The most annoying and ultimately destructive defense of President Obama’s legislative record is to constantly cite the filibuster myth. It is the argument that poor weak Obama couldn’t do anything without 60 votes in the Senate. The latest in a long line of examples comes from Jonathan Chait’s criticism of Cornel West.
|By: Jon Walker Tuesday August 26, 2014 11:07 am|
|By: DSWright Tuesday April 1, 2014 2:25 pm|
For those who enjoy a good intellectual skirmish do check out the back and forth between Ta-Nehisi Coates and Jonathan Chait. The debate mostly centers around a discussion of what constitutes a “culture of poverty” and whether politicians such as Paul Ryan and Barack Obama conflate black culture and poverty.
|By: masaccio Sunday December 9, 2012 10:40 am|
Pragmatism without principles is murderous.
|By: David Dayen Saturday December 8, 2012 12:00 pm|
So my old college pal Jon Chait has responded to my criticism of his endorsement of raising the Medicare eligibility age, America’s worst new idea. I’ll get to batting that around in a moment.
As the kerfuffle was happening, however, this has become less of an academic argument. Ezra Klein writes that raising the Medicare eligibility age could become the centerpiece of a deal, based on what “smart folks in Washington” say.
|By: David Dayen Friday December 7, 2012 8:06 am|
Since Jon Chait has never met a concession he didn’t like, he comes out with an endorsement of raising the Medicare eligibility age as part of a long-term deficit deal. So his cover for what is universally regarded as a terrible idea surely led deficit scolds seeking to use the problem to weaken the safety net to give each other high-fives.
Let’s look at Chait’s reasoning. I would probably start with the fact that he’s not 64 or 65. My parents are, and until my dad reached Medicare in November, they were paying $2,500 a month on the private market for health insurance. So I’ll be happy to provide him with their phone number so he can tell them how it’s “tolerable” for them to spend two years more than they expected doing that.
But soft! Here are his actual reasons.
|By: Jon Walker Monday April 2, 2012 10:00 am|
There’s an argument that if the Supreme Court strikes down the ACA, it signals the court is so radical it would also find a reason to strike down Medicare for all. I find it nearly impossible to ever think this Court would ever be that activist. Not only do I think a majority of the justices have enough personal integrity to reject such a naked power grab, but more importantly I think the Justices are smart enough to properly fear the ramifications for the Court from such move.
|By: Scarecrow Saturday March 17, 2012 11:00 am|
I don’t think I’m a stupid person, but sometimes I read what seem to be really stupid things. At least that’s how I felt after reading a post by Jonathan Chait, entitled “Mitt Romney Lies a Lot, But He’s Not a Liar.” Yes, that really is the title, so let it sink in a bit.
|By: Scarecrow Monday September 5, 2011 8:40 am|
I suppose we should be grateful that TNR’s Jonathan Chait voluteered to write an apologia for President Obama as a way to explain to those he identifies with “the left” why Obama’s not such a bad President and to remind the “left” there were extenuating circumstances that explain the President’s failure, or refusal, to achieve what the left wanted and the country needed.
|By: Phoenix Woman Sunday September 4, 2011 7:00 pm|
Jonathan Chait is a typical Beltway-minded Very Serious Thinker, which means that in his crafting of an apologia for yet another cave-in by Obama to corporate America’s well-heeled (and campaign-contributing) titans, he likes to a) assume that Obama’s most prominent lefty critics have no idea how politics works in America when in fact they understand it better than he ever will, and b) play fast and loose with the truth.
|By: Blue Texan Sunday September 4, 2011 12:30 pm|
I naively thought Obama’s offering to cut Social Security, Medicare and Medicaid would put an end to the “liberals are being unfair to Obama” genre, but Jonathan Chait (heh-indeeded by John Cole) published another one in the New York Times magazine today.
It’s full of problems, but I want to focus on this one — because it’s so obviously wrong.