Democratic Underground Latest Greatest Lobby Journals Search Options Help Login
Google

Why Has Obama Never Recognized the Tea Party?

Printer-friendly format Printer-friendly format
Printer-friendly format Email this thread to a friend
Printer-friendly format Bookmark this thread
This topic is archived.
Home » Discuss » General Discussion: Presidency Donate to DU
 
KoKo Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Wed Aug-03-11 11:26 AM
Original message
Why Has Obama Never Recognized the Tea Party?


David Bromwich

Professor of Literature at Yale

Why Has Obama Never Recognized the Tea Party?


We had thought the country was in disastrous condition in 2008, and that Obama was the man to pull us out of it. We were misinformed. Instead of turning from the Bush-Cheney policies and the Paulson-Geithner policies and treating them as an aberration, he ratified the former by opening a chapter of new wars in Pakistan, Yemen, and Somalia, and rewarded the latter by turning the infection-carriers into certified physicians. Who was Barack Obama after all? A young politician who excelled at giving sonorous utterance to prepared words (every mass address of the 2008 campaign was done with a teleprompter) and who could defend with ad-lib competence a law or program developed by a suitable conglomerate of others. But Obama lacks the ability to explain a policy or a predicament. He cannot argue. He cannot occupy a position and fight to hold it. He cannot mimic or humor or deflate, or detect those hidden points of leverage that may reshape a public discussion by the force of wit and invention. Not will not, but cannot. It is a kind of ability impossible to hide.

He does not use the authority he has; what hope from entrusting him with more authority? The coming social catastrophe, whose seeds are borne by the terms of a new austerity directed against the poor, the weak and the unlucky, was facilitated by a Democratic president and a Democratic senate with public opinion on their side. And yet, by the end of the discussions Obama had worked himself down to a position where only surrender was possible. We have had two and a half years of his presidency now, and if the strength was there, we would have seen it. That is why so many Democrats contemplate a vote for Obama in 2012 with a sense of appalled inevitability.

President Obama is a charming listener and a pleasing talker. All the evidence from Harvard, from Chicago, from his brief and uneventful career in the Senate tells the same story. The gift required of a leader in a time of crisis -- that is, to explain the reason of public matters honestly and answerably -- was what we looked for in 2008. Six presidents among the original founders had that gift; but they were the race of giants before the flood. Lincoln, too, had the gift in words he wrote himself; FDR had it in words written by others; Kennedy, at the end of his life, was beginning to show it. Obama likes to compare himself to Lincoln but the president he most nearly resembles is Clinton -- but it is Clinton without the knowledge of politics, without the passion for politics, without the sheer tenacity of devotion to the game of politics. Clinton beat his Tea Party and humbled their leader within a year of their midterm victory, and their only revenge was an impeachment which they also lost. Obama has awarded his opponents a hostage, the economy, which they won't release in a year, or two years, or ten.

We mistook Obama for a man of strong convictions. Why? Because he has an aesthetic admiration for people with strong convictions, people with names like Gandhi and King. Yet the emotion of conviction -- a feeling that will not let you go -- is foreign to him now and probably always was. The broad programs to which he thought he adhered, and talked as if he believed in, he has sold down the river. In his recent press briefings, he has seemed shaken and depressed. He has wondered aloud why he should go on being president. This may be the first time a sitting president who sought re-election has made such a confession in public. So the Democratic Party is leaderless. And the enthusiasts of the Tea Party, who did not deserve the debt-ceiling victory Obama handed them, do deserve the explanation that he has denied them. An explanation and an argument addressed to something more than people who cling to their guns and religion, people who are bought off by big money, people who swallow the ridiculous ads they see on TV. Who now will dare to tell them why anyone thinks differently?

MORE of ARTICLE...Clips of Obama re the TeaParty at..........

http://www.huffingtonpost.com/david-bromwich/obama-tea-party-debt-deal-_b_916694.html
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
onehandle Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Wed Aug-03-11 11:43 AM
Response to Original message
1. Because capitulation = Re-election.
If not to him, then to whoever at the White House is whispering in his ear.

