Howard Fineman: Obama's NAIVETE On BIPARTISANSHIP Has Finally Caught Up to Him

[Segami]

:shrug: :smoke: :shrug:

If I hear the term ' BIPARTISANSHIP ' uttered by Obama one more time, I'm going to puke out my dinner.:puke:




" There were some, including some in the media, who listened to President Obama's account of yesterday's meeting with Republicans and concluded that there was hope for a surprisingly bipartisan conclusion to the lame duck Congress.


My questions are: What planet do he and they think they are on? And have they paid any attention to Sen. Mitch McConnell?



The president emerged from the meeting yesterday to say, hopefully, that he had suggested that they work together not just on taxes and spending, but on the other issues pending, including an extension of unemployment insurance.:rofl:


But at that very moment McConnell and the rest of the GOP Senate leadership were beginning work on a plan to force the Senate to do just the opposite: a unified GOP threat to filibuster debate on anything but taxes and spending.


This morning, White House press secretary Robert Gibbs was sounding upbeat -- even after news of the McConnell strategy had surfaced.


Republicans are energized and out for blood. And, like all tough politicians, when they sense weakness and confusion on the other side, they are emboldened to press harder.


On the Hill yesterday, GOP aides privately could barely contain their contempt -- and their amusement -- at the president's declaration of a dawn of bipartisan optimism.


They know that Obama already in effect has conceded on a two- or three-year extension of all tax cuts, and they are going to insist on that before considering anything else -- which, in the end, they won't.


Barack Obama and his crew have many good qualities. But that list does not include skill and guts at legislative combat with Republicans. They don't seem to really know the enemy or the game they are in, and the president's meager and glancing experience in the trenches of politics has caught up with him.


<http://www.huffingtonpost.com/howard-fineman/obamas-naivete-on-biparti_b_790516.html>

[Skittles]

1. he is out of his league in dealing with repukes

either that or he is collaborating with them

[Segami]

3. Tonight, on Hardball, Chris Mathews said that it was reported that Obama considered himself

a 'Bluedog'. I'm trying to find that video snip.

[Nite Owl]

10. I heard that too!

I don't usually watch Tweety but I left the tv on after Ed tonight and it really caught my attention. It was said at a private meeting, didn't get with who or if he said. Before the election I said to some friends to watch him that his friends seemed to Blue Dogs, like Cooper from TN and DLCers (Even Bayh). Wish it weren't so, I liked the Obama that campaigned and hoped that I was wrong about his associations.

[Parker CA]

31. Wasn't Tweety. It was Mark McKinnon, GOP strategist who said he'd read the quote. There's a link in

LBN somewhere with the NYT article where the claim is apparently made. Pretty shocking statement, but it makes a lot of sense in retrospect.

[Segami]

32. Thanks. It was mentioned in NYT's Matt Bai's Nov. 30th, 2010 article titled

' Debt-busting Issue May Force Obama Off the Fence '



from DissentingDemocrat:
<http://dissentingdemocrat.wordpress.com/2010/12/02/who-let-the-dogs-out-who-who/>



Who Let the Dogs Out? Who? Who?


December 2, 2010

In today’s New York Times the following comment is reported, “Privately, Mr. Obama has described himself, at times, as essentially a Blue Dog Democrat, referring to the shrinking caucus of fiscally conservative members of the party”. (Matt Bai, Debt-busting Issue May Force Obama Off the Fence)


The Dissenting Democrat has been saying this for some time. Obama is NOT a Democrat, he is a political opportunist whose key principles are his own advancement. Now it is confirmed and reported in the nation’s newspaper of record that Obama is a Bluedog.


For the uninitiated, a Bluedog is of the lineage of the Bourbon Democrats, Dixiecrats, Boll Weevils, DINOs and the so-called New Democrats. Simply understood as a Republican who believes that they are more likely to get elected on the Democratic ticket. Nowadays, Republicans run as Democrats because their own party has been captured by Nuts, Psychos and the Christian Taliban. When you have a political party come out against Common Sense, Reason, and Science, a reasonable person will jump ship and pretend to be something else.


