Like I Freaking Said

Klein. Just go read it.

***Update***

Oops, the general link was probably a bit cryptic. Here is the specific post.






170 replies
  1. 1

    …sorry, which Klein post?

  2. 2
    Sentient Puddle says:

    @TooManyJens: The good one.

  3. 3
    eemom says:

    you mean this?

    It’s the first night of Channukah, so here are some latke ideas.

    Happy Channukah to you too. You don’t have to get huffy about it.

  4. 4
    JenJen says:

    @TooManyJens: The one where he says what Tim F. said about something, I’m guessing. But that’s all I got.

    ETA: Dollars to donuts it’s the one about Obama’s bad poker.

  5. 5
    maye says:

    latkes with sour cream and applesauce!

  6. 6
    Odie Hugh Manatee says:

    @JenJen:

    Ya gotta be with the ‘in’ crowd to know what TimF means!

    I’m not.

  7. 7
    Punchy says:

    THIS IS NOT A DIARY! TOO SHORT FOR A DIARY! REMOVE! REMOVE! WOOO WOOOO WOOOO! DIARY POLICE!

  8. 8
    Richard says:

    Bad poker or filibuster reform?

  9. 9
    Odie Hugh Manatee says:

    @Punchy:

    This isn’t even a comment! I want my money back!!

  10. 10
    Don says:

    I don’t think you meant to link to all of Ezra’s work. I’m betting you really want to link to either his thing about bad Poker or filibuster reform.

  11. 11
    FlipYrWhig says:

    Is this the “bad p0ker” piece? I still don’t think “p0ker” is the right metaphor. In one of the other threads I mentioned that there’s a car dealer near me, about which everyone says, “You gotta go there, they’re honest and they don’t jerk you around.” You don’t necessarily get the best _deal_ there, but you don’t have to put up with the rigamarole and the theatrics. That’s how they get new business. They don’t maximize dollar value from every interaction with a customer, but they build a long-lasting reputation for honesty and integrity. I think that’s Obama’s model. It might not be the _right_ model for every political issue, but IMHO it makes a lot more sense than assuming that he’s trying to play high-stakes p0ker but keeps getting rolled. He’s not trying to play p0ker at all. He’s trying to be the guy who plays your game, whatever that is.

  12. 12
  13. 13
    WyldPirate says:

    Obama’s bad poker

    Damn. Obama HAS to be smoking crack.

    Annoyed congressional staffers and baffled strategists rattle the list of concessions the White House has unilaterally made to Republicans from memory. There were the $300 billion in tax cuts, of course. The non-security discretionary spending freeze, a longtime Republican demand that the Obama administration simply announced during the 2010 State of the Union (Republicans responded by demanding discretionary spending cuts back to 2008 levels). During the climate-change debate, the administration gave away an expansion of offshore drilling, loan guarantees for nuclear power plants and delay of EPA regulations until 2011 — all Republican demands that Lindsey Graham, John Kerry and Joe Lieberman were hoping to trade for GOP support. “Obama had served the dessert before the children even promised to eat their spinach,” reported Ryan Lizza. “Graham was the only Republican negotiating on the climate bill, and now he had virtually nothing left to take to his Republican colleagues.” And most recently, there’s the two-year freeze in federal pay.

  14. 14
    eemom says:

    if this day doesn’t cure me of my addiction to this insane blog, I guess nothing will.

    I’ll have to move to China to enroll in one of their state-of-the-art Clockwork Orange-esque internet detox programs.

  15. 15
    Felanius Kootea (formerly Salt and freshly ground black people) says:

    Oh for fuck’s sake. Do all the BJ frontpagers have to act like depressives with no access to Zoloft and no long-term memory when it comes to Obama today? Was there a meeting? Knock it off. It’s fucking annoying. ETA: and it’s predictable and boring, to boot.

    Back to reading about stealing Ban Ki Moon’s credit card numbers as a US strategy for … something.

  16. 16
    DougJ says:

    @Punchy:

    That is a blatant case of readership capture.

  17. 17
    JenJen says:

    @eemom: I’d actually recommend a hockey game on the teevee, and a few beers. Works for me every time. I’m fresh as a daisy by the next time I click!

    How the hell did I end up in moderation, above, anyway? FYWP.

  18. 18
    schrodinger's cat says:

    @DougJ: Is it the readers who are captured, or are they the one doing the capturing. I am confused.

  19. 19
    freelancer says:

    @DougJ:

    Blatant? more like smacky.

  20. 20
    FlipYrWhig says:

    @JenJen: Did you use a term for a card game or a fireplace implement that rhymes with TV weatherman Al Roker?

    @eemom: Same here. I have no idea what happened here. It was like an old indignation pipe finally rusted through and started spewing outrage all over the damn place.

  21. 21
    WyldPirate says:

    @FlipYrWhig:

    Please, flipyrwhig. Obama is clearly smoking crack.

    Annoyed congressional staffers and baffled strategists rattle the list of concessions the White House has unilaterally made to Republicans from memory. There were the $300 billion in tax cuts, of course. The non-security discretionary spending freeze, a longtime Republican demand that the Obama administration simply announced during the 2010 State of the Union (Republicans responded by demanding discretionary spending cuts back to 2008 levels). During the climate-change debate, the administration gave away an expansion of offshore drilling, loan guarantees for nuclear power plants and delay of EPA regulations until 2011 — all Republican demands that Lindsey Graham, John Kerry and Joe Lieberman were hoping to trade for GOP support. “Obama had served the dessert before the children even promised to eat their spinach,” reported Ryan Lizza. “Graham was the only Republican negotiating on the climate bill, and now he had virtually nothing left to take to his Republican colleagues.” And most recently, there’s the two-year freeze in federal pay.

  22. 22
    miwome says:

    Between the post, the non-specific link, and the comments, I haven’t been this confused in weeks. Luckily, I’m philosophical about it.

  23. 23
    cat48 says:

    I want to know why the Senate won’t NUKE THE FILIBUSTER! NOW! Keep whining abt Obama, fine, but WTF is going on with the whiny ass Senate. Really sick of them bending over & taking what McConnell dishes out. The Rethugs don’t play this. It’s all in Wiki. They don’t have to take this. Grown people acting helpless is no longer an option for me!

  24. 24
    Odie Hugh Manatee says:

    @arguingwithsignposts:

    He don’t like complaints.

  25. 25
    ulee says:

    Fail post.

  26. 26
    Anya says:

    Is this another Obama is bad/a wuss/lameduck/he sold us out link?

