Slog
News & ArtsWednesday, October 24, 2012
2012 You Should Read President Obama's Interview with the Des Moines Register
Posted by Paul Constant on Wed, Oct 24, 2012 at 1:14 PM
I'm unsure why, exactly, the Obama campaign wanted President Obama's endorsement interview with the Des Moines Register to be off the record, but I'm glad they quietly reversed their position this morning and released a full transcript. It's well worth your time to read the whole thing. President Obama addresses a number of topics that didn't come up during the debates, like the fiscal cliff...
...we can easily meet — “easily” is the wrong word — we can credibly meet the target that the Bowles-Simpson Commission established of $4 trillion in deficit reduction, and even more in the out-years, and we can stabilize our deficit-to-GDP ratio in a way that is really going to be a good foundation for long-term growth. Now, once we get that done, that takes a huge piece of business off the table.
...his hopes for immigration reform in the second term...
The second thing I’m confident we’ll get done next year is immigration reform. And since this is off the record, I will just be very blunt. Should I win a second term, a big reason I will win a second term is because the Republican nominee and the Republican Party have so alienated the fastest-growing demographic group in the country, the Latino community.
...and his debunking of Mitt Romney's promised first day in office, which is straight out of a teabagger's fairy tale storybook:
[Romney]’s made commitments — his first day he’s got to introduce a bill to repeal Obamacare. And that's a commitment he cannot back off of. That is a huge, messy fight. His first day in office, he has to make some commitments in rolling back things like the Consumer Finance Protection Board we put in place on Wall Street reform. His budget — the Ryan budget — there’s no way that, if he’s president, he can avoid having a showdown on a budget that his running mate introduced, or a variation of it, because he’s committed to cutting spending by 20 percent across the board on discretionary and increasing defense spending by $2 trillion.
Obama also debunks the idea that he squandered a two-year supermajority, and he defends his record with vigor and some inspiring optimism. This is a good interview and you should read it.
1
Yes, sloggers, do read it. Then read Digbys response:
http://digbysblog.blogspot.com/2012/10/t…
You're about to be sold down the river, thrown under the bus and pushed out to sea on an ice flow. Obama wants his legacy to be the "Grand Bargain", robbing from seniors, the poor, the disabled and the vulnerable to increase the profits of the powerful.
Here's the Grand Bargain Obama offered in the debt ceiling negotiations, which had the same four trillion dollar target:
[T]he major elements of a bargain seemed to be falling into place: $1.2 trillion in agency cuts, smaller cost-of-living increases for Social Security recipients, nearly $250 billion in Medicare savings achieved in part by raising the eligibility age. And $800 billion in new taxes.
Now, go do the right thing and vote for a third party candidate of your choice.
http://digbysblog.blogspot.com/2012/10/t…
You're about to be sold down the river, thrown under the bus and pushed out to sea on an ice flow. Obama wants his legacy to be the "Grand Bargain", robbing from seniors, the poor, the disabled and the vulnerable to increase the profits of the powerful.
Here's the Grand Bargain Obama offered in the debt ceiling negotiations, which had the same four trillion dollar target:
[T]he major elements of a bargain seemed to be falling into place: $1.2 trillion in agency cuts, smaller cost-of-living increases for Social Security recipients, nearly $250 billion in Medicare savings achieved in part by raising the eligibility age. And $800 billion in new taxes.
Now, go do the right thing and vote for a third party candidate of your choice.
2
@1,
The United States' method of voting (simple plurality) in presidential elections is not set up to promote multiple parties. Casting a vote for a third party candidate really is a waste.
However bad Obama's "Grand Bargain" might be, anything the republicans would do would be worse.
I'll hold my nose and vote for Obama, thankyouverymuch.
The United States' method of voting (simple plurality) in presidential elections is not set up to promote multiple parties. Casting a vote for a third party candidate really is a waste.
However bad Obama's "Grand Bargain" might be, anything the republicans would do would be worse.
I'll hold my nose and vote for Obama, thankyouverymuch.
3
As if it wasn't bad enough that Obama! uses a TelePrompTer!, now he's talking "off the record"!!!! Oh my Zod, what will come next?