The midterm election results represent a nationwide repudiation of Bluedogs. Let’s face it, a voter looking to vote Republican or Democrat would prefer the “real thing” to a fake and as a consequence the Bluedogs in Congress were the big losers. If we go into 2012 with a Bluedog at the top of the ticket it will become a fiasco. The choice between a Republican and a Republican-running-as-a-Democrat is no real choice. Let’s either endorse a Real Democrat on the Democratic ticket or, if denied, a Real Democrat on a third party ticket.

We can understand why a Republican would want to claim to be a Democrat but it does serious damage to the Democratic Party nevertheless. Where do the Real Democrats go? Real Democrats can either take back their party or start a new one.

Hopefully, this confession on the part of Obama will clarify politics for the Real Democrats, they are released from their loyalty oaths to a Democrat in the White House for a very good reason: He’s NOT a Democrat.

.

[Celtic Raven]

68. Thanks for posting this

I hadn't tripped over this blog yet.

:thumbsup:

[NBachers]

90. Vichy Democrats

[zipplewrath]

61. Yeah, I suspected it long ago

When you look at his legislative accomplishments, they were closely in line with the Blue Dogs. Not exactly one for one, but considering they were a minority in the democratic party, it did appear that he had a favoring, or leaning, in their direction.

[PurityOfEssence]

49. I think he meant "lapdog Democrat"

It's very simple: conservatives are firmly convinced they're right, and that any other opinions simply don't deserve to exist.

[lumberjack_jeff]

53. +1

[Skittles]

60. a Bluedog is pretty much a DINO

yup

[asdjrocky]

78. He doesn't have to say it.

We've known it for some time now.

[defendandprotect]

2. My guess is that we did not elect someone who is naive ....

pretending to be naive would be another guess ...

[sabrina 1]

5. That's what I think also. NO ONE is this 'naive'. But it's

better to try to keep up the pretense that there are two parties. I don't know what way they expect us to react to all of this. Are we supposed to try to defend this president? To sympathize, to see him as a good person who just can't learn not to cave in to bullies? Whatever the strategy is, it is becoming increasingly clear that 'naive' is the last thing this president is.

[inna]

48. no kidding. who's "naive" is the majority of the American people, apparenty,

if they are continuing to buy this charade.

[Enthusiast]

51. Hell, millions of Americans

bought the Bush charade, two of them, 41 and 43. The PTB control the TV, print and radio media.

[Little Star]

55. +1000

[Lorien]

21. Bingo. nt

[glitch]

56. Maybe we should think of his bipartisanship as coming from a different direction.

Maybe he's attempting bipartisanship with Democrats.

Getting Democrats to compromise to Republican policies seems a far more likely conclusion to make based on what he considers his "successes".

[stillwaiting]

76. There is NO doubt to my mind. It's transparently so.

[Individualist]

79. Correct.

Naivete has nothing to do with his actions.

[RSheppard]

4. Unemployment

I think the most pressing issue here is the extension of
unemployment benefits, especially for the holidays.  No matter
what it takes, this NEEDS to get done!  So many people are
depending on this for their livelihood and partisan politics
need not stand in the way.  Things like "don't ask, don't
tell" can wait for now.  These people need to wake up and
get their priorities straight.  There are too many people out
here that are relying on our government leaders from both
parties to get us through these difficult economic times.  The
economy seems to be on the rebound and we certainly don't want
to stifle the new growth by suddenly leaving people destitute.

[The_Casual_Observer]

12. Amen

and welcome to DU!!!!!!!!!

[renate]

50. darn tootin' you're right

And welcome to DU!

[Enthusiast]

52. Not if it will result

in an extension of the Bush tax cuts for millionaires and billionaires. Let the GOP take the blame for voting against unemployment benefits.