  27. 27
    freelancer says:

    @DougJ:

    Also, I already emailed this to John, but this is more in your wheelhouse, Tim’s too. LGF posted that Eric Cantor has a new site up called YouCut. His new target? A dipshit/yokel-driven veto against NSF grants:

    First, we will take a look at the National Science Foundation (NSF) – Congress created the NSF in 1950 to promote the progress of science. For this purpose, NSF makes more than 10,000 new grant awards annually, many of these grants fund worthy research in the hard sciences. Recently, however NSF has funded some more questionable projects – $750,000 to develop computer models to analyze the on-field contributions of soccer players and $1.2 million to model the sound of objects breaking for use by the video game industry. Help us identify grants that are wasteful or that you don’t think are a good use of taxpayer dollars.
    __
    Step One: Look for Questionable Grants
    Click here to open the National Science Foundation website. In the “Search Award For” field, try some keywords, such as: success, culture, media, games, social norm, lawyers, museum, leisure, stimulus, etc. to bring up grants. If you find a grant that you believe is a waste of your taxdollars, be sure to record the award number.
    __
    Step Two: Submit Award Numbers
    Use this form to submit the award numbers of grants that you believe are wasteful; we will publish a report outlining the grants identified by the YouCut community.

    Get ready for round eleventytwelve of Bear DNA, Fruit fly Research, and Volcano Monitoring.

  28. 28
    Make7 says:

    It’s called a ‘Permalink’.

  29. 29
    Amanda in the South Bay says:

    Tim F:

    I sorta thought you were referring to Joe Klein for some reason.

  30. 30
    FlipYrWhig says:

    @WyldPirate: No way! Second-guess-happy staffers and pundits remember things to second-guess and pout over? Well, I never!

    Obama doesn’t like to haggle. He wants to skip steps and get to the point. People who like haggling hate that about him. Personally, I think haggling mostly becomes a way for douchebags to brag about their skill at being even bigger douchebags on demand, because that’s what being a “tough negotiator” who “drives a hard bargain” is. Macho headgames again. Tired act. Used often lately by not-particularly-macho characters like Markos Moulitsas.

  31. 31
    DougJ says:

    @freelancer:

    As long as they don’t do any keyword searches on “abelian varieties” and “moduli of curves”, it doesn’t bother me.

  32. 32
    cat48 says:

    YO TIM, If the Senate Dems had any DIGNITY, they would NUKE the FILIBUSTER just like Trent Lott & his buddy threatened to do! THE SENATE IS A SEPARATE BRANCH OF GOVT!!! When are they going to start taking responsibility for this crap they keep serving us “cause of the evil filibustering GOP”! Their just as much to blame if not more. Merkle, Bennett, & Udall want the rules changed, but the rest of the DEMS get EMO when they bring it up!

  33. 33
    FlipYrWhig says:

    @cat48:

    WTF is going on with the whiny ass Senate.

    The Senate is full of people who enjoy the power of being senators more than they enjoy doing things with the power of being senators. They have special perks and prerogatives that they don’t want to give up just to serve some fly-by-night “president.” A somewhat different crop did all the same shit when Clinton was president. Look up Nunn, Sam, not to mention Lieberman, Joe.

  34. 34
    DaBomb says:

    @JenJen: hey jenjen!
    Long time…. no speak!

  35. 35
    JenJen says:

    @FlipYrWhig: As a matter of fact, I did. So is that why the Ezra title isn’t in the post?

    Didn’t realize that was a banned word.

  36. 36
    Lolis says:

    I do love Ezra. I am the one pushing for him to come here and blog. He is a better fit than that libertarian guy. Ezra writes about food and alcohol, for one. Secondly, he actually has a lot to say and does research before he writes.

    It tells us something when Ezra is totally convinced the president is on the wrong track. Ezra is no Jane Hamsher. Sorry to all you who don’t want to hear this, but the president and the party are wrong on this.

  37. 37
    Sentient Puddle says:

    @cat48:

    I want to know why the Senate won’t NUKE THE FILIBUSTER! NOW!

    Because they have to wait until the start of the next congress to do so. Try to keep your pants on until then.

  38. 38
    WyldPirate says:

    @FlipYrWhig:

    Good FSM, but you are just fucking naive, FlipYrWhig. What Obama is doing is fucking stupid. Even children trading things know better than to pull dumbassed stunts like Obama pulled trading away shit for absolutely nothing.

  39. 39
    Maude says:

    @FlipYrWhig:
    A picture says a thousand words.
    A group pix of the Senate answers every question.

  40. 40
  41. 41
    FlipYrWhig says:

    @WyldPirate: Consider for a moment that the analogy between politics and “trading things,” like the analogy between politics and how to handle a street tough in a Little Rascals short, might be hurting more than it helps.

    Remember how a moment ago everyone’s point was that Republicans are bastards who don’t care about negotiating? Now the point is that Obama didn’t negotiate properly? So, if he had, what would have happened, Republicans would have struck a deal? Does that sound like the Republicans from the first part of that proposition?

    Eventually these criticisms start to sound like backseat drivers looking for new reasons to nag.

  42. 42
    JenJen says:

    @DaBomb: What’s up!! Yeah, I’m mostly sticking to the sports threads lately. ;-)

  43. 43
    eemom says:

    oh God……I did it again……I clicked, AGAIN.

    I am never gonna get out of here……..never, ever, gonna get out of here……

    Must not panic. Deep breath. Must. Not. Panic.

  44. 44
    WyldPirate says:

    @FlipYrWhig:

    Remember how a moment ago everyone’s point was that Republicans are bastards who don’t care about negotiating? Now the point is that Obama didn’t negotiate properly?

    You want to know why your argument is nonsense?

    The Republicans didn’t vote for any of the shit that was passed. Obama caved and gave it away at the start. That’s why it’s stupid.

  45. 45
    cat48 says:

    They just need a simple majority to blow it up now with the Constitutional Procedure. I’m tired of watching them coming on TV saying they just can’t do anything …..Cause they can, but they won’t.

    In U.S. politics, the nuclear option allows the United States Senate to reinterpret a procedural rule by invoking the constitutional requirement that the will of the majority be effective. This option allows a simple majority to override precedent and end a filibuster or other delaying tactic. In contrast, the cloture rule requires a supermajority of 60 votes (out of 100) to end a filibuster. The new interpretation becomes effective, both for the immediate circumstance and as a precedent, if it is upheld by a majority vote. Although it is not provided for in the formal rules of the Senate, the nuclear option is the subject of a 1957 parliamentary opinion by Vice President Richard Nixon and was endorsed by the Senate in a series of votes in 1975, some of which were reconsidered shortly thereafter.[1] Senator Trent Lott (R-Miss.) first called the option “nuclear” in March 2003.[2][3] Proponents since have referred to it as the constitutional option.[4][5][6]

    If not now, when?

  46. 46
    General Stuck says:

    Oh noes! Ezra done drunk the firebagger kool aid.

