Frank Rich: All the President’s Captors

[cal04]

http://www.nytimes.com/2010/12/05/opinion/05rich.html?partner=rssnyt&emc=rss

THOSE desperate to decipher the baffling Obama presidency could do worse than consult an article titled “Understanding Stockholm Syndrome” in the online archive of The F.B.I. Law Enforcement Bulletin. It explains that hostage takers are most successful at winning a victim’s loyalty if they temper their brutality with a bogus show of kindness. Soon enough, the hostage will start concentrating on his captors’ “good side” and develop psychological characteristics to please them — “dependency; lack of initiative; and an inability to act, decide or think.”

This dynamic was acted out — yet again — in President Obama’s latest and perhaps most humiliating attempt to placate his Republican captors in Washington. No sooner did he invite the G.O.P.’s Congressional leaders to a post-election White House summit meeting than they countered his hospitality with a slap — postponing the date for two weeks because of “scheduling conflicts.” But they were kind enough to reschedule, and that was enough to get Obama to concentrate once more on his captors’ “good side.”

And so, as the big bipartisan event finally arrived last week, he handed them an unexpected gift, a freeze on federal salaries. Then he made a hostage video hailing the White House meeting as “a sincere effort on the part of everybody involved to actually commit to work together.” Hardly had this staged effusion of happy talk been disseminated than we learned of Mitch McConnell’s letter vowing to hold not just the president but the entire government hostage by blocking all legislation until the Bush-era tax cuts were extended for the top 2 percent of American households.

(snip)
Obama should have pounded home the case against profligate tax cuts for the wealthiest before the Democrats lost the Senate. Even now Warren Buffett — not a socialist, by the way — is making the case with a Christie-esque directness that usually eludes the president. “The rich are always going to say that, you know, just give us more money and we’ll all go out and spend more, and then it will trickle down to the rest of you,” he told Christiane Amanpour on “This Week” last Sunday. “But that has not worked the last 10 years, and I hope the American public is catching on.”

[ProSense]

1. He want's Obama to emulate Chris Christie?

WTF?

<...>

The cliché criticisms of Obama are (from the left) that he is a naïve centrist, not the audacious liberal that Democrats thought they were getting, and (from the right) that he is a socialist out to impose government on every corner of American life. But the real problem is that he’s so indistinct no one across the entire political spectrum knows who he is. A chief executive who repeatedly presents himself as a conciliator, forever searching for the “good side” of all adversaries and convening summits, in the end comes across as weightless, if not AWOL. A Rorschach test may make for a fine presidential candidate — when everyone projects their hopes on the guy. But it doesn’t work in the Oval Office: These days everyone is projecting their fears on Obama instead.

I don’t agree with almost anything Chris Christie, the new Republican governor of New Jersey, has to say. But the popularity of his leadership right now is instructive. New Jersey has voted Democratic in every presidential election since 1992, with Obama carrying the state by a landslide margin of almost 15 percentage points. Yet Christie now has a higher approval number (51 percent) in the latest Quinnipiac state poll than either Obama or New Jersey’s two senators, both Democrats.

Christie’s popularity among national right-wing activists and bloggers has been stoked by a viral YouTube video where he dresses down a constituent in a manner that recalls Ralph Kramden sending Alice “to the moon.” But the core of Christie’s appeal at home is that he explains passionately held views in concrete, plain-spoken detail. Voters know what he stands for and sometimes respect him for his forthrightness even when they reject the stands themselves. This extends to his signature issue — his fiscal and rhetorical blows against public education. He’s New Jersey’s most popular statewide politician despite the fact that a 59 percent majority in the state thinks public schools deserve more taxpayer money, not less.

G.O.P. propagandists notwithstanding, Christie’s appeal does not prove that New Jersey (and therefore the country) has “turned to the right.” It does prove that people want a leader with a strong voice, even if only to argue with it.

No one expects Obama to imitate Christie’s in-your-face, bull-in-the-china-shop shtick. But they have waited in vain for him to stand firm on what matters to him and to the country rather than forever attempting to turn non-argumentative reasonableness into its own virtuous reward. It’s clear now the shellacking was not the hoped-for wake-up call. For starters, Obama might have robustly challenged the election story line pushed by the G.O.P. both before and after Nov. 2 — that deficit eradication and tax cuts for all are voters’ No. 1 priority. Repeating it constantly — as McConnell and John Boehner do, brilliantly — does not make it true. But the myth becomes reality if there’s no leader to trumpet the counternarrative.

<...>

So now Rich is hyping Christie to portray the President as weak?

[veganlush]

2. did you read it?

[ProSense]

5. Yes, I read it

It's beyond ridiculous. Why the hell is Rich propping up this idiot who is pissing people off in NJ daily? His approval rate is on the decline. In fact, the President is more popular here.

[jaxx]

3. Frank quit asking the President to act like a teabagger.

What the hell's wrong with you?

[Name removed]

6. Deleted message

Message removed by moderator. Click here to review the message board rules.

[jaxx]

7. Franks the one sounding ridiculous.

Tone it down? Not a chance.

[Skittles]

9. no, Frank makes perfect sense

[jaxx]

10. I can't help you.

[Skittles]

12. I am not the one who needs help

[jaxx]

13. ;-)

[DainBramaged]

33. (sigh)

More of the same ole same ole....