[whathappened]

89. how true

when i seen they were debateing about don't ask i about blew a fuse , what part of unemployment and over 2 millions peoples mony will be shut down don't they get , they need all there asses kicked to the curb ,

[Swamp Rat]

6. The GOP is energized because Obama won't fight back, which has demoralized the Democrats

and many of his supporters.

If Obama doesn't change his ways very soon, he's likely going to be a one-termer... unless that is what he wants. :shrug:

[somone]

30. He already signaled it

rejecting two mediocre terms and whatnot

[ProSense]

7. Maybe Howard Fineman

doesn't know what the hell he's talking about. These are all the same pundits that have been declaring everything dead before it isn't. For example, health care reform

[Segami]

9. Maybe he should spend LESS time shooting hoops and more time talking to

those who need REAL help. He needs to get down in the trenches and leave his advisers behind.

[ProSense]

13. I'm sure

he talks to people in the real world and not those complaining online. That's my guess anyway.

[Segami]

14. Those " complaining " online are the same folks who surrendered their vote for his election.

[bigtree]

17. you may have surrendered your vote

. . .mine was a defense against the republican alternative as much as it was an affirmation of the benefits of a Democratic presidency. You've got to have a rather narrow view of the effects and consequences of which party hold that office to be so sanguine about that vote for this Democratic president.

[Segami]

19. Clever twist but no cigar.

[ProSense]

18. You have no idea. n/t

[displacedvermoter]

74. You'd know!

[bigtree]

15. what an ignorant swipe

what's your hobby?

How do you have any idea at all how he's involved himself? You saw him playing basketball on teevee and you've assumed that's all he's doing with his time? FOX-worthy.

[Segami]

16. The only thing ignorant is your post.

[bigtree]

20. what's your hobby?

Maybe you should spend less time on that and more time looking into what this presidency has actually accomplished. Your crystal-ball approach to prognostication is severely lacking in perspective and fact.

[Owl]

87. I agree.

[saracat]

36. Oh, so we DID get a Public Option? And it wasn't really dead?????

:sarcasm: But I forget, some think we actually got HCR instead of a mandated payday for the insurance companies!

[Ramulux]

8. You know the dems are in serious trouble

when Howard Fineman is calling you out.

[Poboy]

34. Ouch, thats going to leave a mark. -nt

[bigtree]

11. all of the tongue wagging about the bipartisan rhetoric is ridiculous

It's as if critics believe they are soooo much smarter than the President and that he can't see the same bunch of obstructionists in front of his agenda that they do.

It's absurd to even imagine that adopting the same idiotic tone of McConnell and Boehner is going to magically transform that obstruction into some political success or victory. The President has the politics just right. Congress is hell-bent on voting some kind of extension of the upper-class cuts and they are not going to have enough votes in this Congress or the next to pass middle-class cut extension by itself. The President can see that as well as (most) anyone else who has stepped up to point out the obvious.

The President has declared two things. His 'first priority' is to preserve the middle-class tax cuts that are due to expire. The second thing he has said is that he's flatly opposed to any permanent extension of the upper-class tax cuts.

That ALL he's basically agreed to at this point. The rest is SPECULATION, not anything the President has agreed to. His conciliatory posture may well have provided an opportunity for professional and career nitpickers and naggers like Fineman to posture like there's actually some political chance in hell that Congress will allow the cuts to expire, or, that there's anything the President could actually do about that other than veto whatever Congress produces - effectively killing the middle-class tax cuts he says are his 'first priority'.

There's likely going to be a compromise and the President has positioned himself to influence that compromise. Who knows what he'll agree to and if republicans will budge to allow it to proceed in the Senate?

It's easy to sit back and pick at the President, but where is the ire and snark at the source of the actual obstruction? Nice of Fineman to deflect from the republican hypocrisy and duplicity of the republican position. That's standard, though, these days. It's easier and more convenient for some to flail out at Democrats than it is to call republicans out on their bullshit.