    Too bad, changes nothing,

  47. 47
    General Stuck says:

    @eemom:

    I ordered a magic potion book from Amazon, to break spells and shit. If it doesn’t kill me, it will make me stronger. I’ll let you know if it works and if Balloon Juice clicks can be controlled.

  48. 48
    DaBomb says:

    @General Stuck: you know how this works… find others who share the faux outrage about something that hasn’t happened yet. Didn’t you get the memo?

  49. 49
    Corner Stone says:

    @FlipYrWhig:

    Now the point is that Obama didn’t negotiate properly? So, if he had, what would have happened

    The world may never know.

  50. 50
    dslak says:

    What about Ezra’s agreeing with Douthat about Assange? Are we all Chunky Bobos now?

  51. 51
    General Stuck says:

    @Lolis:

    How are we wrong? The issue in question, that started this nonsense is about whether to, or not extend the Bush tax cuts, either some of them, or all of them. The House is voting tomorrow on just the mc tax cuts.. Which hasn’t even happened yet, and even if it passes Mcconnell plans to object to it even being considered in the senate. So it’s dead dead dead. And whatever Obama says doesn’t mean anything. Jeebus, is it something in the air, the Holidays. what?

  52. 52
    General Stuck says:

    @DaBomb:

    I got it, but am too dumb to accept it, I guess. So round we go, all over again.

  53. 53
    Joe Beese says:

    You heard so much during the election about how smart Obama is.

    Now people remark how stupid he is to be shoveling all this money at rich people.

    Funny how he got stupid like that.

  54. 54
    alwhite says:

    This is exactly what many of us have been saying here on BJ for months, really since the stupid worthless disaster the admin made of stimulus & we got called firebaggers here when we said it. The same people are making the same charge above. I do understand why they might want to unconditionally support this admin but really? They can’t see how this has been the Obama tactic from day 1? Give the Republicans things they want & would fight for without a fight & get nothing in return. Its is why the stim was too small, why the health care disaster is a disaster and why we are going to get fucked on the coming tax/deficit package. It is really simple, he may be, marginally, better than Grandpa Walnuts but he is nothing like what he could be, what he promised he would be or what you seem to think he is.

    You want to settle for slowly getting fucked to death because you think it is better than a quick death but guess what? It is still dead.

  55. 55
    Mark S. says:

    @FlipYrWhig:

    Obama doesn’t like to haggle. He wants to skip steps and get to the point. People who like haggling hate that about him. Personally, I think haggling mostly becomes a way for douchebags to brag about their skill at being even bigger douchebags on demand, because that’s what being a “tough negotiator” who “drives a hard bargain” is. Macho headgames again. Tired act. Used often lately by not-particularly-macho characters like Markos Moulitsas.

    Jesus Christ, is there anything Obama can do that won’t result in Stuck and Flip calling it the most brilliant move in the history of the Universe? God, sometimes I feel like I’m reading Hindrocket circa 2005. Y’all know the words, so sing along, damn it!

    It must be very strange to be President Bush Obama. A man of extraordinary vision and brilliance approaching to genius, he can’t get anyone to notice. He is like a great painter or musician who is ahead of his time, and who unveils one masterpiece after another to a reception that, when not bored, is hostile.

  56. 56
    burnspbesq says:

    Whoever it was that analogized bipartisanship to date rape must love the fact that Obama brings his own roofies and vodka to the dance.

  57. 57
    General Stuck says:

    @Mark S.:

    Dude, I am not calling it brilliant, or anything else, I am calling it too soon to tell for something that has not happened yet. But by all means, speculate to your hearts content. Me and Mr. Whig will still be here when youze all decide to return to planet earth.

  58. 58
    DaBomb says:

    @Mark S.: so to convince people that you are right, you compare PBO to Bush. And you wonder why people ignore the criticism.

    That was pretty asinine.

  59. 59
    calling all toasters says:

    Obama makes President Chauncey Gardiner look like Metternich.

  60. 60

    @Mark S.:

    Jesus Christ, is there anything Obama can do that won’t result in Stuck and Flip calling it the most brilliant move in the history of the Universe?

    You should really pimp your straw man building efforts in the “Artists in our midst” thread. That one is quite impressive.

  61. 61
    Odie Hugh Manatee says:

    “Oops, the general link was probably a bit cryptic.”

    Duh Ralph. ;)

    “Here is the specific post.”

    Darn, I was right. I was really hoping that you were happy about the post there regarding the proposal to modify the filibuster but no, you had to go there.

  62. 62
    The Sheriff's A Ni- says:

    @Mark S.: I don’t know, is there anything Obama could do that wouldn’t be called a betrayal and sellout by an unqualified empty suit by the resident Firebaggers?

  63. 63
    Corner Stone says:

    @DaBomb:

    And you wonder why people ignore the criticism.

    You would ignore it no matter how it was presented, or obviously, by who presented it.

  64. 64
    Mark S. says:

    @DaBomb:

    Way to miss the point by a mile.

  65. 65
    Joe Beese says:

    @General Stuck:

    I am calling it too soon to tell for something that has not happened yet.

    I’m going to wait and see if his telecom immunity vote is evidence of how he’ll deal with corporations

    i’m going to wait and see if he escalates in Afghanistan

    I’m going to wait and see if he gives up the public option

    I’m going to wait and see if extends Bush’s tax policy.

    I’m going to wait and see if he gets DADT repealed.

    I’m going to wait and see if his drone bombing campaign in Pakistan works out for the best.

  66. 66
    DaBomb says:

    @Corner Stone: if you notice I pretty much ignore you as well. Keep trucking along. all you pretty much do is troll people’s comments.

  67. 67
    General Stuck says:

    @alwhite:

    I am a supporter of primary challenges. Even for Obama. I think they are generally good, and may the best man or woman win, I will vote for them. They tend to toughen up candidates for the general, imo.

  68. 68
    DaBomb says:

    @Mark S.: maybe because you don’t have one and you are being obtuse.

  69. 69
    General Stuck says:

    @Joe Beese:

    Joe Beese is wrong about everything

  70. 70
    Joe Beese says:

    I didn’t write this. I lost the link.

    Either there’s some strange psychological dynamic at work here, or the President is a moderate Republican who does what moderate Republicans do: cave in to the demands of the GOP base. I’ve never seen a President go out of his way to spurn his own voters, whether rhetorically or politically, not even Clinton in his most centrist, “New Democrat” moments. In any event, the President is fast becoming a leader without a constituency. As I said earlier, progressives have closed their mouths and sat on their hands for a very long time, if for no either reason than they’ve felt protective of our first black President. But if he gets played in this lame-duck session — mortifying concessions on tax cuts and freezes on raises and DADT and START for zero in retun — then I predict you’ll see a serious drive to draft a primary challenger. It’s a whole lot closer to reality than Beltway pundits think.