[Bluebear]

24. Cenk's an idiot, Frank is a fucking moron....

everybody is brain dead except for Dreamy McDreamboat.

[WillyT]

36. LOL !!!

:rofl:

:hi:

[somone]

4. Partner, accomplice, or victim?

Whatever the case, he needs to step aside in 2012.

[PurityOfEssence]

22. Caterer

This is embarrassing. He's already given them his lunch money; now they're gonna want his bike and his Pokeman cards.

They'll get 'em, too...

[polichick]

8. If it is a sort of Stockholm Syndrome, that's really sad...

...I'd almost rather it be that the prez is comfortable with corporate power and Republicanesque policies.

[ProSense]

11. Rich could stand to read this:

Please drop the "weak Obama" meme

[DainBramaged]

34. You don't have his audience, and he is way smarter than all of us

sorry to inform you.

Oh and do you believe in extending the Bush tax cuts for millionaires?

[bigtree]

14. all these folks, never elected to anything, never had the responsibility

. . . so easy for them to act as if they know what it takes to get the things they argue for enacted; and all of them immediately, of course. Talk.

Oh, and the cute little name-calling insults . . . that's what these keyboard politicians do best.

[WhaTHellsgoingonhere]

17. Are you referring to Obama?

"all these folks, never elected to anything, never had the responsibility to get the things they argue for enacted"

If you are referring to Obama, you're spot on :thumbsup:

Maybe we should have run someone who had already been elected to something like governor, or even mayor of a major city, or at least someone with a track record of battling and winning some of the battles. Someone who had been in the trenches and cut his chops so to speak. We didn't. We didn't support a tenacious fighter like Gov. Dean in 2004 or Kucinich in 2008. Like the Dems who are too afraid to force a vote prior to an election for fear we will lose seats (which they did anyway), we're too afraid of backing someone we fear will lose. Is the fear ever justifiable? Not certain. What is certain is we settle for less each time.

Senator Obama beat Senator Clinton, who also would have drubbed Senator McCain. McCain had little to actually do aside from breaking Bush's record for most days on vacation. And he would brag about it. His job was going to be cake.

The Dems were the ones who had an uphill battle. I'm not convinced Clinton would have been more effective than Obama. Obama has surrounded himself with Clintonians, after all.

So, back to your comment, I totally agree with you, bigtree.

[JamesA1102]

15. Rich spent most of 2000 lying about Al Gore

He has no credibility now.

[glitch]

16. I believe he did apologize for that.

FWIW Stockholm Syndrom is the kindest interpretation.

[JamesA1102]

20. No he never did.

He even mocked Gore when An Inconvenient Truth came out.

[glitch]

25. Are you sure? I remember being very unforgiving towards him until he did.

Not that I think he's a great columnist or anything, just no longer holding the 2000 grudge against him. We should be able to offer redemption to those who repent. :evilgrin:

Rich is a mocker, a lot of chaff in his wheat but he does come up with a few kernals now and then. Mostly repetitions of what is being said by better thinkers on blogs, but at least some of it he takes to the "mainstream".

[JamesA1102]

27. Yes I'm sure

http://www.dailyhowler.com/dh060906.shtml

[glitch]

29. Wow, I guess you're right.

I know somebody apologized, now I feel bad that I can't remember exactly who. I've been giving Rich credit for it all these years.

Perhaps another DUer will remember and help me out. :hi:

[Hissyspit]

19. He's been quite credible since then.

Nothing wrong with bringing it up, but it was 10 years ago and he has done much over those 10 years not to just write him off.

[JamesA1102]

21. Fool me once shame on you, Fool me twice shame on me.

And Rich has done nothng to restore his credibility. He is a bloated, elitist, out of touch, wealthy, white guy.

[Bluebear]

23. 'He is a bloated, elitist, out of touch, wealthy, white guy.' - until you specified white....

I thought you were referring to O-man.

[JamesA1102]

28. Lame! nt

[Bluebear]

32. Ignore!

idiot.

[asdjrocky]

18. Lol? Obama? Stockholm Syndeome.

Not at all, it's some of the people here that have Stockholm Syndrome.

[TheKentuckian]

26. Fuckin A

[glitch]

30. True that. I think those who are DLCers are quite happy though.

Leave them to it.

[Slit Skirt]

31. I thought obama was a smart guy

..but his negotiating skills ain't shit

you don't start negotiating from a position of weakness

That is what we see time and time again...it is almost as if it is intentional


Rich is right..attack him all you want, but he is not the only one saying this type of thing

[WillyT]

35. K & R !!! - Wow...This Paragraph...

No one expects Obama to imitate Christie’s in-your-face, bull-in-the-china-shop shtick. But they have waited in vain for him to stand firm on what matters to him and to the country rather than forever attempting to turn non-argumentative reasonableness into its own virtuous reward. It’s clear now the shellacking was not the hoped-for wake-up call. For starters, Obama might have robustly challenged the election story line pushed by the G.O.P. both before and after Nov. 2 — that deficit eradication and tax cuts for all are voters’ No. 1 priority. Repeating it constantly — as McConnell and John Boehner do, brilliantly — does not make it true. But the myth becomes reality if there’s no leader to trumpet the counternarrative.

Yep...

:kick: