Predictably, the hate mail mounts

The hate mail is by now piled up to my knees.

Yet I don't take President Obama's "100-percenters" any more seriously than I did George W. Bush's. There is always, in every presidency, a small but certain contingent that lavishes praise on "their man" no matter the evidence, no matter the circumstances, no matter his conspicuous blunders. "He" must be defended at any cost, even that of Reason's.

For eight years we watched the little Bushies perform this asinine act: George was deceptively brilliant, George was immensely sure and strong, George was right about this and George was right about that; George was, in fact, right about everything. This, the Bushies persisted in screaming, even as the country was so vividly sliding into domestic muck and foreign mire. To suggest otherwise self-branded one as a traitor, a turncoat, a sellout--thus nearly everyone who knew better kept their cowardly mouths shut.

What might have saved George W. Bush's administration? A bit of intellectual honesty from his closest friends. He never got it.

I refuse to betray President Obama that way. He's bumbling badly and stumbling about at the moment, but he can recover. And, as a student of history, Obama knows that the very last thing he should want right now is--a pack of adulatory lies, from his closest betrayers.

Comments

[japa21]

Well, I can honestly say I don't hate you. Disagree, yes. Hate, np.

I don't see Obama as stumbling or bumbling. Nor do I see Obama as perfect. For example, I think the whole Chained CPI thing was poorly handled. Obama allowed the perception to exist that he proposed it, although he didn't. He allowed the perception to exist that he was willing to accept it unconditionally, which he wasn't.

I recognize and appreciate your overall support for him and the administration and your belief that he does want to do the right things. Too many on the left think differently.

I am not going to desert your blog because of my disagreement with you on this issue. I do think a rationale criticism has a valid place. And for the most part, that is what you provide. I just respectfully disagree with your conclusions this time.

[melsouza]

I disagree with your assessment. You yourself have pointed out repeatedly that the Repubs, especially the House GOP, are comprised of self-destructive, irrational loons stuck in a time warp. There was no reason to think that this gang of Cookoo's Nest Escapees was going to become more "reasonable" after the the fiscal cliff line was breached. Obama learned his lesson from 2011: these people are intransigent and unreasonable, and the economy was risking a very vivid downward slump onto the Debt Ceiling and beyond...there was not, and is not, any reason to think that the unreasonable would materialize into the reasonable for the "country's sake", whatever the hell that means in these people's minds. Obama knew this, and did what he could. See Greg Sargent today.

[Robert Lipscomb]

I suspect we are all engaging in premature extrapolation.

The budget is one very long, multivariable, polynomial equation. Then add time functions and political calculus.

I share PM's concerns because they are well founded. My sense is that we have just finished the first quarter of the Super Bowl (Hey, it's college football bowl time.)

I have held for a while now that the budget/tax reform negotiations would be a series of deals, probably about five. The last debt ceiling deal and this deal comprise the first two. It is not clear how the remaining issues will be tranched together for negotiations.

One thing for certain is that no one of any substance on either side of the aisle wants to put everything into effect all at once. This latest round of negotiations was intended to avoid just that. No they must be sequenced from now through, say, 2016 to avoid a sudden jolt that would imperil the recovery.

As for taxes, rates are rates. Calculating taxable income is another part of the equation yet to be addressed. Then are all those tax credits. So, much is left to be done with revenues.

Then there are expenditures.

One more time: Social Security and Medicare are paid with FICA taxes. The SS part is in really good shape. Even the Dem leaders were pushing to restore the old payroll tax rates. Any adjustments there would be minor at most. As for Medicare, there is much to cut there without necessarily appreciably cutting benefits. How about starting by letting the federal government negotiate rates with Big Pharma (including Medicaid which is not paid by FICA)? And there can be considerably more savings from making a very inefficient healtcare system become more efficient.

Or Obama could screw us.

There really isn't much room for cutting Medicaid. In fact Obamacare is expanding that in a revenue neutral means.

That leaves the military-industrial-complex. Even friends of the military are conceding that a 20% reduction would be helpful.

That looks to be shaping up as a lively guns-or-butter debate.

Or Obama could screw us.

I simply don't know which is why I am trying to avoid premature extrapolation of the little data I have.

In this new year I am thanking God for football and this blog.

[closerange]

People may be reacting more to the 'inept, stumbling, bumbling' characterization which suggests incompetence.

The president has come out ahead in every negotiation he has had to date with the Republicans so I see no reason to doubt him now.

What you may be missing, which I believe the president foresaw, is that going over and staying over the cliff gives the GOP the advantage, which gets larger the longer no deal is struck.

The smart play for Boehner would be to demand a 'grand bargain' type deal with draconian cuts to the social programs. The president would resist but if it drags out long enough the economy would slip back into recession. Yes, Repubs would also suffer but the Dem base would suffer the most. The GOP owns the media and are better at messaging so I would defy anyone to tell me that they wouldn't win the 'blame game' as to who was responsible for another recession.

It's just not as simple as you make out.

[JTL]

I'm sorry that you've been receiving hate mail. It seems a rather pointless excercise to send it, especially considering that one of the maxims of the President most of us puport to support is that reasonable people can and should disagree reasonably (or something like that). Resorting to nasty e-mails seems unnecessary to say the least.

I agree with Mr. Lipscomb that we can't know how things are going to shake out until the dust settles, which won't be until after the coming debt limit fiasco is over (at least). I also agree with PM that everything to date indicates that "lines in the sand" drawn by the President seem to be all but meaningless, which is worrisome. My perceived silver lining is that President Obama's achievements in his first term were not insignificant, despite much of the same unrelenting pressure he faces now. Perhaps when this is all over and the hyperventilation has subsided, we will be pleasantly surprised.

Too optimistic?

[AnneJ]

I must be honest, I have deliberately stayed away from these events the past few days, opting to bury myself in family matters and even my dreary part time Wal Mart job (which has a very right wing customer base) to not have to hear the details for fear I would become depressed. Don't know if I've made the right decision or not, and not sure I should ever return again. But now I hear Obama is not going to negotiate on the debt ceiling, but if past behavior is any prediction of future behavior, I don't hold much confidence in his ability to stand his ground.

[pamelabrown53]

Dear p.m.,

Please ignore the nasty e-mails and get back to your plucky, erudite commentary. I don't agree with you on this issue but so what? You make me think and question my assumptions: that's a good thing.

So please, I hope you quit feeling the need to defend yourself and get back to your inimitable analysis which I so enjoy.

[W Caulfield]

I'm still here, and not sending any emails. I'm with AnneJ in that I ignored it all for a week's holiday, and it was quite refreshing.

I think the main problem we all have with the President is the "Line in The Sand" syndrome. We cheer when he makes one and are disappointed when he lets it be crossed. Now on to the debt ceiling, his new line in the sand. Judging from recent events, who can be optimistic about the outcome?

[Jason]

@pamelabrown: Well said!

[Chris Andersen]

PM, you are falling into a very familiar trap. People disagree with your assessment of the situation. You are interpreting that disagreement as being founded in irrationality because, after all, if it were rational they would agree with your? Right?

Well, maybe you are just wrong.

It happens. If you are going to continue being taken seriously as a commentator you have to be able to admit that you might be wrong in any assessment you make. And that your critics might be right.

But, if you insist in following down the "my critics are idiots because they disagree with me" then you will quickly destroy any value you have as a reasonable commentator.

[Smartypants]

What Chris said.

So you got nasty emails...big deal.

But then you turn around and compare your critics to Bush idolators. Pot - meet kettle.

This really should be beneath you.

[PM]

How I grieve sloppy retorts. I wasn't complaining about anyone disagreeing with ME (hence the "yet"), which is only to be expected. I was complaining about a "small but certain contingent" that NEVER disagrees with Obama, which is just a white flag of intellectual autonomy.
--PM

[Peter G]

It does not bother me that you and I disagree about this matter. My admiration remains undimmed. What's really bothering me is that Ed Schultz does seem to agree with me and if that doesn't give one pause to re-examine one's belief I don't know what would.

[Beauzeaux]

There are a number of things that I disagree with Obama about. Not surprising, I'm waaaay to the left of him in general.
However, I am 70 years old and I've been active in politics since the 1964 Presidential elections so I view the current situation through a 50-year lens.
As a result, I'm a good deal more positive about President Obama. While I don't agree with many of his positions I have little to quibble with his actions.
(I don't support the drone strikes.)
Today's political climate makes it much more difficult to govern.
Aside from the GOP freak show, everything in DC is over-analyzed and examined minutely like the ancient Romans examining chicken entrails for clues to the future. Every rumor (media mother's milk), no matter how ridiculous has to be put under the microscope and scanned for any signs of truthiness.

By the time something actually happens in the reality-based world many people don't seem to know what the original issue was about.

I pre-date the Internet (and television in any real sense), and I tend to be skeptical of rumors in general and reports from "a White House source" or "a Congressional staffer" in particular.

So far I think the President has done some excellent things. His actions show a lot and as my fourth-grade teacher in a one-room schoolhouse used to say "Bullshit walks!"
(He didn't really but I'm sure he wished he could.)