[Bluenorthwest]

22. Why does the President not call the Republicans out on their

bullshit? For Democratic voters, sitting around whining that Republicans are Republicans is redundant and a waste of time, a mantra of the obvious.
Obama could easily call them out, and we'd all have his back, but he lacks the courage or the will or the ability, or some of each.
You think we should call out the Republicans while the administration gives them a reach around, or across, or whatever? Should we wait until he's done serenading them?

[bigtree]

25. well, he has 'called them out'

But he's not going to adopt the same antagonistic tone that republicans are so comfortable with. He's always worked for what was politically possible in the legislature, while pressing forward with as much partisanship as he can manage. On issues that he has been unable to resolve through the legislative process he has unleashed enough rhetoric to cover the editorial pages. But, I fail to see why it should be assumed that he's just playing tiddlywinks with republicans.

The White House is intent on winning these political and legislative debates. I think they have the politics just right. There's nothing to be gained by allowing the President to be drawn down into the gutter with the rabid obstructionists. Not even McConnell or Boehner believe they can afford to maintain their obstinacy on everything. There is always going to be political gamesmanship on the surface and cold, hard vote-gathering and horse-trading behind the scenes. That's how politics works. Nothing the President says about 'bipartisanship' for political consumption is going to alter the cold, hard numbers in the legislature that have to be managed. It doesn't make sense to assume that whatever the professional and hobbyist prognosticators deem to report and focus on is the totality, or even a factual representation of those efforts by the President to influence the outcome of the debate
.

[StarsInHerHair]

35. oh goody a snarky one waving something around with

their hands. whatever.

[Doctor_J]

64. The president has the politics just right?

does your memory not go back one month?

[Bluebear]

23. Shut up!! The Republicans are only singing ONE SONG!!!!1

:cry:

[Speck Tater]

24. I read through threads like this and think they must really be rejoicing in Freeperland.

I can hear it now:

"Boy those idiots at DU are tearing each other's throats out."
"The Democrat Party is falling apart at the seams."
"They're eating their own young."
"Internal warfare will destroy the dumocraps."
"They don't know how to win elections AND they don't know how to govern. What a sad pathetic bunch of losers."

Face it. The whole Liberal movement is crumbling before our eyes for lack of leadership, lack of cohesion, lack of common dreams and goals. This is the Iditerod and the Republicans are running a sleek, well-oiled dogsled pulled by a team of well train Siberian Huskies while we Democrats have entered the race with a dogsled pulled by a team of 47 untrained house cats each scrambling in a different direction. Who's going to win? Them or us? (Hint: It ain't going to be us.)

[bigtree]

26. you can't judge an entire board

. . . by its splinters.

[BzaDem]

27. Obama simply decided that it was more important for the middle class tax cuts to be extended than it

is for the tax cuts for the rich to expire. So he'll work with Republicans to pass that (a 1-2 year extension).

Other people here came to a different conclusion. They feel that it would be better to let the middle class tax cuts expire than it would be to extend the tax cuts fo the rich.

Those are two different points of views. I respect both of them. Obama chose a, others chose b. I don't see how that is showing naivete -- its showing a policy difference of opinion.

If Obama were thinking he could get broad bipartisan backing to end DADT, or pass START, or to do many other things on the lame duck agenda, I would agree that that would be naive. But so far, there is no sign he thinks that. He is picking off the one or two Republicans needed (like Collins on DADT, a few on START to get to 67, etc), and telling the rest to suck eggs. That is the only thing he could possibly do on those issues.

[ibegurpard]

28. I don't vote for people with whom I disagree on policy issues

[BzaDem]

38. Actually, yes you do. Each and every time you vote, you vote for people who disagree with you on

some issues. Without exception (unless you yourself are running).

[saracat]

41. Hey, don't you remember, campaign promises don't count!

and policy issues are only words to be said to get elected.The candidate doesn't have any obligation to actually "implement" any of them! Remember "no mandated healthcare" ? :rofl:

[BzaDem]

43. Didn't he promise to keep the middle class tax cuts too? Or are you just selectively quoting the

promises that are convenient to your argument?