Nothing is more important to this White House than re-election.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
bigwillq Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Wed Aug-03-11 11:47 AM
Response to Original message
2. Cause they're not a real party?
:shrug:
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
TheCowsCameHome Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Wed Aug-03-11 11:51 AM
Response to Original message
3. Recognized as?
They are no party. They have no organized, central core. Their names do not appear on ballots.

They are cowards that get others to do their bidding.

They hide in the shadows, usually behind republicans.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
ProSense Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Wed Aug-03-11 11:57 AM
Response to Original message
4. Does the writer
want the President to issue an official proclamation declaring "a movement...funded with seed money from right-win billionaires, the Koch brothers, and promoted on Fox News and turned into a stalking horse for this right-wing agenda" (Al Gore) an official party?

From the OP:

"So the Democratic Party is leaderless. And the enthusiasts of the Tea Party, who did not deserve the debt-ceiling victory Obama handed them, do deserve the explanation that he has denied them."

Utter drivel!

Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
DevonRex Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Wed Aug-03-11 12:03 PM
Response to Original message
5. Professor of literature???? Haha. That's who I go to for ALL my political news. SNORT
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
dionysus Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Wed Aug-03-11 01:12 PM
Response to Reply #5
9. and they really knocked it out of the park with the teleprompter line....
Edited on Wed Aug-03-11 01:12 PM by dionysus
:rofl:


:hi:
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
DevonRex Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Wed Aug-03-11 01:30 PM
Response to Reply #9
10. Heh. I skipped right over that.
I hit drivel overload after the first sentence or two. He really talked about teleprompters? :rofl:
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
KoKo Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Wed Aug-03-11 06:08 PM
Response to Reply #9
14. It is a very "intellectual article" by a professor who has written books...Above your Pay Grade?
Sheesh...what a nasty comment... :eyes:
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
dionysus Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Thu Aug-04-11 08:57 AM
Response to Reply #14
25. oh yes, nasty. absolutely vile....
:rofl:
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
DevonRex Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Thu Aug-04-11 09:21 AM
Response to Reply #14
26. No, what's nasty is bringing RW teleprompter idiocy to DU.
Nasty is a pretty simple word. Look it up.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
trueblue2007 Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Wed Aug-03-11 04:37 PM
Response to Reply #5
12. love your post. I'M A SNORTER TOO.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
DevonRex Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Wed Aug-03-11 04:46 PM
Response to Reply #12
13. Sometimes they just pop out, don't they?
:hi:
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
KoKo Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Wed Aug-03-11 06:10 PM
Response to Reply #13
15. Didn't bother to check out his Bio...much less even bother to READ the ARTICLE?
:rofl: back attcha' and a :hi: to you who don't even bother to read...Hey...Life is Good! :D
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
DFab420 Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Wed Aug-03-11 12:05 PM
Response to Original message
6. ...oh yale...
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
BklnDem75 Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Wed Aug-03-11 12:10 PM
Response to Original message
7. Give them legitimacy?
Exactly how is that a winning strategy?
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
blkmusclmachine Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Wed Aug-03-11 12:16 PM
Response to Original message
8. He did. He said: "I know who the TP is." It was right after the election, I believe.
He seemed to be rather upbeat about it. Now we know why.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
BklnDem75 Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Wed Aug-03-11 04:36 PM
Response to Reply #8
11. link?
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
KoKo Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Wed Aug-03-11 06:12 PM
Response to Reply #11
17. Some posters don't read except subject lines...and giving a link requires effort...
we shouldn't blame them...but neither should we enable them... Just my thoughts...for what it's worth.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
MzShantal Donating Member (28 posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Wed Aug-03-11 06:11 PM
Response to Original message
16. WTF??
Why should he?? They don't give a damn about him, me or nonTP America (which excludes you, of course).
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
ProDem4 Donating Member (35 posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Wed Aug-03-11 06:41 PM
Response to Reply #16
18. If you Hated November 2010
November 2012 is gonna be a real SUGARCOATED SATAN SANDWICH
WITH A DEMON DRINK TO WASH IT DOWN.
"sarcasm"
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
DFLforever Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Wed Aug-03-11 07:05 PM
Response to Original message
19. Why the f.. should he?
Why give them the dignity of name recognition?

He has twice in the last week referred directly to an extremist faction in the GOP House.
They're the GOP's problem, not his.


To comment directly on this article:

Public opinion means nothing.. it wafts with the wind...compared to holding the majority in the House of Representatives.