4
That first quote scares the hell out of me. I'm guessing food stamps, pell grants, and a variety of other programs are going to become a thing of the past.
5
ACA is not going to be repealed. Romney knows it, and anyone who believes it is, by definition, an imbecile.
6
I hope all of you who are voting for "the lesser of two evils" or "plugging your nose and voting for the one that isn't as bad" realize you are going to get screwed over. It really is going to be Bill Clinton 2.0 after all.
But I'm sure if you're under 50 your 401K will make you rich beyond your imagination when you do retire. Or perhaps you are planning on working until a week before you expire? Instead of writing off, ridiculing or insulting those who in an Obama safe state are voting Green this year, maybe you should take some time and think about the serious issues with Obama's second term are going to be.
Sure, not as bad as Romney's but not by much.
But I'm sure if you're under 50 your 401K will make you rich beyond your imagination when you do retire. Or perhaps you are planning on working until a week before you expire? Instead of writing off, ridiculing or insulting those who in an Obama safe state are voting Green this year, maybe you should take some time and think about the serious issues with Obama's second term are going to be.
Sure, not as bad as Romney's but not by much.
7
I'm not going to talk about the Grand Bargain based on the Catfood Commission's recommendations until after we've dealt with Romney two weeks from now.
8
@2- the "pragmatism" of voting for the lesser (allegedly) of two evils has accomplished nothing but a slow, steady death march ever rightward. How does repeating that failed tactic change the paradigm? If we always vote from fear for the slightly less rightwing candidate each cycle, and that leads inevitably to more victories for the right and a continuous low level rear guard action to try and defend an ever decreasing pool of rights and benefits... Of what use is the tactic? Your electoral "victories" become increasingly pyrrhic with each new cycle. How do you suggest we arrest the ever downward spiral you advocate?
10
@8, wouldn't getting rid of the Electoral College work? It would get the focus away from the "swing" states that tend to be fucking backwards socially and economically. And in the best case scenario, I would have to think, the Democrats would have to go after more urban voters who are going to be to the left of where the party has been for a couple of generations.
11
Look, it's a nice gesture to vote for some third party candidate in a show of whatever, but it's not a realistic choice. In our system, you get to vote for one person for president, that's it. If you vote for a sure loser, you might as well just write your own name in and vote for yourself. Yeah, sure, you can write in your favorite third who has no chance, and then brag to all your friends how you fought the good fight... and then sit back and watch another republican destroy the country for four years and get re-elected again for another four (and your candidate STILL won't have any chance to win).
Unless and until we switch to a ranked system, voting for third party candidates - no matter how happy it makes you feel - is a wasted vote.
Either Barack Obama or Mitt Romney is going to be president. Period.
In four years, it will be either another moderate democrat or another moderate republican. Period.
In eight years, it will be the same. Same thing in twelve years too.
You're trying to fight the good fight, but you're on the wrong battlefield. You're advocating idealism. Idealism doesn't win elections.
P.S. I'm in Colorado, so I can't afford to make some kind of noble-yet-doomed statement by voting for Jill Stein or Ron Paul or anyone else who has absolutely zero chance of winning and will never, NEVER, be president unless they change and become a moderate republican or moderate democrat.
Sorry if that's painful to hear, but it's the absolute truth.
Unless and until we switch to a ranked system, voting for third party candidates - no matter how happy it makes you feel - is a wasted vote.
Either Barack Obama or Mitt Romney is going to be president. Period.
In four years, it will be either another moderate democrat or another moderate republican. Period.
In eight years, it will be the same. Same thing in twelve years too.
You're trying to fight the good fight, but you're on the wrong battlefield. You're advocating idealism. Idealism doesn't win elections.
P.S. I'm in Colorado, so I can't afford to make some kind of noble-yet-doomed statement by voting for Jill Stein or Ron Paul or anyone else who has absolutely zero chance of winning and will never, NEVER, be president unless they change and become a moderate republican or moderate democrat.
Sorry if that's painful to hear, but it's the absolute truth.
12
@1, 6, 8 - Because, math.
