At least not now. Calls for tremendous Republican gains in 2010 are not supported by any poling data other than blogosphere unease.
Moreover, I counterspeculate (against your speculation) that the unemployed public will blame corporatism first before they blame progressivism or liberalism. The transgressor is too tangible to ignore.
A second New Deal, which is what Krugman the Curmudgeon calls for, is what you're suggesting.
I would love nothing more. Maybe even Obama would love nothing more.
But George Bush killed that idea by leaving Obama with a tremendous deficit. There was tremendous public reticence over the first stimulus package.
The public becomes very uneasy with government spending. For better or worse, because there wasn't a second depression, there wasn't a sufficient calamity to overcome that uneasiness. Krugman doesn't get that.
I agree with your hypothesis regarding surprise of widespread support for a public option as evidence of a neoliberal bubble. There certainly is strong supporting evidence.
My only question is whether there was that widespread support back during the summer of town hall anger?
Sure there was tremendous progressive support in the blogosphere, and I believe the possibility for deep tremendous support in a yet uneducated public. But I conclude the President was too sensitive to an apparent anti-government public discourse back then, and took his push for the public option underground. This would be evidence against living in a bubble. In fact, it would be the opposite.
In both the economy and the health care debate, Obama chose to play it safe (conservative).
In the latter, if Obama had come out in favor of a strong public option with the Senate he has to work with early this summer, would the GOP have been able to change the public perception? Right now, we see support for a public option rising into the final floor votes, which is what we want. In the alternate reality, I don't know what would have happened. We may either have a stronger public option, or it could have been Obama's waterloo.
Similarly, in the economic situation, if Obama had chosen a more progressive course of action, would we be better off today? Sometimes great trouble calls for great risk taking. But the alternate hypothesis is that Obama feared a second Great Depression, and thus chose the safest course of action.
Somehow American Jews would ignore their heritage and teachings of altriuism and social justice and debase themselves to vile, lizard-brained war and hate mongers. Some may have, but not enough to matter.
I am a Jew and an American first. I see Israel hijacked by right wing extremists who are as much Jews as the right is Christian. I support President Obama, not Israel.
I think a lot of the criticism leveled against Atlanta by the IOC is unfounded. They are a notoriously unamerican, eurocentric cabal. If the IOC were democratic, and the world had a say in where the world's games should go, there might be less heartache. The IOC is a bunch of old white aristocrats with a median age of 72. Only 15% of the members are women.
I also think that if the US wants to be competitive, the USOC needs Federal funding, and the selected city by the USOC needs a guarantee of reasonable funding for the endeavor should it win. The US does not back it's cities, and instead, municipalities like Chicago are forced to go it alone against entire nations, which is kind of humbling.
I urge President Obama to address both of those points.
Saying Obama came in last means Obama could have changed the outcome, and if Obama could have changed the outcome, then wasn't it correct to go?
The only argument against Obama going is that Chicago never stood a chance, and that it was a waste of resources. Okay. I can buy that. I disagree with it, but I can accept it as a logically sound argument.
There is no logic behind the statement that Obama came in last.
And europeans can never understand that about our presidents. But the point I was making is that both parliamentary/government heads of state and monarchy heads of state were present from those nations.
Madrid would have been the fourth games in Europe in seven tries (28 years).
I agree that Rio is an excellent choice. And the appropriate choice. I would have loved for the games to be in Chicago, and it would have meant jobs and money for America.
But I find the dim right taking cheap shots at Obama intellectually dishonest. Obama didn't come in last. America did. He went to fight an uphill battle for us against a superior choice, and we came up short.
Ed Schultz is right. The conservatives applauding Chicago's loss is the Jane Fonda in North Vietnam of our generation.