  71. 71
    The Sheriff's A Ni- says:

    Either there’s some strange psychological dynamic at work here, or the President is a moderate Republican who does what moderate Republicans do

    I always know I’m in for a logically sound and realistically grounded argument when the writer starts off with a glaring false dilemma.

  72. 72
    Corner Stone says:

    @DaBomb: I have noticed that. Get many ear infections from sticking your fingers in there while you sing LALALALALALA ?

  73. 73
    DaBomb says:

    @Corner Stone: I just ignore trolls and irrational obsessive Obama Derangement Syndrome. I tend to have constructive conversations with people who live in reality. Not people who troll comments. So I will put you back on ignore.

  74. 74
    Corner Stone says:

    @DaBomb: What you have are mutually reinforcing masturbation sessions.

  75. 75
    General Stuck says:

    “The only thing we’re discussing now is just how long” to extend them, McConnell said Wednesday evening.
    Officials said negotiations center on a one- to three-year extension of the current rates.

    White House spokesman Robert Gibbs reiterated that President Barack Obama’s main goal is to prevent a middle-class tax increase. Obama’s “other line in the sand” is that he won’t support a permanent extension of tax cuts for the wealthy, Gibbs said on ABC’s “Good Morning America.”

    Obama has specifically voiced his objection to a permanent extension “to the wealthiest Americans.

    While the House and it’s leadership hold the constitutional cards on tax issues, and give no indication of voting for high end tax cuts for any reason. Let me ask the faithful juicers here a question, if I may. Would it really be catastrophic to you all if, say, a one year extension to all the cuts were somehow agreed to, even by the House? To keep middle class folks with lower rates after the first of the year?. Would that be an epic sellout? I mean I don’t really care in the end, as folks can support and vote for whoever they wish. That is fine by me. But I am curious if this is some final straw, or line in the sand with Obama? That was already there, or near there. Thank you for participating.

  76. 76
    lethargytartare says:

    @WyldPirate:

    The Republicans didn’t vote for any of the shit that was passed. Obama caved and gave it away at the start. That’s why it’s stupid.

    you want to know why your argument is nonsense?

    Several republicans did vote for all of the shit that was passed, they just happen to be in the Democratic party.

    you might want to get hip to who we’re actually negotiating with before you spout more of this drivel.

  77. 77
    Cain says:

    @freelancer:

    I just sent that to my dad who is on the faculty at Purdue. I bet he’s going to go love that. I’m guessing that even some of the tea bagging types in the various university disciplines are going to be unhappy too. I can’t imagine it is going to end well.

    cain

  78. 78
    Quiddity says:

    Here we go again. I am surprised at today’s eruption of Obama-critical posts (here and elsewhere). Not sure why, since it’s all words [about what might happen] at this point – although troubling words to some who worry about the worst outcome.

    What’s so special about December 1? What got the ball rolling?

  79. 79
    WyldPirate says:

    @lethargytartare:

    Several republicans did vote for all of the shit that was passed, they just happen to be in the Democratic party.
    you might want to get hip to who we’re actually negotiating with before you spout more of this drivel.

    good FSM, but the stupid is deep on this thread from the Obotomized.

    Obama himself said that it wasn’t a good idea to concede the 300 BN in tax cuts out of the gate on the stimulus bill that was too fucking small to begin with in the House which got no votes whatsoever form Republicans.

    I’ll restate something from my “bad” wyldpirate side. some of you people have had obotomies. Specifically, DaBomb, General Stuck and FlipYrWhig. You would excuse Obama skullfucking a kitten in front of his daughters on TV.

  80. 80
    General Stuck says:

    You would excuse Obama skullfucking a kitten in front of his daughters on TV.

    wildypirate , you are one sick puppy. that is all

  81. 81
    Midnight Marauder says:

    @schrodinger’s cat:

    Is it the readers who are captured, or are they the one doing the capturing. I am confused.

    Who watches the watchmen?

    @DougJ:

    That is a blatant case of readership capture.

    It has to smack, DougJ. No other word carries the appropriate panache.

    +7

  82. 82
    DaBomb says:

    @WyldPirate: you are complete low class to even involve his daughters in your profoundly stupid statement. I wonder how low you can possibly go.

  83. 83
    burnspbesq says:

    @DaBomb:

    He can go much lower. And has. And will. Be patient, you won’t have to wait long.

  84. 84
    MattR says:

    @DaBomb: How do you survive in reality when you overreact so badly to an obviously unserious, hyperbolic comment? 90% of the drivel coming from WyldPirate wants to make me bang my head against the wall, but that comment was realtively innocuous.

  85. 85
    General Stuck says:

    @MattR:

    I don’t think it was innocuous at all, and how low is relative.

  86. 86
    DaBomb says:

    @MattR: you think that saying that PBO skullfucking a kitten in front of his daughters isn’t serious? It’s not funny and completely ignorant as well as disrespectful. And you want to question my grasp on reality? Please.

  87. 87
    Comrade Luke says:

    What does FSM mean?

    It’s been driving me nuts.

  88. 88
    WyldPirate says:

    @DaBomb:

    No. What is profoundly stupid is your blind, unquestioning loyalty and denial of reality staring you in the fucking face. You, Stuck and some of the other Obots are like mindless lemmings that would follow Obama off a cliff. You are like the idiots on the Republican side who excused every criminal act Bush committed.

  89. 89
    DaBomb says:

    @WyldPirate: keep bantering on you disrespectful troll.

  90. 90
    MattR says:

    @DaBomb:

    you think that saying that PBO skullfucking a kitten in front of his daughters isn’t serious?

    Exactly right. It is so ridiculous and over the top that only a moron would take it seriously, especially when taken in the context that Obama supporters will rationalize every action he takes.

  91. 91
    robertdsc-PowerBook & 27 titles says:

    @Comrade Luke:
    FSM stands for Flying Spaghetti Monster:

    Wikipedia entry

  92. 92
    MattR says:

    @DaBomb: PS. It would be disrespectful to Obama and his family to suggest that he would skullfuck a kitten in front of his kids. OTOH, what WyldPirate actually said was only disrespectful to yourself and the other targets who WyldPirate is claiming would excuse those acts.

  93. 93

    I am an Obot but I’m willing to talk.

    It seems to me that some of you are saying that Barack Obama has ceased to work in the best interests of the American People and instead has concentrated on winning the approval of the Republicans.

    Is that right?

    And proof of that would be extending tax cuts to the wealthy and not getting something good in return?

    And if Barack Obama is no longer looking after your interests, why should you continue to support him?

    Is that what you are saying?

  94. 94
    lethargytartare says:

    @WyldPirate:

    Obama himself said that it wasn’t a good idea to concede the 300 BN in tax cuts out of the gate on the stimulus bill that was too fucking small to begin with in the House which got no votes whatsoever form Republicans.