@2 is right (though I won't be holding my nose). First past the post voting ensures that third parties are irrelevant at best and spoilers at worst. The system we have us flawed, granted. The way to change it is to change it, not to effectively cast your vote for the person you agree with the least. There is no positive effect here, except in your feeling of self-satisfaction at the expense of actual people's actual welfare.
@2 is right (though I won't be holding my nose). First past the post voting ensures that third parties are irrelevant at best and spoilers at worst. The system we have us flawed, granted. The way to change it is to change it, not to effectively cast your vote for the person you agree with the least. There is no positive effect here, except in your feeling of self-satisfaction at the expense of actual people's actual welfare.
13
Both candidates advocate what the Indignados in Spain refer to as "presupuestos de la vergüenza", budgets of shame. Both ask that we sacrifice our education, our health, our homes and our old age for the betterment of the financial industry. Both demand working people pay for the irresponsible and immoral acts of a minuscule and criminal elite.
Granted, one of them is so moronic he thinks Iranians have to march across Syria to get to the sea. But that just illustrates how corrupt the two party system has become.
@9 ranked voting is a good start. The best way to achieve that is to create a demand for it... I.e. by voting for third parties.
Granted, one of them is so moronic he thinks Iranians have to march across Syria to get to the sea. But that just illustrates how corrupt the two party system has become.
@9 ranked voting is a good start. The best way to achieve that is to create a demand for it... I.e. by voting for third parties.
14
RObamny's economic plan: Do more of what hasn't worked...but on an increasingly bigger scale.
http://www.zerohedge.com/news/2012-10-22…
(Just kidding, it's actually continue letting the bankers steal everything that isn't nailed down)
http://www.zerohedge.com/news/2012-10-22…
(Just kidding, it's actually continue letting the bankers steal everything that isn't nailed down)
15
@12
"The way to change it is to change it, not to effectively cast your vote for the person you agree with the least."
So how, exactly, do you propose changing it WITHOUT political support from the elected politicians?
"The way to change it is to change it, not to effectively cast your vote for the person you agree with the least."
So how, exactly, do you propose changing it WITHOUT political support from the elected politicians?
16
@4, easy-peezy. Reasonable, and deep, cuts in defense: 1) we don't need billion-dollar warships that can be sunk by million-dollar missiles; advanced fighters didn't do much for us in Iraq or Afghanistan and won't do much in any guerrilla-type war (the "war of the future"); 2) we simply don't need a defense budget (including off-DoD "defense-related" spending and "black budgets") that exceeds all other nations in the world combined. Increased taxes on the rich, and the closing of corporate tax loopholes and silly subsidies.
17
You're trying to fight the good fight, but you're on the wrong battlefield. You're advocating idealism. Idealism doesn't win elections.
Elections are largely irrelevant as avenues for change. Change occurs as a result of movement politics, not electoral politics.
I've voted pragmatically for decades. It's the battlefield they want us on, because its where they have the greatest advantage, because it maintains the status quo.
If you want to go with the battlefield analogy, it is not wise to engage a superior force on their battlefield. You fight a guerrilla war, attacking them on their flanks.
Elections are largely irrelevant as avenues for change. Change occurs as a result of movement politics, not electoral politics.
I've voted pragmatically for decades. It's the battlefield they want us on, because its where they have the greatest advantage, because it maintains the status quo.
If you want to go with the battlefield analogy, it is not wise to engage a superior force on their battlefield. You fight a guerrilla war, attacking them on their flanks.
18
@13,
I disagree that voting for third parties is the best way to create demand for a change in our voting method.
It would have the dreadful side effect of producing years and years worth of shithole politicians while they blocked every attempt to change the system.
Seriously, one of the major functions of the republican party is to make voting as difficult and unpleasant as possible. There's no way they'd just stand aside and allow for a better, more effective method to be implemented.
I disagree that voting for third parties is the best way to create demand for a change in our voting method.
It would have the dreadful side effect of producing years and years worth of shithole politicians while they blocked every attempt to change the system.
Seriously, one of the major functions of the republican party is to make voting as difficult and unpleasant as possible. There's no way they'd just stand aside and allow for a better, more effective method to be implemented.
