Bernstein: “The Obama administration has treated Obama’s promise of changing the way business is done in DC as a distraction from his legislative agenda. I suspect they’ll come to regret that perspective.”
Rich: “Obama’s promise to make Americans trust the government again was not just another campaign bullet point; it’s the foundation of his brand of governance and essential to his success in office.”
11-B/20.B4 says:
Trust the government again? Are they all planning resignation followed by ritual suicide?
October 4, 2009, 5:48 pmanonymous says:
It’s a pretty common view, actually.
Even SNL last night had a skit joking about Obama’s lack of change, and most everyone can see how his promises and lack of fulfillment aren’t matching the campaign rhetoric.
Or maybe Rich is just cribbing from your blog? ;-)
October 4, 2009, 7:10 pmloki13 says:
A second? I agree with Bernstein and Rich.
(Not sure if that phrasing works…)
It’s the old saw- can you transform the system best by working within it, or not? Obama held forth the promise of transformative change, of ending business as usual, and once in office I think that he decided that in order to get things done, some compromise was needed with TPTB (the powers that be). I’m not sure it’s surprising, but it is disappointing.
October 4, 2009, 7:11 pmBruce Hayden says:
If anything, this may be the thing that ultimately destroys the effectiveness of the Obama Administration and its large Democratic majorities in Congress. They rode into power at least partially in response to the perceived (thanks to them) then “Culture of Corruption” of the Republicans. Yet, campaign promise after campaign promise about transparency and honesty are being jettisoned. Obama has filled his Administration with crooks and lobbyists (and wacko extremists, but that isn’t the subject of this thread). And things are probably worse in Congress, with crooks running key committees, ethics investigations being squashed, and transparency unheard of. They vote on trillion dollar bills within hours of their being assembled, and long before anyone has had a chance to read them. On and on.
October 4, 2009, 7:21 pmAssistant Village Idiot says:
loki, what would be the evidence that he actually meant it while campaigning on that promise? We red-baiting nutcases rang the tocsin throughout 2008 and turn out to be right again. What are the odds, eh?
October 4, 2009, 7:22 pmtherut says:
This mantra of “trust the government” is just stupid. Liberals do not trust the government. They hate the government just as much as conservatives do when it does not do what they want. One thing that might save this country is that citzens do NOT trust the government on either side of the coin. We are not programmed that way. That would be unheard of. We are a bunch of skeptics lead by a bunch of blowhards. No one really belives a politician.
October 4, 2009, 8:25 pmChrisTS says:
I am not wowed by President Obama’s success in eliminating all the ills of our government processes, but he has made some inroads. At least we get the occasional publication of a signing statement.
And, the ‘Culture of Corruption’ was pretty well-evidenced before anyone on Obama’s campaign committee mentioned it. It would be great, of course, if corruption were the vice of only one party. But it is not, and the Republicans got pretty corrupt while in power.
Oh, what’s that old saying …power, corruption, something..?
October 4, 2009, 8:39 pmneurodoc says:
Geez, more than 7 hours after a DB posting and no one has shown up yet to attack him personally. Is it that DB posted to say there is something he agrees with Frank Rich on and none of those who can find little or nothing to agree with DB on can’t figure out where to get any traction here? Maybe if DB had said something about Israel, however offhanded and inconsequential, or he had said that unlike Frank Rich he doesn’t like the theater, or whatever, DB’s regular detractors would have showed up by now. I suppose they may still be on there way.
October 4, 2009, 10:44 pmModa says:
And I guess they’ll find the walls fortified by the manly presence of neurodoc?
October 5, 2009, 3:34 amPersonFromPorlock says:
Obama, as a senator, was patently on the take via (at a minimum) his wife’s hospital ‘job’. Why anyone would expect straight dealing from him is a mystery to me.
October 5, 2009, 4:28 amBT says:
Quote
If I may expand that a bit, why anyone one would think that a go-along-get-along- politician from the south side or any side for that matter of Chicago, would be the embodiment of “Hope & Change”, is beyond me. A great many people were looking for the anti-Bush, so a guy who is black, articulate, very liberal and seemingly bright was their ticket to paradise. It turns out that while Obama may be some of those things, his lack of experience and the rank political calculations he has made once in office have left some of his supporters grieving. Let’s hope that it only lasts for one term.
October 5, 2009, 5:38 amArthurKirkland says:
Let’s hope that it only lasts for one term.
Two terms and five Supreme Court selections, thank you.
October 5, 2009, 5:42 amBT says:
You are a cruel man, Arthur. :)
October 5, 2009, 5:44 amSeaDrive says:
Can anyone supply a list of elected officials other than the President who have been constructive about “changing the system”?
October 5, 2009, 6:42 amHouston Lawyer says:
If Obama had come into office, like Clinton, who had a long history of sleazy behavior that people chose to overlook, things would be different. That Obama’s supporters chose to believe his rhetoric, despite nothing in his past history that showed he would act in accordance with that rhetoric, says more about his supporters than it does about him.
The man is a complete empty suit. All of our friends and enemies now realize that and will act accordingly.
October 5, 2009, 6:50 amGlenn Bowen says:
…but do you agree on drapes?
October 5, 2009, 7:37 amdrunkdriver says:
While I didn’t vote for Obama, and expect I’ll continue to dislike a lot of what he does, it’s way too early to pronounce him an “empty suit” or failure. I take no pleasure in his floundering. Another Jimmy Carter is the last thing this country needs, pleasing as it might be to Republicans politically.
