Lindsey Graham Wants Obama to Come 'Back to the Middle' He Never Left
Lindsey Graham apparently thinks that President Obama hasn't reached out to Republicans quite enough and that him "governing from the left" is the source of his woes and those of Democrats this midterm election. Former C&L contributor Steve Benen broke down this nonsense much better than I am capable of over at his blog at the Washington Monthly.
The Bogus Narrative That Will Only Get More Ubiqutous:
Sen. Lindsey Graham (R-S.C.) thinks he knows exactly what would improve President Obama's political fortunes. Take a wild guess what he suggests.
"The only way the president could possibly survive is come back to the middle," Graham said on NBC's "Meet the Press." [...]
Graham accused Obama as running as a centrist but governing "from the left," acquiescing to the politics and agenda of the House.
The South Carolinian added that the White House's agenda has been the "most liberal agenda of modern times."
To prove his point, Graham noted that the administration has prepared to try terrorists in criminal courts on American soil. Of course, the Bush/Cheney administration did the exact same thing, without complaint from Republicans like Graham, but it's "tone-deaf" liberalism now because, well, Graham says so. He added that the president is "certainly tone deaf on the economy," though he didn't say why.
It's an absolute, guaranteed, mortal lock that if Republicans make huge gains in the midterms, as seems likely, Graham's rhetoric will be the accepted conventional wisdom, if it isn't already. Pundits, politicians, and the establishment in general will simply accept as fact that Dems would have fared far better if only they hadn't governed "from the left." Obama, we'll hear, has no choice but to go "to the middle."
And every time this nonsense is repeated, an angel will lose its wings. [...]
The conventional wisdom will be that liberalism did Democrats in, despite all evidence to the contrary, and despite the fact that liberals were right, especially about the economy. And we'll be reminded again as to why the accepted political truths are often neither conventional nor wise.
The sorry fact here is that as Steve acknowledges, I think this is already the Villagers' conventional wisdom. I expect as he does for it to get worse if the Republicans get back either the House or the Senate.
Transcript via NBC below the fold.
GREGORY: Is there room for compromise on tax cuts? Say, if the president were to extend all the tax cuts for a period of a couple of years, would that be able to attract Republican support?
GRAHAM: It might. There's certainly some room to compromise on the death tax. In January it goes back to 55 percent, at the end of this year it's at 0. So maybe you could find a way to compromise on the death tax to have something below 55 percent, a $5 or $6 million exemption for American families out there that would prevent devastation to small business and family farms. But if the--the idea of increasing taxes now, David, makes no sense to most people. And the agenda the president and his Democratic colleagues has offered the country has increased the deficit, increased the role of the federal government. And he ran as a centrist, and most Americans would say, "Well, I never believed he would do all this." And everything has been so partisan. There was a bipartisan bill on health care, Wyden-Bennett, that was rejected. Senator McCain had a $450 billion stimulus bill. But we didn't go down any of these compromise roses--roads, just big government, more spending. And the Democrats don't have a whole lot to talk about going into November other than more debt and more government.
GREGORY: Well, let's talk about November and let's talk about the political landscape. Do you think there is irrational exuberance among Republicans who think they're going to take over the House and perhaps even the Senate? Or do you think the Democratic control is indeed in jeopardy?
GRAHAM: I think if we voted tomorrow we would do very well. But the truth of the matter is that most of this is a rejection of a Democratic agenda that did not meet the expectations that President Obama created about a new way of doing business. The healthcare bill not only is a monstrosity in terms of growing the government and cutting out the private sector, the way it was passed was sleazy. Every old Washington trick was used to pass the healthcare bill. But, from a Republican point of view, we need to bring checks and balances, tell the American people if we get back in control, we're going to check this Obama agenda that has no limits and we're going to bring about balance by controlling spending, relooking at the healthcare bill, and trying to be more fiscally responsible. But a lot of this has to do without people saying--with people saying no to the Democrats, not saying yes to the Republicans.
