Matt Taibbi who writes for the Rolling Stone posits:
"Is it possible that by "surrendering" at the 11th hour and signing off on a deal that presages deep cuts in spending for the middle class, but avoids tax increases for the rich, Obama is doing exactly what was expected of him?"
http://www.rollingstone.com/...
You're coming around Matt.
He seems to be indicating he now thinks the United States is controlled by an oligarchy.
"Is Krugman right? Probably. In a perfect world, where the president was what he is supposed to be, i.e. a representative of that majority of American voters who elected him, that is what a good president would probably have done."
Ya, we evidently haz other options. What the fuck happened:
"What did happen? The popular take is that Obama is a weak leader of a weak party who was pushed around by canny right-wing extremists."
Ya, I heard that but.
"The Democrats aren't failing to stand up to Republicans and failing to enact sensible reforms that benefit the middle class because they genuinely believe there's political hay to be made moving to the right. They're doing it because they do not represent any actual voters."
Now Matt. That doesn't sound like a democracy. If the politicians don't represent the actual voters, who do they represent?
"We probably need to start wondering why this keeps happening. Also, this: if the Democrats suck so bad at political combat, then how come they continue to be rewarded with such massive quantities of campaign contributions?"
Good point Matt. And I might add, no shit. Why is it that the oligarchy keeps giving all that money to Obama?
Stay tuned. Matt is really figuring it out.