    I’m sorry, I just assumed when you said “The Republicans didn’t vote for any of the shit that was passed.” we were talking about more than just the stimulus.

    I’ll tell you what, why don’t you get the goalposts where you want them and get back to me.

  95. 95
    Chris says:

    So, we’ve got two choices: either Obama intends the natural outcome of his bargaining tactics (Republicans continue to get whatever they want, and gloat, while Democrats wonder why we have to pre-capitulate, make all the concessions during negotiations, and then admit we weren’t “bipartisan” enough), or he doesn’t.

    What’s the case for the second option, again?

    At some point, shouldn’t we be wondering if *we* are the suckers at the table, rather than our leaders?

  96. 96
    Corner Stone says:

    @Comrade Luke: I tried to answer but FYWP
    it’s Flying Spaghetti Monster

  97. 97
    Comrade Luke says:

    @Joe Beese:

    But hey – Lilly Ledbetter!

  98. 98
    Frank says:

    Okay, what is missing from most blogs and even newspaper articles is feedback. Take it one month at a time. What are the successes and what are the failures and go month by month.

    Because winds can change. Too damn reactionary. Yes, he’s a bad poker player but need to define what are genuine wins and genuine losses. Not this he hasn’t fixed Bush’s fiasco yet…

    A lot of people read this blog. I’m looking for ammo so I can tell Obama is able to get things done to help influence votes.

  99. 99
    Comrade Luke says:

    @Corner Stone: Thanks, I just googled FSM and was able to guess.

    I missed the whole FSM wave…

  100. 100
    DaBomb says:

    @MattR: That some of the most craptacular bullshit I have ever read.

    I am moron for being offended, but you are defending the resident troll. What alternate universe do you live in?

    And if he is trying to make a point about supposed Obots, it was completely weak and stupid, just like your defense of it.

  101. 101
    singfoom says:

    @General Stuck: It wouldn’t be catastrophic, but it would also be a let down. Call it whininess, or call it poutrage, I’m just looking for signs of hope.

    Perhaps you disagree with the idea that it’s ok to enlarge the deficit (I don’t think it’s nearly as big of a problem as the Village likes to peddle, but I’m not for increasing it on things with bad returns) in order to enrich the richest even further.

    Here is a situation where I think it is cut and dry and easy to throw meat to the Democratic base while undercutting the Republicans as those who would give even more away to the rich than has already been given.

    My opinion at this point is pretty low, so it wouldn’t have a great effect, but I keep waiting for that moment when I see a spark and movement in the direction that I think is best for the country. Doing something that continues or worsens the income inequality in this country seems to be to be a move in a bad direction.

  102. 102
    Corner Stone says:

    @Comrade Luke: May She be praised!

  103. 103
    singfoom says:

    @singfoom: I’m just going to go on record that:

    A)Skullfucking is inherently funny.
    B)It’s not nearly as disrespectful as you think and I’ve definitely seen worse things here before.

    and

    C)Relax, Francis.

  104. 104
    HE Pennypacker, Wealthy Industrialist says:

    I just hope that the administration is willing to let ALL tax cuts expire before extending the tax cuts on the >$250K income. If necessary, they should let them all expire and then start a new tax initiative for us dumb slobs below $250K.

    Is it so much to ask?

  105. 105
    Corner Stone says:

    @HE Pennypacker, Wealthy Industrialist:

    Is it so much to ask?

    Apparently.

  106. 106
    Just Some Fuckhead says:

    @burnspbesq: As much as a I detest you, I have to nominate that for comment of the year. Ya just got in under the wire.

  107. 107
    WyldPirate says:

    @HE Pennypacker, Wealthy Industrialist:

    I think that that would have been ideal, HE Pennypacker.

    The operative words are would have been. It should have been done during this session of Congress. IT can’t be done now because the bill would have to originate in the House and the Rethugs won’t do something that is sensible like that.

  108. 108
    General Stuck says:

    @singfoom:

    I would be disappointed too, that is not whiny or poutrage when kept in perspective as you do in this comment. That has not been what’s happening on this blog and others in the lib camp online. A perspective free zone, pre emptive mass cliff jumping, virtual, of course.

    edit – and btw, I have from the beginning, wanted all the bush tax cuts to expire.

  109. 109
    robertdsc-PowerBook & 27 titles says:

    @Linda Featheringill:
    Yes. He’s more into winning Republican favor than working for the American public. His Blue Dog streak is in full bloom and it’s sickening to watch.

    If necessary, they should let them all expire and then start a new tax initiative for us dumb slobs below $250K.

    You don’t need a tax cut. No one needs a tax cut. Folks above 250k need a gigantic raise in their tax rate.

    That said, do you have 380 billion dollars a year to cut out of the federal budget to pay for a 250K & under tax cut for ten years? Because if you don’t, then there’s no reason to do a tax cut if it can’t be paid for. That’s the little dirty secret about these cuts. No one has yet to say how any tax cuts are going to be paid for.

  110. 110
    WyldPirate says:

    @Corner Stone:
    Yes. Praise her and her noodly appendages!
    RAmen

  111. 111
    Xantar says:

    @singfoom: It would be great if the Democrats could band together and throw some meat to the base while taking a stand on an issue that the public supports. But that would require them to band together.

    It’s the same thing that has always happened for the past two years. The problem isn’t primarily with Obama. The problem is with the idiot conservadems who are perfectly willing to stab him in the back in order to prove their “moderate” credentials, even when it doesn’t actually garner them any political benefit.

    I’d love it if Democrats in the Senate would call the Republicans’ bluff. The problem is they won’t because some of them genuinely believe in the Republican position. So what’s Obama to do?

  112. 112
    Xantar says:

    @HE Pennypacker, Wealthy Industrialist:

    I just hope that the administration is willing to let ALL tax cuts expire before extending the tax cuts on the >$250K income. If necessary, they should let them all expire and then start a new tax initiative for us dumb slobs below $250K.
    Is it so much to ask?

    Well, considering that this would result in a 24/7 news cycle for weeks about how Democrats raised our taxes…maybe it is too much to ask.

  113. 113
    Anya says:

    An interesting diary at DK solved a mystery for me. It mentioned that Kos, Arianna Huffington and Cenk Uygur are all former Republicans. This explains a lot. Basically they are not satisfied that the Dems are not proficient in the scorched earth policy the republicans excel at. What I don’t get is why all the venomous hate directed at Obama from the left. I asked my parents if Clinton faced the same treatment and they said, no. My dad pointed out that, except for few quarters, Clinton was beloved by the left and he never faced any backlash from them for DADT. Few grumbled about the war, NAFTA, Welfare Reform but nothing like the way the left reacts to President Obama. Now, can someone explain why is that?

  114. 114
    MattR says:

    @DaBomb:

    I am moron for being offended, but you are defending the resident troll. What alternate universe do you live in?

