There are Those Who Look at Things the Way They Are, and Then Think That Even if Things Had Been Different, They'd Still Be The Same

Hitchens, for one, who thinks the world would pretty much be the same if Bush v. Gore had gone the other way.

Romano’s 2012 watch, Mitt Romney edition:

The problem with Romney’s current silence on Afghanistan is that it diminishes rather than enhances the “adult” image he clearly hopes to convey. Since Obama took office in January, Romney has focused most of his fire on foreign affairs, taking the president to task on Iran and Israel as well as Afghanistan (in part, one imagines, because health care isn’t a winner for him). He wants to seem Reaganesque, a brawny advocate for American exceptionalism. But you can’t hope to maintain that image by suddenly ducking out at “the defining [foreign-policy] moment of the Obama presidency.” It just looks wimpy.

I mean, I can guess what Romney is up to here. He’s angling, as most politicians do, for maximum maneuverability: the freedom as 2012 approaches to say (a) “I told you so” if we “win” in Afghanistan or (b) “You should’ve done X” if we don’t. But given that Romney was so critical of Obama for taking his time to plot a new course for the war-torn country, it’s rather ironic that he can’t bring himself to settle on something that seems vanishingly small in comparison: a response, positive or negative, to the president’s actual policy.

Obama's Jobs Summit? Yeah, Samuelson is Not Impressed

Watch

(via the Awl)

You have to wonder if his (Dick Cheney) beef is with Barack Obama or with the American public? The quote that leapt out at me in the Politico interview was; ‘Here’s a guy (Obama) without much experience who campaigned about much of what we put in place and now travels around the world apologizing. I think our adversaries see that as a sign of weakness,’

Well, right Mr. Former Vice President! He campaigned against what you did and he won the election! The American public decided that is what they wanted! They rejected your policies and voted in favor of his. So, is his beef with Barack Obama, or is it with the American public that chose the path Barack Obama laid out?

Michael Isikoff on Dick Cheney’s Politico interview .

via msnbc’s hardball earlier today.

(via brooklynmutt)

Mike Isikoff is a very smart man.

Here, then, is Obama’s vision of the ancient notion of America as a city upon a hill—the phrase from Jesus evoked by John Winthrop and given new life by Ronald Reagan. We are an exceptional nation, the president was saying, but our is an exceptionalism that imposes as many (if not more) burdens as it does blessings. It is an exceptionalism of obligation—to whom much is given, much is expected.

Meacham, on Obama’s Afghan address

Connolly's First Take on Obama

Gaggle: Five Things Obama Wants You to Hear Tonight

What if Gore Had Won?

This week, we’re playing the alternate history game, in which we ask three writers to write the history of the last 10 years if the Supreme Court had decided differently in Bush v. Gore. (Here we must admit that, as great as these three pieces are, none come close to the genius of Thurber’s “If Grant Had Been Drinking at Appomattox”). First up for us is Rakoff, with an alternate, oral history of the 00s.

If, as seems increasingly likely, Obama wins passage of a health-care-reform bill in January, he will deliver his first State of the Union address having accomplished more in his first year than any other postwar American president. This isn’t an ideological judgment. It’s a neutral assessment of his emerging record.

The case for Obama’s successful freshman year rests above all on the health-care legislation now awaiting action in the Senate. Democrats have been trying to pass national health insurance for 60 years. Past presidents who tried to make it happen and failed include Harry Truman, Lyndon Johnson, Jimmy Carter, and Bill Clinton. Through the summer, Obama caught flak for letting Congress lead the process, as opposed to setting out his own proposal. Now his political strategy is being vindicated.

We are so submerged in the details of this debate—whether the bill will include a “public option,” limit coverage for abortion, or tax Botox—that it’s easy to lose sight of the magnitude of the impending change. For the federal government to take responsibility for health insurance will be a transformation of the American social contract and the single biggest change in government’s role since the New Deal. If Obama accomplishes nothing else, he may be judged the most consequential domestic president since LBJ. He will also undermine the view that Ronald Reagan permanently reversed a 50-year tide of American liberalism.

Weisberg, on why Obama’s do-nothing reputation is wrong.