Saturday, October 02, 2010

I would rather read David Frum (or another intelligent conservative) than Tom Friedman:

Friedman's latest op-ed is puerile. It's a tough competition, but this column is one of his worst. Excerpts:
President Obama has not been a do-nothing failure. He has some real accomplishments.

... a president who won a sweeping political mandate, propelled by an energized youth movement and with control of both the House and the Senate — about as much power as any president could ever hope to muster in peacetime — was only able to pass an expansion of health care that is ... suboptimal ..., a limited stimulus ..., and a financial regulation bill that [is inadequate]. Plus, Obama had to abandon an energy-climate bill altogether ...

Obama probably did the best he could do, and that’s the point. The best our current two parties can produce today — in the wake of the worst existential crisis in our economy and environment in a century — is suboptimal, even when one party had a huge majority.

We need to ... start building a superconsensus to do the superhard stuff we must do now.

We have to rip open this two-party duopoly and have it challenged by a serious third party ...
No mention of the mechanics behind the legislation. No mention of Republican opposition or the Congressional rules that facilitate it. No mention of the role the press (right-wing and otherwise) has on the debate. The Friedman solution is a super-supermajority third party is never going to happen. He might just as well have called for intervention by advanced beings from the Andromeda Galaxy. Why does the New York Times pay this guy for worthless opinions?


Quiddity - you missed one that most of us (myself included) missed the first time we read this rancid bile:

"about as much power as any president could ever hope to muster in peacetime"

Somebody better tell Tommy that we've still got a few Friedman units to go in Afghanistan. And, funny how no one is mentioning that the Republican'ts are pulling this socialist unamerican nonsense about Obama during wartime, don't you think? IOKIYAR in its' truest, most arrogantly hypocritical form as far as I'm concerned...

By Anonymous (: Tom :), at 10/04/2010 6:33 AM  

How do you simultaneously have a superconsensus and split the electorate into three parties?

Perhaps the Democrats should give up on the idea of total uberdomination of the government and start looking for ways to attract a handful of Republicans to vote for their legislation. How hard is it to come up with a compromise that attracts one freaking Republican vote. One vote! But no. Every single bit of legislation has to be a turbocharged thermonuclear battering ram up the ass of the Republicans.

If you cannot attract a single stray vote from the opposition, then you are nowhere near building a superconsensus.

By Anonymous jms, at 10/05/2010 5:04 PM  

JMS, after the last decade, the Republican party deserves a thermonuclear battering ram up its ass. Problem is, many of them would enjoy it.

You can't get a single vote from Republicans because they are without a doubt the most disciplined party in history. Snowe is probably more liberal than some of the red-state Dems, but she NEVER breaks from the party.

Friedman seems to think that there's some untapped surplus of people willing to treat politics like actual adults.

Sorry Tommy, but there's only mewling, whiny-ass tittie babies like JMS on the right.

By Anonymous Al Swearengen, at 10/07/2010 4:31 PM  

Post a Comment