[saracat]

44. Actually the phrase about implementation is paraphrasing the president!

And I can't include middle class tax cuts as they haven't happened yet!

[BzaDem]

47. My point is that Obama promised middle class tax cuts and wealthy tax increases. One of those two

promises is going to be violated no matter which he chooses. So it's not like one choice is fulfilling his campaign promises, and the other side is ignoring them. Both choices violate one promise.

[bread_and_roses]

88. Tell me, what good will tax cuts do when every State, County, City will have to slash and burn

every service they provide because there will not be enough money to keep them running? Tell me some "middle-class" family is going to have enough from "tax cuts" to pay for private school when there are forty kids in the public school class, or absorb the higher water bills, higher vehicle registrations, higher fees of every sort, the soon-to-be-privatized services like waste collection that the municipalities can't afford any more? Because when the Fed is squeezed for $$ they squeeze the money that goes to the States, Counties, Cities for all sorts of programs - either directly or through the States.

All that "trickles down" to us are higher costs.

The problem is that Obama should be out there saying this - not meandering on about "bi-partisanship." Every time he uses the word, he reinforces the notion that the Rs are "partners" - when he should be out there explaining to people exactly what these tax cuts for the rich mean for them - for their lives, for their children and elders - and demanding that they be allowed to expire.

If he got out there and told the truth, he would have a vast army at his back. As it is, the Ds got creamed in the last election at least partly because they - and foremost among them Obama - promote and spread the very narrative the Rs give them, and give the people nothing else.

[saracat]

37. OMG, a defense of the tax cuts for the rich! Isn't that special?

I expect to see a defense of the cuts to Social Security and Medicare shortly! And apologies if DADT isn't overturned!:sarcasm: :rofl:

[BzaDem]

39. More like a defense of tax cuts for the poor and middle class

but I wouldn't expect a post from you about what I said that was actually accurate.

[saracat]

40. Yeah, I know, you are all about thre "compromise".It worked so well for the public option.

and oh my, it certainly helped us win the 2010 midterms! :sarcasm:

[BzaDem]

42. Um, I am discussing a policy, not a tactic.

The choice is quite literally an extension of all or an extension of none. We can pick A or B. Obama would probably pick A, you would probably pick B.

[saracat]

45. Hmm. Compromise and capitulation have become "policy" with this Admin.

[BzaDem]

46. Do you actually think deciding between all or none is not a policy decision? n/t

[aquamarina]

86. Exactly,

[somone]

29. Saying he's naive implies he's a victim

of a trick or something. The guy is very smart.

He must be executing to a plan.

[TheMadMonk]

33. THEY know and THEY are playing the same game. The confusion...

...arrises from unfounded beliefs in who's side THEY are playing on. Guess what? It's not OUR'S Mr Fineman.

[Tierra_y_Libertad]

54. But, he caves tenaciously and is a fierce advocate of surrendering.

[Poboy]

57. .

[Poboy]

58. .

[treestar]

59. Every President talks about that

The Republicans, however, thank Mr. Fineman for spreading the concept the President is "naive." Which yeah, anyone who gets elected President COULD be. :rofl: :rofl: :rofl:

:rofl: :rofl: :rofl:

I hate republicans with a burning passion but it's not going to make me blind and unrealistic. If Obama spent all his bully pulpit time trashing Republicans, the M$M would have a field day.

[newtothegame]

62. Unfortunately, most of the people saying the same during 2008 were forced out of DU long ago.

They would have appreciated knowing their assertions are now being taken seriously. Too little, too late for the country unfortunately.

[kenny blankenship]

63. It's not "naivete" when you plan to deliver your core constituencies into the hands of their enemies

there are several good descriptive terms for this, but naivete isn't one of them.

[thereismore]

65. Nancy stands as the last bastion against republicans and the President. nt

[bvar22]

66. "Bi-Partisanship" is just the cover story...

...for marketing ever further lurches to The RIGHT.
That is the goal.

Does anyone here believe that Obama is STUPID enough to really believe that "Bi-Partisanship" bullshit?
It is just the Cover Story.
It tested well in the Marketing Focus Groups.