GREGORY: Well, so what happens then in the fall? Do you think Republican control--or rather, Democratic control is in jeopardy?
GRAHAM: Yes. I think if the election were held tomorrow, it would be. There's a couple of months to go, and at the end of the day, I don't know what their agenda's going to be between now and November. But what they've done in the past no one seems to like. The healthcare bill is not being talked about by any Democrat. The stimulus bill has been an absolute flop. So I don't know what they do between now and November other than run against us.
GREGORY: Right. Isn't part of the issue, though--you talk about the ways of Washington. Do you think anybody's going to look at Washington and absolve Republicans for opposing just about everything the president proposed?
GRAHAM: I'm glad we--well, there was a better way. There was a bipartisan approach to health care that was rejected. There was a $450 billion stimulus package that cut taxes, helped the unemployed, and did infrastructure projects. They've rejected this approach. They've gone hard to the left, and now they have nothing to show for their efforts but bigger government and more debt. There was a better way; they chose not to go that way. Now they own this agenda that I think has been the most liberal agenda in modern times. And, at the end of the day, the public is not in the left ditch, they're not in the right ditch, they're in the right center of the road. And the only way the president can possibly survive is come back to the middle. He's tone deaf. Putting KSM on trial in New York City made no sense. Interjecting himself into the mosque debate made no sense. He's tone deaf on terrorism issues, and he's certainly tone deaf on the economy.


the only reason you bat-shite crazy knuckle-dragging Neanderthal fundamentalist American Taliban sociopathic misogynistic Republicans use such an in-artful description of President BH Obama as governing from the Left instead of the Center-Right where Obama has always been is to disguise just how much in common there is between the center-right side of the Democratic Party and the center-left/left-most side of the Republican Party. The differences are thin and sharp enough to shave with.
That lack of differentiation, should it become apparent to your rank-and-file voters, would confuse them and might just dissuade them from coming out to vote this November 2, 2010. And without an energized, albeit largely zombie, base voting this fall, the Republican Party might actually lose some Congressional seats.
"Those who make peaceful revolution impossible will make violent revolution inevitable."
-- John F. Kennedy
Republicans whine and whine about some *liberal* policy that actually isn't very liberal at all and the Democrats always respond by moving to the right. They've played this game for 20 years and have been so successful with it that the Democratic Party is now further right than the Reagan administration on many issues. Of course the main reason this tactic been so successful is that the MM allows them to get away with it.
Captain, should we raise the shields? The ship's Gaydar just came on.
"Anyone that makes less than $150K in this country, has no business voting Republican."
given him any reason whatsoever to depart from that middle ground?
Hasa Diga Eebowai
Do you?
Rallies at the Lincoln Memorial, not against Obama, but for things like single payer or the public option, the repeal of DADT (more importantly, a law, rather than an executive order), the closure of Gitmo. Bodies impress them in DC more than letters and calls to their offices- and a whole helluva a lot more than comments in the blogosphere.
Don't try to confuse the issue with half-truths and gorilla dust.
liberal/progressive protests and demonstrations.
Oh, they are being shown......as extreme left. FEAR!!!!!
Bite my shiny metal ass.
http://www.startalkradio.net/
I don't give a toss.
..if you have a rally, the POTUS and the Speaker of the House might show up to it. Again, not talking about demonstrating against something, but for something.
Don't try to confuse the issue with half-truths and gorilla dust.
There were countless demonstrations against the Vietnam War, and none of them resulted in even the slightest change in troop levels. In 2003, something like a million people showed up on London streets to prevent the U.K. from joining in the Iraq War, and Tony Blair sent British troops anyway. Clearly most politicians have their own ideas and will implement them regardless of what the people think. The only recourse the people have then is to vote politicians out of office. Unfortunately, American society has become so conservative - and I mean in a general, not political sense - that most voters are resistant to any sort of change and keep right on supporting politicians they agree are bad. What can be done to change this situation is anybody's guess, but demonstrations certainly aren't going to accomplish anything.
