who came into office speaking in lofty terms about bipartisanship and cooperation can only cement his legacy if he destroys the GOP. If he wants to transform American politics, he must go for the throat.”

That doesn't sound biased at all, rather an observation of how Obama might attain his lofty goals in the face of 100% Republican obstructionism.

[BainsBane]

13. I heard Hannity say CBS wants a one party nation

Pretty ironic since that's been the GOP, and hence Fox's, goal since the 1990s.

[railsback]

24. Wasn't too long ago

all those dirtbags were crowing about a permanent majority. Ridiculous how those pricks get away with everything.

[Ztolkins]

11. This OP misses Dickerson's point

Dickerson was not endorsing this as if he, himself, wanted this to happen. The article was a "if Obama wants to achieve A he should do B, otherwise A is not possible".

[fadedrose]

16. Oh, this is "just a guess"

This is just a guess, but I think tomorrow will be Wednesday.

[pampango]

17. Forcing republicans "to either side with their coalition’s most extreme elements or cause a rift in

the party that will leave it, at least temporarily, in disarray" does not sound like declaring war on them. It sounds like a wise, viable way to deal with constant republican intransigence on so many important national issues.

If, in some cases, there are currently not enough votes for on piece of legislation or another, then 'forcing republicans to side with their most extreme elements' is a good way to cause maximum damage to the republican brand in the long run.

[Johonny]

22. The problem with clarifying issues

is you generally need the media to clarify the issue. In the recent issue the Republicans fought tooth and nail for a plan that would effect the deficit the least at the expense of everyday Americans general well being. This was not clarified enough in the media. On Obama's health care debate very little time was spent on the public option while huge amounts of time was spent on the completely imaginary death panels...

Obama needs not only to force Republicans to chose sides but to force the discussion in the media to clarify what side the Republicans are on. It does no good to have them choose sides if the other side gets to pretend their positions meaning. On the health care debate they were not fighting to protect medicare, they've tried to destroy it for 40 years. In the debt debate they were not fighting for a balanced budget and lowering the debt, they were fighting to keep wealth at the top and to cut... medicare and social security. Obama needs not only to put hard fights to Republicans but to force the medias hand to cover what it is the Republicans are REALLY fighting for.

I'm sick of Republicans on these chose side moments: getting to fight for one thing and pretend to have stood for something else. I blame the media and not Obama for letting Republicans get away with this over and over, but if the media is too lazy and store bought to do it, Obama must try to do both this term.

[bemildred]

18. Dumb ass. He just wants ratings. nt

[AlbertCat]

19. Too much like "their" tactics.

.... even if good for ratings.

[bvar22]

21. bvar22 urged President Obama to do this on Jan. 19, 2009,

or at least declare war on the wealthy Banker Class
like FDR.
That may "split the nation",
but it would be 99% vs 1%
instead of the 1% burying the 99%.

[go west young man]

23. Evolution does require change and change can be destructive in nature.

I think it is time to move on from these reptilian republicans with their limbic Faux noise "brains". However there are many in the Democratic Party who think they need the two party "balance" to keep their own positions. The fact that CBS just hired Condoleeza Rice leaves me a touch dubious of this article as they seem to be stirring the hornets nest and these media companies rarely have the public interest at heart. Their bottom line is all that matters to them.

[indepat]

25. Go for it, go for the throat, pulverize those who obstruct government from functioning

for the benefit of we the people rather that the 1%. Go for it: castrate them and leave them disheveled. Rid this nation of the most powerful domestic right-wing extremist group by destroying the GOP as a viable political organization.

[Mike Nelson]

26. Not with those words, I hope not...

...there are very crazy, dangerous people out there. And, I don't think he would do this - it's not his style to declare "Wars". That's Bush's arena.

[fredamae]

27. We must be the "ones" who

go for them-it is us, We, the People. It is our job to go at them until they re-aquaint themselves with representing the people.
To suggest any Pres can effectively accomplish this feat is mis leading--imo
It seems "we the ppl" are often left out of the greater MSM debate over the government, Who's govt it is, politicians and policies ... etc

[cthulu2016]

28. Well, the OP reinforces Rush Limbaugh's talking point for the day

That this is somebody urging Obama, rather than political analysis.

I read it as political analysis about what Obama should do IF he wants to succeed, not what Obama should do for the good of mankind.