20
I suspect Obama held that interview "off the record" for two reasons: 1, he would sound extra candid saying things like "And since this is off the record, I will just be very blunt.". And 2, it allowed his team to hold the interview until the very moment they thought they could use it to maximum effect.
Canny.
As to this voting debate: Yep, Urgurtha is right: A ranked voting system, or an "instant run-off" voting style would solve some of the key problems with our system. There should be no doubt.
The real question is: Will we get it? Probably never.
At least until we demonstrate with incredible intensity, for years.
Canny.
As to this voting debate: Yep, Urgurtha is right: A ranked voting system, or an "instant run-off" voting style would solve some of the key problems with our system. There should be no doubt.
The real question is: Will we get it? Probably never.
At least until we demonstrate with incredible intensity, for years.
21
It would have the dreadful side effect of producing years and years worth of shithole politicians while they blocked every attempt to change the system
Um... You just described the current situation... Brought to you by the two party system, no third party input needed...
Um... You just described the current situation... Brought to you by the two party system, no third party input needed...
22
@21
Have you contacted any current elected official to find their stand on such changes? Who and what was their response?
Have you contacted any candidates for elected office to find their stand on such changes? Who and what was their response?
It's one thing to complain about how the system is not working the way you want it to.
It's something else to WORK to get candidates elected who support the changes you want.
What have you done to achieve that?
Have you contacted any current elected official to find their stand on such changes? Who and what was their response?
Have you contacted any candidates for elected office to find their stand on such changes? Who and what was their response?
It's one thing to complain about how the system is not working the way you want it to.
It's something else to WORK to get candidates elected who support the changes you want.
What have you done to achieve that?
23
I think Obama will try a grand bargain. Like Clinton, who was considering making a deal on Social Security, he will fail if the American people stand up against benefit cuts for Social Security and Medicare.
It will be a big fight, progressives against a Democratic president, and it won't be fun. But the alternative is worse--if Romney wins, he has a mandate for voucherizing Medicare, and he'll attack Social Security too, and have just as much chance of success (with much more radical goals) than Obama. And he's bad on everything else, too.
This is a distraction from the task at hand, which is defeating Romney. We can settle our scores with Obama's shortcomings starting on November 7th.
It will be a big fight, progressives against a Democratic president, and it won't be fun. But the alternative is worse--if Romney wins, he has a mandate for voucherizing Medicare, and he'll attack Social Security too, and have just as much chance of success (with much more radical goals) than Obama. And he's bad on everything else, too.
This is a distraction from the task at hand, which is defeating Romney. We can settle our scores with Obama's shortcomings starting on November 7th.
24
@17 "Change occurs as a result of movement politics, not electoral politics."
Exactly right. If you care about real change, get off your butt between elections, encourage good people to run for lower office, get them elected, hold them accountable, work to build solid coalitions, etc. etc.
Voting for third party candidates for national office has nothing to do with effecting real change in this country. It only means helping the side you support least. Do you think the Floridians who voted for Nader should be proud of the changes they brought about?
Exactly right. If you care about real change, get off your butt between elections, encourage good people to run for lower office, get them elected, hold them accountable, work to build solid coalitions, etc. etc.
Voting for third party candidates for national office has nothing to do with effecting real change in this country. It only means helping the side you support least. Do you think the Floridians who voted for Nader should be proud of the changes they brought about?
25
@19,
Election talk is idealistic, no doubt, but the actual mechanisms of electing officials is starkly UNidealistic: whoever gets 270 electoral votes wins, that's it.
Just because someone has great ideas doesn't guarantee their election.
and @21, sure, but simply voting for third parties isn't going to change that.
Election talk is idealistic, no doubt, but the actual mechanisms of electing officials is starkly UNidealistic: whoever gets 270 electoral votes wins, that's it.
Just because someone has great ideas doesn't guarantee their election.
and @21, sure, but simply voting for third parties isn't going to change that.
26
@17 You have no idea what sort of country you live in do you? Get in your moon buggy now and again and take a ride out there beyond the bubble.
We are all aware that the deficit exceeds a trillion dollars are we not? I would like to hear Obama declare that making sure the recovery sticks is vastly more important than deficit reduction but it does need to be wrestled with in the near future. Cuts in defense and more taxes on the rich are not going to do it either. Rolling back all the idiotic Bush tax cuts would be ideal but this is not going to happen in the land of the free lunch.