    The real problem is that your stupidity has forced me to defend the resident troll.

    To go full Godwin, it is not disrespectful to Obama to argue that you would excuse him even if he supported the Holocaust because in no way, shape or form does that actually mean that I think Obama supports the Holocaust.

  115. 115
    Corner Stone says:

    @Anya:

    Now, can someone explain why is that?

    Sure can. Your dad is mental. Seek professional help for him.

  116. 116
    Corner Stone says:

    @MattR:

    because in no way, shape or form does that actually mean that I think Obama supports the Holocaust.

    But she would defend him if she merely *thought* that idea were possible.

  117. 117
    DaBomb says:

    @MattR: First off, you don’t know me. Secondly, I am not a stupid person. You are essentially criticizing me for being offended. Last time I check, you can’t tell someone what they should or should not be offended by.

    So as far as I am concerned, we have nothing further to discuss, especially if you are deciding to insult my intelligence.

  118. 118
    General Stuck says:

    @DaBomb:

    I recommend you ignore these jackasses/

  119. 119
    singfoom says:

    @Anya: Anya,

    I have no hate or vitriol for Obama. My axe is that we are a society built out of rules, small and large, official and unofficial. The bedrock of this country to me is the idea that all are treated equally and the law is the same for the high and for the low.

    In the last 30 years, I don’t think we’ve lived up to that idea. In recent times, the worst offense to that idea IMHO was that of my country torturing people. It fucking sickens me.

    I thought, perhaps projected the idea that the Obama administration would seek justice against those who brought our country so low with their lies and crimes. But we’re looking forward…

    Or TLDR version, I want a criminal investigation into torture and abuse of detainees in the war on terror pony.

    Clinton didn’t have to deal with an issue of that magnitude, though I was younger then and wasn’t paying nearly as much attention… That’s the key difference to me.

  120. 120
    Anya says:

    @Corner Stone: what are you 12?

  121. 121
    DaBomb says:

    @General Stuck: I am. This thread is unbelievably vacuous and insidious.

    “But she would defend him if she merely thought that idea were possible.”

    This is such a vapid statement.

  122. 122
    MattR says:

    @DaBomb: Stupidity is not restricted to stupid people. Even the smartest of people do stupid things some times. And being easily offended by comments on the Internet that are clearly intended to be hyperbolic is a stupid thing to do. Despite your argument to the contrary, I believe that there is nothing wrong with criticizing and questioning the wisdom of what people are offended by. Or should we pretend that being offended by having a black president is a legitimate feeling to have?

  123. 123
    General Stuck says:

    @Anya:

    What you are thinking the answer is, is the answer.

  124. 124
    robertdsc-PowerBook says:

    Now, can someone explain why is that?

    The impeachment fracas lined up a lot of lefties and Democrats who would normally have resisted Clinton’s Blue Dog policies squarely behind the President.

    @Linda Featheringill:
    Yes. His Blue Dog streak is on full display and it’s sickening to watch.

  125. 125
    Corner Stone says:

    @DaBomb: Oh. I thought I was on ignore. I never would have said those things if I thought you could read them.

    edited due to some WP chicanery.

  126. 126
    Corner Stone says:

    @Anya: Clinton caught a ton of shit from the “left” for all the things you mentioned.
    Anyone who claims he did not is misremembering.
    He has a Halo Effect due to the impeachment shenanigans. Otherwise his name would be 7 kinds of mud in quite a few circles.

  127. 127
    Just Some Fuckhead says:

    @Anya:

    @Corner Stone: what are you 12?

    I sure hope not or we put too many candles on his last birthday cake.

    But he’s wrong about yer dad. It’s you that needs to seek help. Not long ago you were telling us DailyKos is actually Stormfront for Democrats.

    Clinton was loathed for passing the Republican agenda after claiming it for his own. That’s why his Veep got primaried from the left and what spawned Nader.

    I’ll leave you now to scour the intertubes for closet racists.

  128. 128
    Just Some Fuckhead says:

    @General Stuck:

    What you are thinking the answer is, is the answer.

    lolz. You may want to point out to her that you voted for Bush I, Clinton’s opponent.

  129. 129
    General Stuck says:

    @Just Some Fuckhead:

    Nope, I voted for dumbass Dukakas’s opponent, but for Clinton.

    Next wrong assumption obi wan.

  130. 130
    Just Some Fuckhead says:

    @General Stuck: Who was it that ran against Dukakis, genius?

  131. 131
    HE Pennypacker, Wealthy Industrialist says:

    @Xantar:

    Well, considering that this would result in a 24/7 news cycle for weeks about how Democrats raised our taxes…maybe it is too much to ask.

    The alternative is a 24/7 news cycle for weeks about increasing the deficit. No win situation. But it could still be framed as Republicans denying tax cuts on the middle class. Not that I think we’re particularly good at that messaging.

  132. 132
    General Stuck says:

    @Just Some Fuckhead:

    You claimed I voted against Clinton, you were wrong, dumbass.

  133. 133
    Just Some Fuckhead says:

    @General Stuck: You can’t even say it, can you former Republican? At any rate, your vote for Bush dashes Anya’s thesis to tiny bits.

  134. 134
    General Stuck says:

    @Just Some Fuckhead:

    When are going to drop the trotskyite facade with the stupid dogma you pretend to be a liberal by. And just surrender to becoming who you are fuckhead. A tin plated wingnut. Just like David Horowitz and all those who have traveled your path to self discovery. And stop being a political psychotic.

  135. 135
    Just Some Fuckhead says:

    @General Stuck: Why don’t you just tell Anya that every former Republican isn’t gunning for Obama because of the color of his skin based on your own personal story?

    Why encourage the patently false race-baiting?

  136. 136
    General Stuck says:

    @Just Some Fuckhead:

    At any rate, your vote for Bush dashes Anya’s thesis to tiny bits.

    You misread my political thesis to Anya, like everything else on this blog.

  137. 137
    General Stuck says:

    @Just Some Fuckhead:

    put down the glue fuckhead

  138. 138
    WyldPirate says:

    @General Stuck:

    Haha. The good General is constipated again.

    Drink a can of prune juice, General. That’ll clear the old pipes out for you and maybe you will start thinking more clearly.

  139. 139
    Hal says:

    I asked my parents if Clinton faced the same treatment and they said, no. My dad pointed out that, except for few quarters, Clinton was beloved by the left and he never faced any backlash from them for DADT. Few grumbled about the war, NAFTA, Welfare Reform but nothing like the way the left reacts to President Obama. Now, can someone explain why is that?

    I say it’s largely because the economy was doing so well. I would never underestimate event he most liberal persons ability to rationalize what might normally deeply offend them when they are collecting a regular pay check. Especially one that doesn’t have a McDonald’s logo on it.