Didn't you see the reaction of the more centrist and Blue Dog Democrats after the Town Hall Rants of '09 and any time the Teabaggers show up in DC en masse?
We're not talking about hippies & yippies trying to impress Nixon and Dixioecrats here, we're talking about progressives flexing their muscles in front of a Democratic Congress and POTUS.
Don't try to confuse the issue with half-truths and gorilla dust.
So how was the media coverage? I can't remember that one at all. Maybe that's because i'm not in America. I can not remember any coverage here at all (Europe)
Bite my shiny metal ass.
http://www.startalkradio.net/
I don't give a toss.
It was blanket coverage for the Vietnam protests, 3/4 blackout for Iraq. But I don't think that the media blackout for the Iraq protests had as much to do with right/left politics, but with ratings for coverage in Iraq- ya know, advertising fees.
Don't try to confuse the issue with half-truths and gorilla dust.
"Didn't you see the reaction of the more centrist and Blue Dog Democrats after the Town Hall Rants of '09"
Well. i guess that's about Iraq. Or maybe i'm ill informed and the Vietnam war is still going on. Joking aside, the formers of course.
"had as much to do with right/left politics"
You don't? America is all about left and right. If i did not knew history i would think America invented the bloody thing. It's left or right, no gray. Left right left right etc.... It's like a fecking parade.
Bite my shiny metal ass.
http://www.startalkradio.net/
I don't give a toss.
at least not in a significant manner, what it is deemed as "left" in this country would be recognizable as "center" (in the best of cases) in the EU.
CTHULHU 2012 "Why vote for a lesser evil?"
I gues msnbc is as left it can get.
But when i want fucking news i want fucking news, not some partisan news hack crap!
What about renaming your channel to "pundits that that say crap that reflects there own stupid agenda" or something. Or a "bunch of people that say crap and than just wank over how great they are".
"i'm blond and just say whatever the network wants me to say"
Bite my shiny metal ass.
http://www.startalkradio.net/
I don't give a toss.
The townhall meetings were where the Goons of August (v2009) were screaming about death panels and keeping the government's hands off their Medicare.
And, actually the 1950s through the 1970s weren't so much left, right, left, right. There was a lot of centrist bipartisanship on some pretty progressive legislation. The partisanship became ugly and entrenched when Reagan was elected in 1980.
Don't try to confuse the issue with half-truths and gorilla dust.
*Centrist* Democrats would be taking RW positions whether or not there were any teabaggers. Those people just make it more convenient for them to oppose their own party.
the Dem party. Refuse delivery on this fact all you want, but that doesn't change the outcome. They are what they are--Republikans! "Centrist?" Right.
Apparently, Mr. Obama reaaaaally wanted implement a liberal administration, but it must be all them bullies on the left who drove him to the center-right. For shame! He tried, he really tried! It must be the left's fault of course.
CTHULHU 2012 "Why vote for a lesser evil?"
First, of course, you have to realize that with a single exception no president can ever or has ever initiated and carried through progressive agenda that would suit a progressive. And Teddy Roosvevelt, a Republican, was only able to do that because he didn't have to run for president the first time. The fact is no truly progressive idea can ever be brought to reality until it has been dragged before the public and thrashed out in public. Only when such ideas become mainstream do they ever result in legislation to make them a reality. Women's suffrage, civil rights, environmental regulation..you name it. They all started as apparently radical ideas that caught the imagination of the public and ultimately were embraced by that great unwashed middle so despised by self-described progressives. When they become mainstream they become law.
The process is long and laborious. You cannot change this but you can use it. I've often said that I am perfectly comfortable having lots of people to the left of me. It is their voices bringing the new ideas into the public forum. I criticize the hell out of them until I am persuaded they are right. Politically the art is to get people to stop asking why something should be dared to why not. I suggest you keep shouting your lungs out to secure things like single payer universal health care. If you don't go for it you won't get it. It is perfectly fine to reject incremental improvements as insufficient to meet whatever agenda you personally embrace but when you do you sacrifice all progress. If the process is insufficiently fast to suit you then the proper tactic is to work to bend the political party most in tune with your aspirations towards your views, This is what C&L does and I like the kind of people they choose for backing.