Clinton had majority opinion on his side, including the majority of Republican voters, preceding and during impeachment hearings. But it didn't stop the GOP House from impeaching him, did it?
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
KoKo Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Wed Aug-03-11 07:10 PM
Response to Reply #19
20. Oh Come on...you never bothered to read the article like the ones above
who see something from a Poster they don't like and link to an Article they don't read and assume from Subject Line they have the "License to KILL" to to DITCH THE POST.

Really..this article for folks trying to Understand our President is an "add to the mix..." but NOOOOO they don't want to hear anything. They hit the Poster and a few words of the Link and never bother to READ! It's amusing if it wasn't so sad. Reminds me of the Freepers who jump at everything and just can take time to read that we here on DU have trashed for years...because of their refusal to "open their minds" to other thoughts or critiques that might rattle their "pre-formed" opinions.

Sad to see this on a Democratic Discussion Group..but it is ...what it is. :-(

Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
DFLforever Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Wed Aug-03-11 09:28 PM
Response to Reply #20
24. It's a sad elegy from a depressed professor of
literature. Does it makes any sense? maybe it's from his heart but if I were him I would have confined it to my journal. There's little to discuss except his impressions, none of which I share.

Welfare reform was standing up to Newt Gingrich?

Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
Avalux Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Wed Aug-03-11 08:24 PM
Response to Original message
21. Bah. Am opinion, like many others. Interesting. n/t
Edited on Wed Aug-03-11 08:26 PM by Avalux
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
Tx4obama Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Wed Aug-03-11 08:35 PM
Response to Original message
22. There is no such thing as a teaparty. They are REPUBLICANS
Edited on Wed Aug-03-11 08:37 PM by Tx4obama

The bogus teaparty was a Republican branding strategy, created by republicans, and funded by republicans.

During the 2008 Republican Convention, reporters noted that NO WHERE at the convention was the word 'republican' posted inside the convention hall (banners, signs, etc). Then shortly after that the phrase 'the teaparty' started to appear.

Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
jefferson_dem Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Wed Aug-03-11 08:54 PM
Response to Original message
23. The "Professor of Literature" may know his Mark Twain and Robert Frost...
But he's utterly clueless about American politics.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
DevonRex Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Thu Aug-04-11 09:27 AM
Response to Reply #23
27. And a RWer who used the RW teleprompter BS right in the beginning. nt
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
apnu Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Thu Aug-04-11 09:38 AM
Response to Original message
28. I think he has, they're actually called "The Grand Old Party" (nt)
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
paulk Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Thu Aug-04-11 09:55 AM
Response to Original message
29. good article - articulates what many of us are feeling
"He does not use the authority he has; what hope from entrusting him with more authority? The coming social catastrophe, whose seeds are borne by the terms of a new austerity directed against the poor, the weak and the unlucky, was facilitated by a Democratic president and a Democratic senate with public opinion on their side. And yet, by the end of the discussions Obama had worked himself down to a position where only surrender was possible. We have had two and a half years of his presidency now, and if the strength was there, we would have seen it. That is why so many Democrats contemplate a vote for Obama in 2012 with a sense of appalled inevitability."

You should have posted this in GD - you may actually get some reasoned discussion rather than the usual ad hominems from the O faithful...
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
DU AdBot (1000+ posts) Click to send private message to this author Click to view 
this author's profile Click to add 
this author to your buddy list Click to add 
this author to your Ignore list Tue Apr 30th 2024, 02:17 AM
Response to Original message
Advertisements [?]
 Top

Home » Discuss » General Discussion: Presidency Donate to DU

Powered by DCForum+ Version 1.1 Copyright 1997-2002 DCScripts.com
Software has been extensively modified by the DU administrators


Important Notices: By participating on this discussion board, visitors agree to abide by the rules outlined on our Rules page. Messages posted on the Democratic Underground Discussion Forums are the opinions of the individuals who post them, and do not necessarily represent the opinions of Democratic Underground, LLC.

Home  |  Discussion Forums  |  Journals |  Store  |  Donate

About DU  |  Contact Us  |  Privacy Policy

Got a message for Democratic Underground? Click here to send us a message.

© 2001 - 2011 Democratic Underground, LLC