'Meet the Press' Panel Laments 'New Era' of Obama Disrupted By GOP 'Implacable Opposition'
Appearing on NBC's Meet the Press on Sunday, Random House executive editor Jon Meacham described the political comeback of Republicans: "...we were all sitting around in 2009, and this was a new era. It was an entirely different time. And I think it was a implacable opposition, which is not to say it's wrong, but it was an implacable opposition."
Host David Gregory quoted Meacham's introduction to a new Politico ebook, "The Right Fights Back": "The dawn of 2009 was supposed to inaugurate a new political age. After a decade of war and a year of epic economic collapse, a young Democratic president unscarred by the cultural conflicts of the Clinton years promised a 'post-partisan' ethos...Conservatism was said to be dead. Except it wasn't....How did American politics get from the 'there' of a new Age of Obama to the 'here' of a resurgent right?"
Gregory turned to left-wing Georgetown University professor Michael Eric Dyson and lamented the influence of conservative principles: "You listen to Grover Norquist, I mean, you talk about that kind of anti-tax orthodoxy, and then you think about, as Senator [Charles] Schumer said, what are the impact of, you know, spending cuts across the board on the middle class, on Americans who are out of work, on the poor in this country, when you talk about our politics barreling toward nowhere, frankly?"
Dyson seized on the softball and slammed the GOP: "Yes. The politics of heartlessness and lack of compassion....I'm out in the streets of D.C., I see veterans who are homeless begging for money. This is the America we think we want? I don't think so."
Moments later, presidential historian Doris Kearns Goodwin urged the President to abandon his supposed moderation: "I think the post-partisanship has to go. That is what he came in hoping for, it proved not able to work. But if you look back at Roosevelt, FDR, he first tried to be a bipartisan leader, and then he got so hurt by the rancor of the Republican right, who called him a traitor to the class, that he went right after them, and he wins in a landslide."
She went on to advise: "There is a model for him in Teddy Roosevelt. Similar time to our, squeeze middle class, up and down gap between the rich and the poor....And he called for a square deal, fundamental fairness. And that's where the country's at right now. When Obama first talked about the failure of the supercommittee, when he put out his grand proposal, it was the idea that people want fairness, they want balance."
Fellow historian Michael Beschloss agreed: "He wants to run as the candidate of the 99 percent against the candidate of the 1 percent, be it Romney or Gingrich. That might be pretty effective. I think Doris is absolutely right."
Here is a transcript of the November 27 exchange:
11:15AM ET
DAVID GREGORY: We are back with more from our roundtable. We're talking about books about history, the Civil War and Andrew Jackson that we've been reading. And it is really – I mean, it does put in this kind of perspective, Jon, the, the idea that, you know, some of the social unrest in the country, it really sort of manifests itself in our politics in a way that dated before the Civil War, this kind of sectional politics rearing its head.
And you, and you try to capture more modern history here in a setup to an ebook about the return of the Republicans. This is out on Tuesday that you're doing for Politico. And this is what you write in the introduction: "The dawn of 2009 was supposed to inaugurate a new political age. After a decade of war and a year of epic economic collapse, a young Democratic president unscarred by the cultural conflicts of the Clinton years promised a 'post-partisan' ethos...Conservatism was said to be dead.
"Except it wasn't. Beginning in early 2009, dispirited Republicans, exhausted by President Bush and that regime," you write, "decided that while the presidency may have simply – seemingly," rather, "some easily to Barack Obama, nothing else would...."
"The rebirth of the right is an extraordinary tale. By historical standards it was a rapid shift, on par with the 1966 conservative backlash against Lyndon Johnson's Great Society after the 1964 landslide. And as conservatives well know, that drama ended with the election of a Republican president in 1968....How did American politics get from the 'there' of a new Age of Obama to the 'here' of a resurgent right?" That's a big question.
JON MEACHAM: It's the question, it seems to me. I mean, we, we, we were all sitting around in 2009, and this was a new era. It was an entirely different time. And I think it was a implacable opposition, which is not to say it's wrong, but it was an implacable opposition. And, to my, mind the President's greatest failure has been the remarkable inability to establish an enduring emotional connection with the people. He is known as a great orator, but he has not been a great explainer. And, therefore, I think that there's no real connection, real ongoing support for him. And so politics has become a very much cafeteria.
GREGORY: But, Michael, you, you have to be uncomfortable, I would imagine. You listen to Grover Norquist, I mean, you talk about that kind of anti-tax orthodoxy, and then you think about, as Senator Schumer said, what are the impact of, you know, spending cuts across the board on the middle class, on Americans who are out of work, on the poor in this country, when you talk about our politics barreling toward nowhere, frankly?