The best strategy is to make your case as frequently and as loudly as possible and to build your case for things like health care on rational argument. Treating every disappointment as proof that your views are unheard and your faith betrayed is unsound and unproductive. Accept that you are likely on the leading edge of where things need to be and keep shouting. It isn't necessarily the president you have to persuade or even your local representative but more likely your fellow citizens. When you have brought those new ideas to consensus you'll get them. I read what Andy K said. Do that. Resist the urge to surrender to disappointment or cynicism.
Hasa Diga Eebowai
Nice. you give me hope.
and then there's freequark! ;)
One step at a time.
"Government by organized money is just as dangerous as Government by organized mob"
-= Franklin Delano Roosevelt =-
Or do you already have one?
Are you selling your extras?
What is your conceptual, continuity?
If Obama keeps on with these Bush-like policies, I'm following Harry Truman's advice and voting Republican in November.
"The people don't want a phony Democrat. If it's a choice between a genuine Republican, and a Republican in Democratic clothing, the people will choose the genuine article, every time; that is, they will take a Republican before they will a phony Democrat, and I don't want any phony Democratic candidates in this campaign." - Harry S. Truman, Address at the National Convention Banquet of the Americans for Democratic Action (May 17, 1952)
I'll accept a pragmatic centralist in these wing-nut times we live in, lest we truly drive over that cliff that Obama had spared us from to date.
"Government by organized money is just as dangerous as Government by organized mob"
-= Franklin Delano Roosevelt =-
After the insulting "professional left" comments by Obama's press person everyone knows Obama is straight down the middle, if not slightly to wrong/right. These half brained thugnuts can't even lie well anymore, hope their disinhearted base stays home this Nov. Graham and McCain, dumb and dumber. Can m$m give us new faces for the tribalist party, nah that would require some brain cells.
Nobody lies unless they have to. Republicans have to lie to survive.
"Government by organized money is just as dangerous as Government by organized mob"
-= Franklin Delano Roosevelt =-
Why aren't they called out on this every time they do it, which is continuously? David752 is right. There really is no difference between most DC pols, regardless of which party they choose to align themselves with. All they want is for the gravy train to continue. That's the common goal. What we need are politicians that know how to throw a punch. Enough of the "make nice," "go along to get along," coalition. The majority of the current Dems are just a willing backboard for the GOP to bounce their lies off of. They could fight back if they wanted to, but they just don't want to do it. Let the GOP take everything ASAP. The sooner everyone feels the pain down here in the mass of humanity, the sooner they'll stop fighting for these weasels and fight for themselves. The stupidity is overwhelming. The actual concern for real people is underwhelming.
...I agree with you.
As I pointed out on a message board not long ago (not sure if it was C&L or elsewhere), the base salary alone for a first-term Congresscritter already puts these characters in the top 3% in terms of household income. Let's remember the fact that Congresscritters also don't need to pay for a lot of mundane things such as their own gasoline or health care, things which are either paid for by lobbyists -- when he retired from Congress, Trent Lott bragged that he hadn't paid for his own lunch in thirty years -- or by the taxpayers (since a lot of them have taxpayer-provided cars and drivers at their disposal). And this is before you take such things as spousal income, the cash value of their benefits, gifts from lobbyists, speaking fees for engagements, etc. into account -- not to mention the fact that many of them were already quite well off financially before they even ran for office, because you more or or less have to be these days in order to run a successful campaign for Congress! Let's face it, people...the reason why these people are working on behalf of the elite is because they ARE the elite! Is it any wonder that so many of them have forgotten their duty to the rest of the American people and are completely out of touch with the way in which average Americans live???