  140. 140
    Anya says:

    @Just Some Fuckhead: They support every freaking lost cause in the name of progressive values, yet, all they did for Meeks (no one could challenge his progressive credentials) was to undermine his candidacy and continue to argue that he will never win. I also mentioned that I am yet to find, a single black progressive, among all of their progressive heroes. Is that not a fact?

    There is a difference between racism and lacking awareness of the privilege of whiteness. I am the product of white affluent mother and an African father. I know about white privilege and the blinders of people’s upbringing.

    @Corner Stone: @robertdsc-PowerBook: Valid point.

    @General Stuck: maybe we can get the great white progressive hope, Dean?

  141. 141
    General Stuck says:

    there are now enough psychos commenting on this blog to field a couple of football teams.

  142. 142
    Anya says:

    @Just Some Fuckhead: was my point about former republicans about race? Cenk Uygur and Huffington have more lucrative reasons to oppose Obama. How else would they be on teevee if they are not slamming Obama?

  143. 143
    FlipYrWhig says:

    @Anya:

    My dad pointed out that, except for few quarters, Clinton was beloved by the left and he never faced any backlash from them for DADT.

    Oh, God, I think your dad is my age.

    Clinton was hated by the left. They dogged him every step of the way. They said he sold out the base, he triangulated and compromised, and he kissed the ass of Wall Street. I have a garage full of old Nation magazines I could show you for proof. I voted Nader in ’96 because I was a premature firebagger who believed that elections should be about firing up “the base.”

    Sound familiar? It’s the same complaints every time. The reason is that people on the left are articulate and angry and want things to be a certain way, but there aren’t enough of them/us, and we don’t really know how to make more, only now we don’t have to wait for the magazine to learn what we’re disappointed about today, we can be despondent 24/7.

    @Mark S.:

    Jesus Christ, is there anything Obama can do that won’t result in Stuck and Flip calling it the most brilliant move in the history of the Universe?

    I don’t remember saying anything was brilliant. I think I’ve pointed to a few things, the first of which is that NOTHING HAS FUCKING HAPPENED so I don’t understand why we’re all Donner Party People today.

    Second, like the first, is that I’m not even clear on what the “negotiation” is, what the “groveling” is, what the “weakness” is, or what the bloody hell everyone was talking about today, at all. Republicans sent a nasty letter. This matters why? Fuck them. Why does it bother you?

    Third, it seems kind of puzzling to hear people say that Obama’s problem is that he doesn’t know how to negotiate with Republicans, then turn around and say that Republicans… don’t negotiate. So what’s the problem? Oh, right, the whole thing where everyone pretends like they’d be happy if he _looked_ like he was fighting, then when he looks and sounds like he’s fighting, it doesn’t really count, because he didn’t do it right, which you can tell, because if he did it right he would have won.

    Fourth, I don’t know why I’m the one who gets tagged as “naive” when there are dozens of you who say things like “All the Democrats need to do is stick together and stay on message.” Wow, how did nobody ever think of that before you! It’s genius! Say, what if they just enacted good policies, and fixed the economy! They’d win for sure!

    Well, how do you do that? They don’t stick together, and they don’t stay on message. You have to _make them do it_. Just saying that Obama needs “leadership” is a fucking tautology. What is leadership? A leader makes them do it! How do you do it? Show leadership! What’s the name of the guy on second base?

    “Leadership” is made-up bullshit like “team chemistry” and “momentum.” When you’re winning, you have “leadership” and your team has “chemistry.” When you’re losing, you don’t have those things, _even when you’re doing all the same stuff_, because IT’S ALL MEDIA BULLSHIT. It’s a novel. Stop buying it. Stop talking about the bullshit. Talk about policy. Criticize policy. Don’t talk about “optics” and “messaging.” We see what we want to see and most of the time it’s through the pathological media filter anyway. Drop it. It makes you stupider to think about it.

    Say, “I want Democrats to hang together and pass only the middle-class tax cuts.” You can even say, “I have an idea for how to _help MAKE_ Democrats hang together and pass only the middle-class tax cuts.” You can even call the White House and say, “I have a message for President Obama. Please get your act together and pass only the middle-class tax cuts.” You can even call your Senator, even the Republican one or two, and tell him to get off his ass and hold the line and back up the goddamn president’s oft-repeated desire to drop the special tax cut for the $250,001st through the infintieth dollars people make. That’s all healthy. Especially that last one.

    It IS. NOT. HEALTHY. to do all this weird psychosexual stuff about how you want the President to show “leadership” and act like a man and understand the way a person deals with bullies on a cartoon playground in 1951. It’s bizarre. And it went viral today, everywhere. Something’s wrong.

  144. 144
    Dennis SGMM says:

    @Anya:
    I was 44 when we first elected Bill Clinton. Out here on the Left Coast many of us wanted Clinton to resign after the ludicrous way (Including the attempt to invoke executive privilege) that he handled the Lewinsky scandal. My circle felt that he’d become a lightning rod for the Republicans and that by resigning he would give Al Gore a better start on his own presidential bid. I wouldn’t be presumptuous enough to say that we represented all Democrats. I would say that anyone who thinks that Clinton was given a free ride by the left wasn’t paying attention back then.

  145. 145
    FlipYrWhig says:

    @Just Some Fuckhead:

    That’s why his Veep got primaried from the left and what spawned Nader.

    Bill Bradley wasn’t to the left of Gore. Bill Bradley is like the ectomorphic David Broder.

  146. 146
    Just Some Fuckhead says:

    @FlipYrWhig: Here, let me get that for you.

  147. 147
    Anya says:

    @FlipYrWhig: @Dennis SGMM: I think the pure left (represented by Harpers Magazine, The Nation, et al) have apposed Clinton’s policies on principle grounds, as they do Obama’s. I won’t disagree with that. But do you think people were calling Clinton a coward or accusing him of being deferential to Republicans (opposite of uppity) or constantly psychoanalyzing him?

    I am going to bed, maybe by morning my previous comment will be out of moderation.

    Good night everyone.

  148. 148
    FlipYrWhig says:

    @Just Some Fuckhead: From your second hit (actually from The Nation):

    Likewise, Big Al and Dollar Bill marshaled every minute differentiation they could find in their remarkably similar politics and inflated them into a policy and leadership Fight to the Finish.

    The media tagged him as “to the left” of Gore, and he tried to market himself as to the left of Gore. But I’m sure the media accounts from ’08 would say that Obama was “to the left” of Clinton, and I’m also not sure you’d agree that was true. I don’t think Obama/Clinton turned out to be left/right, and IMHO the same is true of Gore/Bradley.

  149. 149
    FlipYrWhig says:

    @Anya:

    But do you think people were calling Clinton a coward or accusing him of being deferential to Republicans (opposite of uppity) or constantly psychoanalyzing him?