What makes me laugh is all the swing voter yahoos who imagine that by voting Republican they are being fiscally conservative. I would like to grab each of them by the lapels and yell at them 'who was the last Republican president who balanced the budget'? I believe it was Eisenhower? A vote for Romney is a vote for further exploding the deficit through more Bushesque, wildly irresponsible tax cuts. This is what Republicans do - candy and sweets first (the tax cuts), diet later (the budget cuts). The diet never comes to pass.
We are all aware that the deficit exceeds a trillion dollars are we not? I would like to hear Obama declare that making sure the recovery sticks is vastly more important than deficit reduction but it does need to be wrestled with in the near future. Cuts in defense and more taxes on the rich are not going to do it either. Rolling back all the idiotic Bush tax cuts would be ideal but this is not going to happen in the land of the free lunch.
What makes me laugh is all the swing voter yahoos who imagine that by voting Republican they are being fiscally conservative. I would like to grab each of them by the lapels and yell at them 'who was the last Republican president who balanced the budget'? I believe it was Eisenhower? A vote for Romney is a vote for further exploding the deficit through more Bushesque, wildly irresponsible tax cuts. This is what Republicans do - candy and sweets first (the tax cuts), diet later (the budget cuts). The diet never comes to pass.
27
@24 like many Americans, I've had periods of engagement and periods of apathy. I've been police liaison for anti war marches, I've done petition work, I've met with politicians. I know you want to denigrate everyone that doesn't totally buy in to the system as a lazy POS, but that is infantile.
Floridians who voted for Nader in 2000 didn't cost Gore the election. Katherine Harris, Scalia, Thomas, et al cost Gore the election. Gore didn't help himself much, either.
Floridians who voted for Nader in 2000 didn't cost Gore the election. Katherine Harris, Scalia, Thomas, et al cost Gore the election. Gore didn't help himself much, either.
28
@26, it can't be said enough that not only do the Republicans have a sweet tooth, they DELIBERATELY floor the spending pedal whenever circumstances allow on things THEY want, SPECIFICALLY IN ORDER TO CHECKMATE SOCIAL SPENDING as soon as the D's are in power. "Oh noes! Deficit!" It's an articulated strategy at least 30 years old. Masturbate, hold baby underwater, masturbate, hold baby underwater, ad infinitum. It's the sickest of horror-movie plots.
29
@27 do you also think Perot voters didn't give that election to clinton? Sure, Scalia et al. did their share of the damage, but if more votes had been cast for Gore, it wouldn't have gotten into the courts to begin with.
30
29- and indications are that if gore had done more to court the left, more of them might have cast a pragmatic vote for him. As they say in Poland, "nie moj cyrk, nie moje malpy"
31
@30 Gore has to live with the consequences of his decision to run the campaign he ran. And people in Florida and New Hampshire who could have voted for Gore, but didn't, have to live with the consequences of their decision. And I have to live with the consequences of my decision not to move to a swing state in 2000 (or this year) and fight hard for my candidate. We all have to live with our decisions.
32
@17 "If you want to go with the battlefield analogy, it is not wise to engage a superior force on their battlefield. You fight a guerrilla war, attacking them on their flanks."
Which is why I find your conclusion so disquieting.
What you've written in tis comment is correct, as is the commentary on it in #24.
We change things at the grass roots, guerrilla style and all that, but we need to vote, as you put it "pragmatically", in order to hold those gains as best we can.
Otherwise they'll come "save" our village by burning it to the ground.
Which is why I find your conclusion so disquieting.
What you've written in tis comment is correct, as is the commentary on it in #24.
We change things at the grass roots, guerrilla style and all that, but we need to vote, as you put it "pragmatically", in order to hold those gains as best we can.
Otherwise they'll come "save" our village by burning it to the ground.
33
Sure, there will, but only for the poor. And cutting what few services are left to the poor will be the diet equivalent of drinking diet soda with that double bacon cheeseburger and super-sized fries.
The diet never comes to pass.
