Visit msnbc.com for breaking news, world news, and news about the economy

Note: The complete transcript of the interview is published below.

Writing in the cover story of the current issue of Newsweek, titled, “Why Are Obama’s Critics So Dumb?” Andrew Sullivan goes after the right wing for its ongoing, deliberate mischaracterizations of the president as a “a radical leftist attempting a ‘fundamental transformation’ of the American way of life.” He writes:

You’d think, listening to the Republican debates, that Obama has raised taxes. Again, this is not true. Not only did he agree not to sunset the Bush tax cuts for his entire first term, he has aggressively lowered taxes on most Americans. A third of the stimulus was tax cuts, affecting 95 percent of taxpayers; he has cut the payroll tax, and recently had to fight to keep it cut against Republican opposition. His spending record is also far better than his predecessor’s. Under Bush, new policies on taxes and spending cost the taxpayer a total of $5.07 trillion. Under Obama’s budgets both past and projected, he will have added $1.4 trillion in two terms. Under Bush and the GOP, nondefense discretionary spending grew by twice as much as under Obama. Again: imagine Bush had been a Democrat and Obama a Republican. You could easily make the case that Obama has been far more fiscally conservative than his predecessor—except, of course, that Obama has had to govern under the worst recession since the 1930s, and Bush, after the 2001 downturn, governed in a period of moderate growth. It takes work to increase the debt in times of growth, as Bush did. It takes much more work to constrain the debt in the deep recession Bush bequeathed Obama.

The great conservative bugaboo, Obamacare, is also far more moderate than its critics have claimed. The Congressional Budget Office has projected it will reduce the deficit, not increase it dramatically, as Bush’s unfunded Medicare Prescription Drug benefit did. It is based on the individual mandate, an idea pioneered by the archconservative Heritage Foundation, Newt Gingrich, and, of course, Mitt Romney, in the past. It does not have a public option; it gives a huge new client base to the drug and insurance companies; its health-insurance exchanges were also pioneered by the right.

But Sullivan, who is a conservative-leaning independent today but was, in the 1990s, as a British citizen living and writing about politics in the United States, a Republican Party sympathizer, also takes on Obama’s critics on the left:

What liberals have never understood about Obama is that he practices a show-don’t-tell, long-game form of domestic politics. What matters to him is what he can get done, not what he can immediately take credit for. And so I railed against him for the better part of two years for dragging his feet on gay issues. But what he was doing was getting his Republican defense secretary and the chairman of the Joint Chiefs to move before he did. The man who made the case for repeal of “don’t ask, don’t tell” was, in the end, Adm. Mike Mullen. This took time—as did his painstaking change in the rule barring HIV-positive immigrants and tourists—but the slow and deliberate and unprovocative manner in which it was accomplished made the changes more durable. Not for the first time, I realized that to understand Obama, you have to take the long view. Because he does.

And what have we seen? A recurring pattern. To use the terms Obama first employed in his inaugural address: the president begins by extending a hand to his opponents; when they respond by raising a fist, he demonstrates that they are the source of the problem; then, finally, he moves to his preferred position of moderate liberalism and fights for it without being effectively tarred as an ideologue or a divider. This kind of strategy takes time. And it means there are long stretches when Obama seems incapable of defending himself, or willing to let others to define him, or simply weak. I remember those stretches during the campaign against Hillary Clinton. I also remember whose strategy won out in the end.

This is where the left is truly deluded. By misunderstanding Obama’s strategy and temperament and persistence, by grandstanding on one issue after another, by projecting unrealistic fantasies onto a candidate who never pledged a liberal revolution, they have failed to notice that from the very beginning, Obama was playing a long game. He did this with his own party over health-care reform. He has done it with the Republicans over the debt. He has done it with the Israeli government over stopping the settlements on the West Bank—and with the Iranian regime, by not playing into their hands during the Green Revolution, even as they gunned innocents down in the streets. Nothing in his first term — including the complicated multiyear rollout of universal health care — can be understood if you do not realize that Obama was always planning for eight years, not four. And if he is reelected, he will have won a battle more important than 2008: for it will be a mandate for an eight-year shift away from the excesses of inequality, overreach abroad, and reckless deficit spending of the last three decades. It will recapitalize him to entrench what he has done already and make it irreversible.

As I have said before, if you are a liberal who convinced yourself during the 2008 campaign that Barack Obama was a taller, tanner but equally liberal version of Dennis Kucinich, you only have yourself to blame. In reality, there was not a dime’s bit of difference on policy between Obama and Hillary Clinton. They both were, and are, left-leaning centrists.

It’s true that Obama has done a good job as president and deserves to be reelected, especially is the alternative is Mitt Romney, or worse. (Pick your poison.) Other than on a handful of serious issues related to civil liberties, the president’s biggest stumbles have mostly been political — particularly his and his team’s failure to recognize the tea party astroturf mobs for what they were: Bush’s base backed by billionaires intent on wreaking havoc.

