Bill Keller, former executive editor of the New York Times and now op-ed columnist, thinks President Obama speaking out for the 99% sounds desperate. And, thhe Buffett Rule isn't a bad idea? Or maybe it is? Hard to tell, too many negatives in there.
Social Darwinism isn't a slander on Republicans? Apparently, Romney does believe in some version of creationism.
In the Democratic Party, a battle for Obama’s teleprompter is now under way between the moderates and the more orthodox left. The president sometimes, as in his last two State of the Union addresses, plays the even-keel, presidential pragmatist, sounding themes of balance and opportunity. Then sometimes lately he sounds more as if he’s trying out for the role of Robin Hood.If President Obama should not be sounding populist themes, just what themes should he be sounding, Bill Keller? Austerity and hard choices? The problem is, that such a middle of the road, populist 'theme' as everyone paying their fair share, could be construed as insurgent by the likes of you;, the representative speaking for the 1%. Giving up on the right thing to do to 'get things done' is not equivalent to having hope. This is not a binary choice. The class war is on.
The problem isn’t that the Buffett Rule is necessarily a bad idea. It isn’t that “social Darwinism” is a slander on Republicans. (Heck, it may be the only Darwinism Romney believes in.) The problem is that when Obama thrusts these populist themes to the center of his narrative, he sounds a little desperate. The candidate who ran on hope — promising to transcend bickering and get things done — is in danger of sounding like the candidate of partisan insurgency. Just as Romney was unconvincing as a right-wing scourge, Obama, a man lofty in his visions but realistic in his governance, feels inauthentic playing a plutocrat-bashing firebrand. The role the middle really wants him to play, I think, is president