Some people have feebly protested over the years that Congressional salaries need to be high, because otherwise these people might simply go work in the private sector where they could make more money, but really...there's really no reason to believe that the Founding Fathers ever intended Congress to be a lifetime career. For that matter, given that these people are probably already in the top 1% or higher in terms of overall household income, it isn't as if these people can realistically hope to climb that much higher in the private sector. Unfortunately, it's unlikely in the extreme that we'll ever get Congressional term limits since this would probably require an amendment to the Constitution...and even if we tried to get such an amendment passed through the second method (which does an end-run around Congress), it's highly unlikely that two-thirds of all state legislatures would agree for the need to call a Constitutional Convention since many state legislators hope to serve in Congress one day!
Never trust anyone who insists that patriotism requires you to blindfold yourself with the flag.
How do I get the job?
Diabolus est Deus Inversus
Just post your CV at Dev_null@whatever.com
Edit: that's not a real e-mail btw. just saying :p
Bite my shiny metal ass.
http://www.startalkradio.net/
I don't give a toss.
He was a great loss to C&L but is doing excellent work in his new post. The man is as shrewd as they come politically and has a fine grasp of the art of the possible.
Hasa Diga Eebowai
Please help America by voting Democratic in November.
"Government by organized money is just as dangerous as Government by organized mob"
-= Franklin Delano Roosevelt =-
But Obama is on the right side of the middle. WTF is Lindsey Graham talking about?
Bite my shiny metal ass.
http://www.startalkradio.net/
I don't give a toss.
I need all the help I can get on this site here, they claim Obama was "whining" in his speech today:
http://www.dallasnews.com/sharedcontent/dws/d...
Diabolus est Deus Inversus
Hey Linsey...cut the BS, we all know where you're coming from....the American People are not that stupid...maybe your supporters are, but we're not. Why don't you shut your piehole, step aside and let us move forward and fix everything you and the right wing republican have screwed up in the past thirty years!!!
Lindsey just loves his rich elite life.
He would sell his soul to keep it.
"Government by organized money is just as dangerous as Government by organized mob"
-= Franklin Delano Roosevelt =-
sounds like Glenn Beck forgot about the importance of 9/11, and will announce the almighty savior for us. Thank you, Glenn!
I don't know which is worse. Lindsay saying Obama is libral, or Obama not really being libral? It's so confusing. What I know, what I feel is neither of them are anywhere NEAR progressive, or Libral. What does it matter? I am not voting for a wolf in sheeps clothing. Not again. Fool me once shame on you. Fool me twice shame on me. If there isn't a progressive on the ticket. I am not voting.
Education is that which remains when everything learned in school has been forgotten. - Albert Einstein
"If there isn't a progressive on the ticket. I am not voting."
You better stop voting then!
Bite my shiny metal ass.
http://www.startalkradio.net/
I don't give a toss.
"The only way the president could possibly survive is come back to the middle," ....
The only way you've survived is by staying in the closet. Talk about tone deaf.....
"Egotism is the anesthetic that dulls the pain of Stupidity" - Frank Leahy
"Lindsey Graham wants Obama to come back to the middle..."
I, too, would love to see Obama come back to the center - then keep going until he gets to at least the center-left.
The President needs no advice from a man who would sell out his constituents to join in with his "friends on the hill" who vowed to make Obama FAIL. Once a statesman, Graham lost his way. That's ashame, but the President had to do what he had to do to put the country the right track and the Senate repugs fought him every step of the way. There is no middle for the repugs, there is only the RIGht to GRAHAM and his bunch of cronies.
CarmanK
"Middle class societies don't emerge automatically as an economy matures, they have to be CREATED through political action." Paul Krugman.
There is no middle. There is a vast chasm between sanity and the insane right wing. If the past two years have shown you nothing else, it is that the republicans are not interested in ANY middle. There is no room in their vacant corporate approved ideology for a middle.
Comments are closed on this entry