Let’s hope the president has put the quest for world peace bipartisanship behind him, at least until November, and that his campaign will continue to play hardball with the GOP. One thing the Obama campaign can do right away is to take a cue from Andrew Sullivan’s article in Newsweek and begin countering the right-wing deceit about the president’s record with the facts.

Veering off topic here: when Andrew Sullivan went on MSNBC’s “Hardball” yesterday, it was interesting to watch two rabid Clinton-haters from the 1990s, Sully himself and Chris Matthews, extolling the virtues of the current Democratic president — and it’s also worth noting that both former Clinton bashers have revised their views on the Clintons, largely in the wake of the disastrous Bush presidency. In fact, Matthews had done a complete 180 in his views on both Clintons.

Read the complete article here: Why Are Obama’s Critics So Dumb.

Transcript of Chris Matthews’ interview with Andrew Sullivan on MSNBC’s “Hardball”:

MATTHEWS: Welcome back to HARDBALL.

This is going to be a big segment for everybody who watches this show. In the past couple weeks, we have pointed out that some of the criticism of President Obama from Republicans is simply not rooted in fact. Well, criticism that he`s bungling the economy, that he`s greatly expanded the size of the U.S. government and, perhaps most obviously incorrectly, that he`s an appeaser.

In the current issue of “Newsweek,” Andrew Sullivan takes on Obama`s critics on both the right and the left and points out that President Obama`s strategy is to take the long view, play the long game, and that, ultimately, he will outsmart his critics. But a long view requires an Obama second term. And what would that look like?

Well, Andrew Sullivan is joining us right now. And he has got the cover piece. “Why Are Obama`s Critics So Dumb?” it`s called. He`s the editor of The Dish and a columnist at “Newsweek.” Andrew, thank you so much for joining me.

My friend, here is your opportunity, an opportunity. A soliloquy is at hand. And I don`t mind you engaging in one.

(LAUGHTER)

MATTHEWS: On the same day the Bureau of Labor Statistics released numbers, new numbers showing 200,000 jobs were added to the economy, Mitt Romney on that very day criticized the president`s economic policy. I want you to respond to this, Andrew. Let`s listen.

(BEGIN VIDEO CLIP)

ROMNEY: He not only wasted government money. He made it more difficult for entrepreneurs and innovators to come up with new ideas in the future. This president doesn`t understand how this economy works. It`s time to get a president who does.

(CHEERING AND APPLAUSE)

(END VIDEO CLIP)

MATTHEWS: Well, as this chart shows, Andrew, when Obama took office, the U.S. economy was already well into a huge job loss. This started under President Bush. We all know that intellectually. People keep forgetting it. Our economy was losing about 750,000 jobs a month when Obama became president.

He halted the collapse and turned it around. And the unemployment rate has been dropping steadily since August.

Anyway, your thoughts about what really happened? I want you to take on the right here.

ANDREW SULLIVAN, “NEWSWEEK”: Well, I think that Obama has governed as he said he would, as a sensible, pragmatic centrist.

He`s grappled with the key issue facing the economy, which was this inherited, massive depression. And he`s taken the most sensible course to correct it. If you look at the way austerity is killing some countries in Europe, you see that actually he`s managed to sustain steady recovery and growth with some clear strategy, a stimulus package, lower taxes.

You will never hear Republicans point out that he`s cut taxes. And a sensible basically right-of-center approach to running the economy. As for Obamacare, that hasn`t really come into effect yet. And even when it does, it will cost a fraction of what Bush`s Medicare prescription drug coverage did, and it also helps the economy.

It`s important in a market economy that people go to jobs for the jobs, not because they need the health care or can quit a job for the right reasons, not because they can`t lose their health care. So health care helps the economy as well.

And I just got frustrated hearing all these people tell untruths about the record. The record is that he has done something perfectly sensible. He`s fulfilled the promises that he made to turn this country around slowly. Everybody acknowledges that this financial crisis was the worst since the `30s and would take time to recover from.

I think people need patience and I think they need to look at the record and realize that things are going in the right direction in extremely difficult times.

MATTHEWS: Well, let`s take a look at that list of accomplishments that you write about.

It includes depression averted. Well, that`s the case, a fact. We did avert a Great Depression the second time. Auto industry bailout successful. That was his idea. He did it. And it`s worked. The Iraq war ended. He said he would and he did. Bin Laden dead. He said he would.
He did. Well, he didn`t promise he did, but he did. And a pair of liberal appointments to the Supreme Court, so the Supreme Court is in better shape. And a reminder to the left, you write — quote — “oh, yes, and the liberal Holy Grail that eluded Johnson and Carter and Clinton, nearly universal health care has been set into law.”

Let`s talk about the criticisms from the left. How do you respond to those — I don`t think they are practical, but I do value their thinking — that say, well, we still have Gitmo, we didn`t get a public option? There is a list you`re familiar with from the people on the progressive side.

SULLIVAN: Yes, absolutely.

MATTHEWS: What do you respond?

SULLIVAN: Well, I think you have to look and see what was he able to do? For example, in the National Defense Authorization Act, where it looks like habeas corpus is up in the air, he had 100 votes in the Senate. What was he supposed to do with that?

