Login

Register

Member List

RSS Feed

Amanda | Contact

Auguste | Contact

Jesse | Contact

Pam | Contact

Next entry: O Brother, Where Art Thou?  And When Art Thou Bringing The Pizza? Previous entry: Go on, “friends”, forward this to me. I dare you.

Michael Gerson: No Longer Putting The Square Peg In The Round Hole

imageI’ve reread this Michael Gerson column three times, and I have to marvel at just how incredibly safe a columnist for a major newspaper is.  Gerson writes a piece that pretty much admits he paid no attention whatsoever to the past two years of presidential politics whatsoever…and is apparently still employed.

Barack Obama was elected, in part, as the antidote to ambition. Unlike John F. Kennedy, who campaigned against the golf-playing complacency of the Eisenhower era, Obama appealed to a nation weary of large national exertions—a nation longing for a normality beyond the wars, hurricanes, floods and assorted plagues of the Bush years.

This is pretty much exactly wrong.  You know how I know this?  Because Obama made nearly two years worth of speeches about changing shit, and transforming things.  We’re not so much weary of large national exertions as we are of every exertion being invariably screwed up beyond belief, coupled with an ensuing several-year debate wherein everyone who’s got a problem is called a traitor. 

Yet headed toward the inauguration, the scale of Obama’s ambition is becoming evident.

So, Obama was elected as the antidote to ambition on an ambitious platform whose ambition is only now becoming evident despite it being the exact thing he ambitiously proposed for nearly two years.  What?

After dividing Obama’s proposals into “ambitious” (read: things Republicans oppose for reasons Gerson can articulate) and “non-ambitious” (read: the types of proposals that Republicans signed onto in some way during the Bush administration and would therefore be hypocritical to oppose, which won’t actually stop them), Gerson ends with this:

During the campaign, I sometimes criticized Obama for lacking specificity and ambition. But as the specifics emerge, the ambitions of his campaign pledges are ever more clear.

So, basically, Obama was non-specific and unambitious, but now that he’s articulating the same specifics he was discussing before, he’s both specific and ambitious…and needs to curtail that ambition to please Republicans.  I really hope he spent all that time he wasn’t paying attention to the campaign doing something productive, like lowering his Wii Fit age. 

 

------

Registration is now required! We're still in the process of getting it all squared away, so for the moment don't forget to Login or Register using the links in the upper left menu before starting to write your comment.

Posted by Jesse Taylor on 11:40 AM • (22) Comments

Ambition, ambition, ambition, ambition?

Malkovich. Malkovich, Malkovich. Malkovich!

Comment #1: Orange  on  01/07  at  11:47 AM

In other words, unlike republicans, he wasn’t lying about wanting to change things in washington and make conditions better for the majority of americans. During the campaign, they could pretend he was lying, but now, less so.

Comment #2: paul  on  01/07  at  11:59 AM

Yet Brutus says he was ambitious; And Brutus is an honorable man…

Comment #3: Essie the Elephant  on  01/07  at  12:01 PM

Doesn’t “Ambitious” easily translate into “uppity”?

Comment #4: olexicon  on  01/07  at  12:02 PM

Olexicon, that’s presumptuous.

Comment #5: Jesse Taylor  on  01/07  at  12:06 PM

And the 2009 Academy Award for Epic Cluelessness goes to:  The Eminently Serious Rightwing Nut-O-Sphere!!!

Fabulous prizes include an all-expenses-paid trip to The Guantanamo Bay Resort and Gentlemen’s Club!...

Comment #6: MikeEss  on  01/07  at  12:31 PM

Ha

I too went back over this column to try to figure out WTF.

Never did.

Also think it’s weird that right wingers are giving O heat because
he hasn’t taken a position on Gaza.  I think he’s done the right
thing exactly by saying - I’m not President yet and the US must
speak on foreign affairs with one voice - and that is Bush’s vioce
until I’m actually President.  I think he should be commended for
this.  If he was disagreeing with Bush, they’d pound him for that
too.

Comment #7: Libertarian  on  01/07  at  12:35 PM

I have to marvel at just how incredibly safe a columnist for a major newspaper is.

Word.  Gershon and Cohen and Dowd and Friedman and their ilk are all the same:

If you’ve every worked in a large organization, especially an academic or intellectual one, then you have met one of the many Richard Cohens out there: not overly bright, but nonetheless smug and condescending, dummies who are utterly convinced that they’re the smartest guy in the room. Worse, like Cohen, their long “in place” time means that they are pretty much fossilized into place and can’t be removed without tearing things up. They mistake their longevity for worth. They mistake the fact that people find removing them as more trouble than it’s worth for keeping them because of their worth.