Sure, there will, but only for the poor. And cutting what few services are left to the poor will be the diet equivalent of drinking diet soda with that double bacon cheeseburger and super-sized fries.
34
I hate to tell everyone voting for Obama (or Stein for that matter), but your vote won't make a difference either way (except, obviously, in a very, very unlikely circumstance, especially here in WA). So everyone saying that voting Green is a wasted vote, I would respond that your vote is equally wasted on Obama - he doesn't need your vote for our electoral college. This is not a reason not to vote; it's a reason to vote for who you want to vote for and not take any crap about being responsible for losing an election.
And don't give me that "If everyone thought that" crap. I'm not responsible for everyone's votes, I'm responsible for mine, and I claim full ownership of that vote, however little difference it really makes. So that's why I'm voting for Jill Stein.
And don't give me that "If everyone thought that" crap. I'm not responsible for everyone's votes, I'm responsible for mine, and I claim full ownership of that vote, however little difference it really makes. So that's why I'm voting for Jill Stein.
35
Even those who are working to get Obama elected do somwithbtrepidation and anticipation of getting screwed. From The Hill:
Major labor unions and dozens of liberal groups working to elect President Obama are worried he could “betray” them in the lame-duck session by agreeing to a deal to cut safety-net programs.
While Obama is relying on labor unions and other organizations on the left to turn out Democratic voters in battleground states, some of his allies have lingering concerns about whether he will stand by them if elected.
The liberal groups are planning to launch an aggressive campaign immediately after Election Day to pressure Obama and Senate Democrats not to endorse any deal that cuts Medicare and/or Social Security benefits.
36
@16: Cutting the defense budget rather than entitlements will happen around the time that hell freezes over, and the lake of fire has unicorns skating across it, while their pals the flying pigs soar above, laughing and shitting rainbows.
37
Please do let me know which 3rd party candidate has a better plan to cut the deficit by $4 trillion or more. I mean, if you buy into the notion that we need to cut the deficit by that amount, I don't see how it is achieved without cutting services to some degree.
But really, if you believe that all of those things will come to fruition as part of a grand bargain, then you really have been sold a bill of goods. Republicans and more than a few Democrats in Congress will chip away at the tax increases, and Democrats and a few Republicans will chip away at the spending cuts.
So what might theoretically start off even as a bi-partisan Simpson-Bowles plan (which I suspect is achievable politically once the presidential election is over, whoever wins) will surely get watered down by both parties as it moves through Congress. I do like how Obama said "Bowles-Simpson", putting the Democrat first, even though nobody else calls it that.
Also, he says "obviously" a lot.
But really, if you believe that all of those things will come to fruition as part of a grand bargain, then you really have been sold a bill of goods. Republicans and more than a few Democrats in Congress will chip away at the tax increases, and Democrats and a few Republicans will chip away at the spending cuts.
So what might theoretically start off even as a bi-partisan Simpson-Bowles plan (which I suspect is achievable politically once the presidential election is over, whoever wins) will surely get watered down by both parties as it moves through Congress. I do like how Obama said "Bowles-Simpson", putting the Democrat first, even though nobody else calls it that.
Also, he says "obviously" a lot.
Advertisement
Most Commented on Slog
-
It's Spring! Who's Ready for Street Harassment? by Cienna Madrid
-
SL Letter of the Day: Insane Demands by Dan Savage
-
SL Letters of the Day: Just Say No to DSGs by Dan Savage
-
SL Letter of the Day: Gonna Boil My Laptop After Answering This One by Dan Savage
-
Bigot Florist Files Countersuit by Dominic Holden
-
New Gun Enthusiast... by Dan Savage
-
America Doesn't Care About Black People by Charles Mudede
-
"Bus service shouldn't be optional—it should be a right." by Cienna Madrid
-
US Military Grants Itself the Power to Police American Streets and "Quell" "Civil Disturbances" by Brendan Kiley
-
Fucking NBA Rejects Kings Move to Seattle by Goldy
Stranger Personals
The Stranger
RSSSeattle Art & Performance Quarterly
A complete guide to Seattle's current art, film, dance, and theater season.
Facebook
Twitter
Comments (37) RSS