DYSON: Yes. The politics of heartlessness and lack of compassion. I think, look, what happened to the notion that the people who benefitted from the dance ought to pay the cost of the band? The reality is, is that the tax bailouts, the tax bonuses, and the tax breaks have been given to those who are at the top. Thank God that the supercommittee – a lot of people are saying, "Well, they failed." I think at least the Democrats grew a spine, stood up to the Republicans who wanted to let those tax – you know, those Bush tax cuts go on, and they said, "$600 billion, well, that $600 billion infused into the economy we could help a bunch of people." Now the interest around the Defense have gone forward, and said, "Those automatic triggers, no, we're not going to let those happen." But you want to let unemployment insurance expire? I mean, this is the lack of compassion.
GREGORY: But – yeah.
DYSON: I'm out in the streets of D.C., I see veterans who are homeless begging for money. This is the America we think we want? I don't think so.
GREGORY: So you think the, the resurgent right could explained differently?
LOWRY: Well, I think there are a couple of things. One, while you saw this rise of Democrat power in, in Washington after the '08 election, you saw simultaneous with that, in opinion polls, a rise of conservative sentiment in the country. And the delta between those two created a space for the Tea Party, which was a reaction to Obama's agenda, partly, but also a reaction against the Republican establishment, which, let's face it, had become lazy, in some instances corrupt and unpopular, and deserved to be burned down. And you have a lot of Republican sentiment now just desperate for someone who doesn't seem like the usual politician, and that accounts for a lot of the resistance to Romney.
DORIS KEARNS GOODWIN: But I think there's a space now for President Obama. I think the post-partisanship has to go. That is what he came in hoping for, it proved not able to work. But if you look back at Roosevelt, FDR, he first tried to be a bipartisan leader, and then he got so hurt by the rancor of the Republican right, who called him a traitor to the class, that he went right after them, and he wins in a landslide. You know, "The forces of entrenched greed hate me. I welcome their hatred." I don't think that'll work for Obama because he's not a warrior, a happy warrior in that way.
But there is a model for him in Teddy Roosevelt. Similar time to our, squeeze middle class, up and down gap between the rich and the poor. And what he does is say, "I like corporations as long as they do well by us. I like unions as long as they do well for us. But if they start screwing around with us, I'm going after them." And he called for a square deal, fundamental fairness. And that's where the country's at right now. When Obama first talked about the failure of the supercommittee, when he put out his grand proposal, it was the idea that people want fairness, they want balance. That's what Teddy Roosevelt was all about. Every sentence was balance.
GREGORY: Right. And he wants to take that fairness question...
GOODWIN: I think that's there.
GREGORY: ...to the ballot box next week – next year.
MICHAEL BESCHLOSS: He wants to run as the candidate of the 99 percent against the candidate of the 1 percent, be it Romney or Gingrich. That might be pretty effective. I think Doris is absolutely right.
(...)
- Kyle Drennen's blog
- Login to post comments
















Comments
Oh darn it!
Submitted by jon_torlin on Mon, 11/28/2011 - 6:04pm.
Socialism can't just get here fast enough, darn it!
Those dang GOP's screwing up everything, them and those tea party people! I want my free health care!
Why, oh why, can't the great president downgrade do something about that??
(for those of you who don't know me, the above was said with heavy sarcasm)
-Jon
Sheesh!
Submitted by IdahoJim on Mon, 11/28/2011 - 6:13pm.
The source of the implacable opposition is rooted in doing the right things for the right reasons. Obama and his minions are out to move the country into a socialist European type big government economic and political system. The rest of us are trying to stop him.
How do you compromise with someone who is always wrong? How do you compromise with someone that is asking you to bend or break practically every principle you stand for? Principles, morals and ethics which have proven over and over again to be solid, sound, and meet every one of societies goals.
As for the poor and unemployed, if we had a booming economy and a government that would just stand aside and let it happen, most of those folks could then find work and a real chance to pull themselves into a better life. We already know that pushing them doesn't work.
IdahoJim
http://idahoandy.net
Whatever, Doris.
Submitted by Gary Hall on Mon, 11/28/2011 - 6:24pm.
Whatever, Doris.
Might be worth considering, Doris, that for you to drive that point home in regards to Obama's chances, it would have served you better had you considered that President Obama never tried to be a bipartisan leader.
(;`/ gary
Did Doris come up with that idea herself
Submitted by frank14 on Mon, 11/28/2011 - 6:34pm.
or did she plagiarize it also?
The panel conveniently ignores that Obama . . .
Submitted by Galvanic on Mon, 11/28/2011 - 8:27pm.