Btw I agree with David’s post– Rich is an incendiary man, but at least he’s got the integrity to call his own side out on their hypocrisy.
Of course, it seems everyone rides into D.C. denouncing lobbyists and promising us some variety of “reform.” Nobody delivers. Maybe the hypocrisy is our own: we denounce candidates cozy with lobbyists but almost never punish them for it.
October 5, 2009, 7:58 ampot meet kettle says:
neurotic duck, maybe what it means that when the purported obamaniacs comment on db’s posts, they are not motivated by personal dislike of db, just by the problematic nature of the posts they are responding to. which would explain why sane criticisms by db are not responded to with meaningless venom. i wouldn’t expect you to understand that sentiment though.
October 5, 2009, 11:35 amGlenn Bowen says:
It wasn’t too early prior to the election, it ain’t too early now.
October 5, 2009, 12:48 pmChrisTS says:
Empty suit, empty [cowboy] hat.
The new boss is the same as the old boss?
October 5, 2009, 12:51 pmloki13 says:
Maybe if DB had said something about Israel, however offhanded and inconsequential, or he had said that unlike Frank Rich he doesn’t like the theater, or whatever, DB’s regular detractors would have showed up by now.
Huh. Posts about Israel/the Middle East are contrversial, and attract some commenters? Who knew?
Prof. Bernstein does some great posts on evidence (Daubert/Frye). I’ve bene trying to avoid his middle east posts for a while because,(strangely enough!) it’s a complicated situation with fierce partisans and tend to devolve into a running debate about bad faith and who did what to whom over the last 100 years. He also posts on another series of topics, which I have titled, “Everything you know is wrong- why progressives/lberals are responsible for everything that is wrong, and conservatives weren’t really to blame.” Amazingly, these are also controversial.
But hey- it’s his forum!
October 5, 2009, 1:34 pmneurodoc says:
Those who have something substantive and of value to contribute address what DB has said, whether that be good, bad, or indifferent, and whether they agree or disagree; those who have little or nothing substantive or of much value tend to address themselves to DB personally, most often in ways that do not serve rationale discourse. The test isn’t how you respond to what you judge to be “sane criticisms by db,” it is how you respond to those you judge not to be “sande criticisms by db,” which is so often with “meaningless venom.” I understand your “sentiment” all too well, indeed better than you do it seems.
October 5, 2009, 7:54 pmneurodoc says:
Yes, not at all surprising that posts about the Israeli-Palestinian conflict and related issues should be controversial and inflame some. What is surprising and disappointing, at least to me, is that so many go beyond taking exception to what DB has said and attack him personally, even carrying it over to DB threads on wholly unrelated subjects.
And yes, it is his forum. So why the idiots who show up time and again to complain that the VC is supposed to be a law blog and DB is posting about non-law subjects, let alone those who intimate that he should go and they should stay?!
October 5, 2009, 8:06 pmneurodoc says:
I think DB does quite well all by himself most of the time, even when he is making a case I don’t agree with. You don’t think so? And on the rare occasion when DB doesn’t (e.g., the other day in the course of a post about Amadinejad’s antecedents, when he foolishly took the bait and went off on a rant about how irritating it was to a libertarian to have athletes competing as representative of their respective nation/states), I can’t save him from himself.
But when you plan to assail the “walls,” give me a heads up and I’ll see if I can make it by to engage with you, provided of course that the challenge is of some interest to me.
October 5, 2009, 8:18 pmpot meet kettle says:
necroduck, yes, i don’t tend to dignify idiocy by treating it respectfully.
anyways, my last post on this topic, although it is tremendously interesting that you are the only person on this post who brought up ad hominems against db, in a post whose absence demolishes the very point you tried to make. especially even in the presence of the troll bait you laid out so artlessly.
October 5, 2009, 9:07 pmneurodoc says:
I’m not sure what “troll bait” is, whether it is bait tossed out by a troll or bait used to catch a troll. Whichever, you bit, posting within less than 24 hours not for the purpose of saying anything about DB and Frank Rich’s shared opinion, but to wittingly or unwittingly (or witlessly) own up to being one of those ad hominem slingers I had in mind, someone who serves up “meaningless venom” (your phrase) when they disagree with what DB has had to say.
Thank you for your help in making my point by offering yourself as an illustrative example. Even the “neuroduck” silliness is helpful in that regard.
October 6, 2009, 10:26 ampot meet kettle says:
necroduck, please. Do not misrepresent me.
Umm, no? My post had no ad hominem against DB at all.
Ahem. My venom is not meaningless in the very least. But it is amusing that I’ve got under your skin so much that you think about me all the time. I’m almost touched.
October 6, 2009, 11:32 amneurodoc says:
The point has been made already, but do feel free to go on underscoring it.
October 6, 2009, 12:57 pmChrisTS says:
Holy Toledo. Neurodoc was angry about the craziness on another DB thread. So, he expressed himself on this thread. Now we have an entirely new craziness.
October 6, 2009, 3:48 pmLeo Marvin says:
pot, whatever the merits of your argument, name-calling isn’t a persuasive way to make it.
October 6, 2009, 4:00 pmpot meet kettle says:
fair enough. apologies to neurodoc for the name-calling.
October 7, 2009, 5:37 pm