The same with Gitmo. He wanted to close it and move them, but in fact the Congress stopped him. He`s not a magician, nor is he a dictator. He`s part of a process. And one of the things that he`s had to deal with is an unusually obstructionist Republican Party…

MATTHEWS: That`s for sure.

SULLIVAN: … that will not cooperate on anything, basically, that gave him in the worst depression, downturn, zero votes for a pretty modest stimulus package in line with most mainstream economists.

That`s what he`s also been dealing with. And I think one of the great things about his possibly being reelected, as I hope he is, is that we might for the first time get through to Republicans. You know, you can actually compromise with him when you want to, if you want to. And maybe if you stop obstructing him and start negotiating with him, you`ll actually get a better deal and the public will listen to you better in the future.

MATTHEWS: Well, run through what you think a second term would look like, because that`s what this election is about. It`s not really about the past. In terms of government activism, health care, is that the last step he`s going to take? Is there`s something on the immigration front? What`s he going to do in terms of economic growth?

What do you see is the picture of the second Obama term?

SULLIVAN: I see it in the picture in which the American society, certainly in terms of sunsetting the Bush tax cuts and having some sort of rise in the tax rates for the rich will be an attempt to tackle the debt. That`s a huge problem. We can`t get away from it.

And I think he offers the possibility of a fair and balanced way of cutting that debt than the Republican approach, which is entirely to do it on the backs of the middle class and the poor. Having some sacrifice from the very wealthy is important.

I also think, obviously, immigration reform is possible, necessary, and important. And I think he has a chance to do that. Again, if the Republicans are prepared to be reasonable and come back to the negotiating table in a way that isn`t completely determined by a fantasy about who this guy is. He`s not a big old lefty.

I mean, as for the left, he`s a compromiser in the middle. And I think what he`s done is set out carefully where he wants to go and he`s waiting for them to come to the table to get there. And if he does and does it with that kind of bipartisan support long-term, his achievement will be very durable, as durable as Reagan`s was.

MATTHEWS: OK. Why do I not hear this kind of clarity and perhaps clairvoyance from, or positive clairvoyance, talking about the future, where he`s taking, us from his team in Chicago? Why don`t I hear it from him?

SULLIVAN: Well, I wish we did. I think this case could be made.And in reporting this piece, I was frustrated in talking to them about their inability to simply present the record, just the record of this moderate, successful, and I think in some ways transformative president. I mean, his foreign policy alone, not just bin Laden. And, by the way, Bush did take the eye off bin Laden.

But most of the leadership of al Qaeda destroyed.

MATTHEWS: This is so — let me –

SULLIVAN: He finally won the war against the worst attack on this country.

MATTHEWS: Yes, let`s mix it up here a little. That`s brilliant what you said. By the way, everybody is going to read this article in “Newsweek” and I agree with you. You`re genius on this.

But there`s something endemic with the liberals. Why did Al Gore not claim that during the Clinton administration, whatever you think about Clinton`s misbehavior personally, it was irrelevant to Al Gore? The economy was fantastic under the Democrats from `93 to 2000. Yet when Gore ran for president, he never once drag bragged.

What is this about the defeatism, this loserism of Democrats? Is it the fear if you brag about economic success, some poor people will say, you left me out? What is it that staggers their ability to occasionally do a dance in the end zone and say, look, we`ve done it, we did?

SULLIVAN: Well, I think it`s partly because they invested into Obama a whole bunch of fantasies, that he was some kind of far-left radical who is going to transform the world. He never was.

MATTHEWS: Yes.

SULLIVAN: He never said he was going to be. And he hasn`t been that.

And there`s a sort of purism on the left that if you`re not that, therefore, we must stay home. If I hear another person in their 50s with a pony tail tell me they are not going to vote this year because they couldn`t get a public option, I will scream.

MATTHEWS: Well, they`re in `60s –

(CROSSTALK)

SULLIVAN: — join the real world.

MATTHEWS: And, by the way, the flagellant class, as you just mentioned, are not limited to the people in their 50s. There`s a lot of young bloggers out there in their 20s and 30s who are always whipping themselves that this isn`t exactly the great transformation that was promised by someone.

SULLIVAN: I just asked them to grow up a little and look at history, and understand that — and also at this point in Reagan`s term, it was not clear that he would be the transformative figure that he was supposed to be, and the right — remember people like Richard Viguerie — attacking him from the get go.

I think it`s a different era than the `80s. And I think Obama is to this era what Reagan was to his, which is why I`m perfectly happy saying I back Reagan in the `80s and back Obama now. We need his correction. We need his calm and we need his leadership.

His temperament alone is enough to keep him in the Oval Office, in my view.

MATTHEWS: Who should the people with pony tails write letters of anger at? I`m just kidding.

SULLIVAN: Me.

MATTHEWS: A lot of good guys with pony tails. A lot there on the far right by the way, the MIA guys. Anyway, the motorcycles.

Anyway, both sides have pony tails. Thank you.

SULLIVAN: I`m sorry about pony tails. I support them in general. I apologize.

MATTHEWS: OK, you`re a genius.

SULLIVAN: Thank you, Chris.