Most of these guys never consider, even for a nanosecond, this question: “If I had to re-apply for my own job right now, would I win the competition?” People like Cohen and Dowd wouldn’t even make the first cut of such a process. But they sink roots deep, and like old, gnarly trees everywhere those roots wander out to cause damage far from where they stand.

I say get the chainsaw.

http://shakespearessister.blogspot.com/2008/06/concern-troll-of-day.html#comment-738991

Comment #8: seeker6079  on  01/07  at  12:45 PM

OT, the guy doing the wii fit reminds me of an interesting thing about that gizmo: the soccer heading game!

You have to head the soccer balls ... and DUCK THE SHOES flying at you!  My first impression: W must have one of these!  Seriously!

Comment #9: Ms Kate  on  01/07  at  02:02 PM

What a LIFER: lazy ineffective fuckup expecting retirement

Comment #10: Ms Kate  on  01/07  at  02:03 PM

Oh, and do we want unambitious people to run for President?  He says that like it is something totally unexpected and undesirable.

Ho hum, I think I might kinda sorta wanna maybe be president some day, la dee da.

Comment #11: Ms Kate  on  01/07  at  02:04 PM

do we want unambitious people to run for President?

Criticizing the “ambition” of someone running for office is a form of class snobbery. Only the wealthy and politically well-connected can sale into elected office without trying for it. The middle class need to work for it, which is why it’s considered “unseemly.”

Lots of people, like Gerson, are laziness or wish they had the privilege to be lazy. As a consequence, they consider those who have the privilege to be lazy while also achieving success, like GW Bush, to be admirable. Some people have contempt for the classmate who doesn’t pay attention, doesn’t try, and skates by, knowing that he doesn’t have anything to worry about in life. And some people wish they were that guy.

Comment #12: Tyro  on  01/07  at  02:13 PM

“Obama was non-specific and unambitious, “

Right.  He only wrote two books and campaigned for two years despite everyone saying he hadn’t a chance in the world.

Why can’t these people be fired for writing such nonsense?  Where did the fourth estate go?

Comment #13: Caren-Sun-blocking Creator of Animorphic Pancakes  on  01/07  at  02:37 PM

Either That or Gerson (former W speechwriter) wanst an unambitious Dry Drunk Fuck-up like his guy

Comment #14: olexicon  on  01/07  at  02:43 PM

Only the wealthy and politically well-connected can sale into elected office without trying for it.

I love it when typos turn out to be more true than the original word that someone misspells.

Comment #15: Karinna A.  on  01/07  at  03:15 PM

Ho hum, I think I might kinda sorta wanna maybe be president some day, la dee da.

Fred Thompson?  Who?

Comment #16: Seraph  on  01/07  at  04:56 PM

I get the WaPo daily, so I often run into the dangers of reading Mike Gerson’s column. I used to get so outraged by his idiotic sermons and Repub love-fests, that it just ruined my day. So now I studiously skip right over his column and hope that David Ignatius has a column. I advise you do the same. He’s just not worth it.

Comment #17: Jason  on  01/07  at  05:01 PM

It’s official. He’s an alient imitating a political columnist.  He doesn’t even live on planet earth; he just receives bits and pieces of transmissions to his home planet and then compiles the pieces into the kind of crap that is this article.

Comment #18: Slackajawea  on  01/07  at  05:10 PM

I think it’s pretty ambitious of Gerson to say that Obama has no good options on environmental policy.  Can’t do “aggressive” cap-and-trade, can’t “phase in” cap-and-trade, can’t abandon cap-and-trade.  That’s some brilliant punditizing, there.

It’s also ambitious of him to declare that Obama’s health care proposal is “ambitious” because it threatens “the deepest values of American conservatism.”  As you no doubt are aware, American conservatism has an extensive track record of success in the health care arena.

Gerson knows ambitious.

Comment #19: liberalrob  on  01/07  at  05:30 PM

Am I the only one here who thinks that “Slackajawea” is a very witty handle indeed?

Comment #20: seeker6079  on  01/07  at  05:31 PM

Am I the only one here who thinks that “Slackajawea” is a very witty handle indeed?

Aw, thanks Seeker!

Comment #21: Slackajawea  on  01/07  at  05:34 PM

“You have to head the soccer balls ... and DUCK THE SHOES flying at you!  My first impression: W must have one of these!  Seriously!”

You also have to duck disembodied panda heads, which could probably be related to his abysmal environmental policies on a more metaphorical level.

Comment #22: Rebecca C.  on  01/08  at  02:10 AM
Page 1 of 1 pages
Commenting is not available in this channel entry.