[meow mix]

67. the republicans make him look like a sad, spineless weakling.

this is not was i was hoping for.. i could not have imagined such a complete failure.
carter is happy he now looks damned heroic in comparision.

[AnArmyVeteran]

72. Republicans aren't making him look that way, Obama IS a sad, spineless weakling.

What a pos he is. He has continually betrayed everyone on the left. I have no idea why the right is so angry with him since Obama is caving in to everything they want.

[NCarolinawoman]

75. From what I have read, behind the scenes they consider him a joke.

The anger is just theater.

I hate for this to happen. Can't someone--maybe Biden, or even Michelle-- tell him to muscle up?

[AnArmyVeteran]

82. Someone needs to kick him in the ass. His 'advisors' are all corporate whores.

Maybe he should fake an illness to let Biden run the country. It's too late now, but if both Obama and Biden feigned sickness then Nancy Pelosi would fill in as president. She's got 10,000% more guts than they do.

[BrklynLiberal]

85. It is part of the show that the repukes run to keep the base enraged

[Doctor_J]

69. Howie's being generous calling him naive

it's looking more and more like he's complicit. The only question is why they keep lambasting him when he basically does whatever they want.

[Segami]

70. To maintain the theatre of misdirection.

[AnArmyVeteran]

71. Obama isn't naive, he's a coward. There I said it, but it's true.

[BrklynLiberal]

84. There definitely is something missing in the President that appeared to part of the candidate.

[struggle4progress]

73. Fineman's agenda seems clear from his articles:

He writes It's fatal for a president to seem overwhelmed by events in
The Politics Of WikiLeaks
http://www.huffingtonpost.com/2010/11/29/the-politics-of-wikileaks_n_789136.html

But -- he's been diligently pushing the perception himself

After his "shellacking" ... President Obama called speaker-to-be John Boehner for a chat
Lame Duck May Well Ignore Deficit Hawks, Obama Lobbies Boehner On Michelle's Obesity Bill
http://www.huffingtonpost.com/2010/11/23/lame-duck-may-well-ignore_n_787540.html

The post-election Congress ... is threatening to devour what's left of Barack Obama's presidency
'Lame Duck' Becomes Bird Of Prey
http://www.huffingtonpost.com/2010/11/19/lame-duck-session-obama_n_785937.html

President Obama left town and promptly got backed into the deepest corner of his still-young political life
Decision Points - The Obama Version
http://www.huffingtonpost.com/2010/11/10/decision-points-the-obama_n_781788.html

[asdjrocky]

77. It's like the whole thing is planned and Obama is just the fall guy.

Either way it's just a game for them. They are all set for life and everyone in their family are set for life. When I say "they" I mean congress, lobbyists, the corporate overloads. No one in their family will be hungry tonight or any other night. None will want for a roof and find none. None of them, not one, will go a day with out the best medical care in the world.

We have leaders, a multitude of kings and queens and not one representative in the whole bunch.

Disgusting.

[Individualist]

80. Fineman is the one who's naive.

It's clear to the politically knowledgeable that Obama is following DLC's agenda.

[lunamagica]

81. Maybe the job is too big for him. I think (and always thought) that

he should have served at least one term in the Senate (preferably more). It is not enough to be smart; there's no substitute for time and experience. Time in the Senate to study and get to know inside and out who and what he'd be dealing with as president. Time to grow. He was young, time was on his side.

But he couldn't wait. He saw that '06 would bring a Democratic win and went for it even though he was far from ready. And how we're all paying for it.

At least that's my theory, and I rather believe that than believe he was a fraud to start with, and it was all a lie. That scenario is too horrific to contemplate, because if I'm right and the job is too big for him, he may grow in to it, but if this is what he planned al along....no, it can't be

[BrklynLiberal]

83. WTF happened to the man I thought I voted for? I guess I was misled.

"Compromise" and "Bipartisanship" are code words for "Give the repukes everything they want up front"