. . . and the Dems on the Hill controlled the executive and legislative branches in 2009-2010. Whatever they didn't do isn't due to Republican resistance; it's due to their incompetence, and that's why the Republicans -- said to be on the political funeral pyre iafter the November 2008 elections -- made a significant comeback.
There was no bipartisanship; the GOP was blatantly told "Elections have consequences."
It's obvious to one and all that Obama couldn't live up to the image his supporters created for him, but they don't have the heart to single out his aimless, chaotic attempts at leading. It's easier to blame the Republicans.
A liberal panel sitting
Submitted by Reaver on Mon, 11/28/2011 - 7:20pm.
A liberal panel sitting around discussing the resurgent right and all we see is complete agreement about how bad it is. What none of these people will say out loud is that the resurgence is a lot more about the rejection of Obama and the democrat party’s agenda than it is about any love of the republicans.
Veterans asking for money?
Submitted by gopcongress on Mon, 11/28/2011 - 8:27pm.
This may be an aside, but veterans who are destitute can get virtually 100% help from their local VA facility. This includes medical, pension assistance, even housing assistance. In addition, they have the best drug and alcohol rehab you can get for free (for veterans anyway).
I realize that there are veterans who will not submit to the VA, but just letting everyone know that the VA DOES have the resources and facilities to help most veterans who have had honorable and, in most cases, general discharges.
"The news and truth are not the same thing." -Walter Lippmann (1889-1974) FOLLOW ME ON TWITTER
And they make fun of
Submitted by Kenny Bunkport on Mon, 11/28/2011 - 8:36pm.
And they make fun of Evangelicals awaiting the 2nd coming of Christ. Liberals are so eager for a socialist King Arthur to appear, that they throw a suit of armor on every hopeful and proclaim Camelot. But no need for that "sword in the stone" trial for worthiness, as long as he can talk a good line.
The "Age of o'bama" is defined by
Submitted by ThisnThat on Mon, 11/28/2011 - 8:42pm.
And these people wonder why o'bama hasn't gotten anywhere? What a bunch of dopes.
__________
“Didn't win the Medal of Honor? Didn't even serve? Then lie about it. We'll support you." — 9th Circuit Court
This is absolute nonsense.
Submitted by Thalpy on Mon, 11/28/2011 - 9:26pm.
What an assemblage of know nothings! They are all in love with the idea of what they think Obama is. They are mistaken and of no use to us.
How about starting with Obama's narcissism & incompetence?
Submitted by drsamherman on Mon, 11/28/2011 - 11:48pm.
Everything the puerile, inexperienced and ideologically obsessed community organizer has tried has been a failure, from not producing a budget for over two years to the stimulus to the wave of waivers to his dismal record on the economy. He can't blame the GOP for his first two years--he had both the Senate and House and they could get nothing substantive done but a health care bill that even they did not want.
Even if Newt is not the nominee, I would certainly love to see Ear Leader try to defend any point of his record in a debate with the former speaker.
The difference between Obama and a competent president?
Submitted by pbthinker on Tue, 11/29/2011 - 12:31am.
The President came in with voters believing he was going to act in a post-partisan manner and he commenced to act in a very partisan manner and encouraging partisanship in Congress to Rahm through his legislation.
The irony of Obama is he had so much power. He had the Republicans defeated and demoralized and looking for a way to keep from being completely swamped. For the most part, they would have compromised on anything and would have settled for the Democrats throwing them a couple of bones. Instead, Obama and the Democrats looked the Republicans in the eye and said, "We won, you lost, deal with it."
Once they started governing like a ruling junta the American people started looking at them and thinking, "What hath God wrought?". It was time to pull the Democrats back and it took until November 2010 to get that done. What happened in between was the Democrats having numerous opportunities to turn things around, based on their majorities and a willing, sycophant press, it could have been easily done. INstead, they chose to deamonize the tea parties and fight. Now that they've lost, they still don't understand why.
Watching a round table on any of the Sunday shows is a joke. They have no clue why the Democrats lost, in 2010, and are unwilling to even hint at the incompetence of this White House and their governing style. I'm not sure the press has any respect for Obama, I believe that, for the most part, they're protecting the huge investment they made, sacrificing all of their credibility in 2008 and 2010, and are afraid of what will happen to them should Obama be soundly defeated. David Gregory was a partisan hack before he went on Meet the Press and he's only gotten worse.
Obama failed
Submitted by Kleenex on Tue, 11/29/2011 - 6:32am.
Luckily the "New Era of Obama" was disrupted otherwise who knows what else would have been passed. I guess simply reporting is not good enough for the media, they want a hand in unfolding events.