    Yes. They said he was the best Republican president of our lifetimes, and they said he was too eager to please because he grew up as the child of divorce, and they said he got red-faced and angry too much, and that’s all before Lewinsky. The media also depicted every legislative battle as a fight to the finish that would determine the course of his presidency, especially NAFTA and the first budget, which passed by one vote in the House. It was very similar.

  150. 150
    Just Some Fuckhead says:

    @FlipYrWhig: Yes, Bradley ran to the left of Gore, staked out positions to the left of Gore, the media tagged him as left of Gore, his Senate record was slightly to the left of Gore and primary voters like myself generally recognized him as left of Gore but one must ignore all of this actual history in favor of the alternative history proposed by savvy in-the-actual-know anonymous commenter FlipYrWhig.

    You are a fucking clown.

  151. 151
    slag says:

    During the climate-change debate, the administration gave away an expansion of offshore drilling, loan guarantees for nuclear power plants and delay of EPA regulations until 2011—all Republican demands that Lindsey Graham, John Kerry and Joe Lieberman were hoping to trade for GOP support. “Obama had served the dessert before the children even promised to eat their spinach,” reported Ryan Lizza. “Graham was the only Republican negotiating on the climate bill, and now he had virtually nothing left to take to his Republican colleagues.”

    OK. This made me LOL.

    Look. I like Ezra. And I like you, Tim. But there’s one flaw in your logic that neither of you seem to fully appreciate the ramifications of.

    THE REPUBLICANS ARE NEVER GOING TO NEGOTIATE!

    Poker, chess, tiddly winks. It doesn’t matter what game we’re playing. There’s one decided outcome. The only thing Obama can do is put forward policy that he thinks is good policy and let Congress fight it out among themselves. And, agree or disagree with said policy, that really appears to be the only strategery in play here. That’s it.

  152. 152
    burnspbesq says:

    @Just Some Fuckhead:

    “@burnspbesq: As much as a I detest you, I have to nominate that for comment of the year. Ya just got in under the wire.”

    I’m touched. Gimme a hug, ya putz.

  153. 153
    GregB says:

    John Aravosis at Americablog is also a former GOP-er too.

    I blame the Greeks.

  154. 154
    GregB says:

    P.S.

    After President Clinton wagged his finger and said I did not have sex with that Kardashian girl, my father said:

    He can go shit in his hat.

  155. 155
    slag says:

    Moderation?! Damn. And I didn’t even get to call anyone a soci.a.list. Wasted opportunity.

  156. 156
    FlipYrWhig says:

    @Just Some Fuckhead: Bradley ’00 was Edwards ’08. A lot of hype about his lefty cred after a career of nothing particularly liberal (tax cuts, McCain-ish clean-up-the-process stuff). Actually, maybe Bradley ’00 was Obama ’08. Wonkish, decent guy wrongly pegged as to the left of the frontrunner.

  157. 157
    FlipYrWhig says:

    @GregB: Hey, no fair, I loved Michael Dukakis. I was just barely too young to vote for him, though.

  158. 158
    Just Some Fuckhead says:

    @FlipYrWhig: Yes, regardless of how little lefty cred you feel Bradley possessed, he did in fact run to the left of Gore as I noted originally.

  159. 159
    FlipYrWhig says:

    @Just Some Fuckhead: He may have _run_ to the left of Gore, as a positioning/marketing strategy, but neither his career nor his ideology were politically to the left of Gore. I see parallels to Obama/Clinton.

    I’m not sure about Clinton/Brown in 1992 or Mondale/Hart in 1984. 1988 was a mess.

    We’re probably just talking past each other. My point is that some of these are insider/outsider battles that get spun as right/left. I think Lincoln/Halter was the same way.

    If Dick Gephardt primaried Obama and ran on campaign finance reform and a comprehensive industrial policy (i.e., a mix of clean gov’t and labor), some of the “left” critics of Obama would probably cheer and hope that he won, and some of the individual positions would be to the left of Obama. But I’m not sure the full spectrum of President Gephardt’s agenda would be “to the left” of Obama in a meaningful way after getting elected.

  160. 160
    aimai says:

    @FlipYrWhig:

    Because of a residual fondness for Whig’s I’ve always liked your name and your comments but this one is so wrongheaded I don’t know where to start. You can’t take the politics out of politics. You can’t take negotiating and bargaining out of politics. You just can’t. There’s nothing left if you do but either tyranny or chaos. If its beneath Obama to get down and dirty he has to hire someone who will do it for him. But every time he loses one of these impromptu or scheduled bargaining situations–we lose. Its that simple. Haggling and Bargaining aren’t beside the point. They are the point.

    aimai

  161. 161
    Just Some Fuckhead says:

    @FlipYrWhig:

    We’re probably just talking past each other.

    No, I merely stated the historical fact that Bradley ran to the left of Gore. Note my original comment: “was primaried from the left”. The rest of it is you talking to hear yourself talk.

  162. 162
    General Stuck says:

    Just to clear up fuckheads whackjob calculations. Voting once for a republican, 20 years ago, for president, only makes someone “a republican” in the purist fantasy world full of cartoon characters and not much else. I was and am a registered independent, that currently only votes for democrats. Dukakas was simply not presidential material imo, at the time, though I liked him as a person. Otherwise, at least for potus, I have only voted for dems. Occasionally, casting a vote for a repub or indie candidate in local and state races. Never been a registered repub, though for a period of time, a registered dem.

    It is this very kind of purist thinking that makes a lot of the left wing fringeists so toxic to liberal causes in electoral politics. But in fuckheads case, he is only pretending to be liberal, imo, though he may not even know it. That and being dumb as a sack of hammers.

  163. 163
    Tyro says:

    Obama doesn’t like to haggle. He wants to skip steps and get to the point. People who like haggling hate that about him. Personally, I think haggling mostly becomes a way for douchebags to brag about their skill at being even bigger douchebags on demand, because that’s what being a “tough negotiator” who “drives a hard bargain” is.

    I know what you’re saying. I’ve dealt with people in a social context for whom every single damn interaction was turned into a negotiation and competition of egos. It’s a waste of my time. But you know what? When I walk into a Turkish bazaar or a car dealership, I come ready to haggle. Anyone who doesn’t is going to get eaten alive. Sometimes you have to be prepared to do something and do it well, even if it’s not your favorite thing in the world.

  164. 164
    Corner Stone says:

    @FlipYrWhig:

    People who like haggling hate that about him. Personally, I think haggling mostly becomes a way for douchebags to brag about their skill at being even bigger douchebags on demand, because that’s what being a “tough negotiator” who “drives a hard bargain” is. Macho headgames again. Tired act.

    I don’t like haggling. And I hardly ever do it. But negotiating? I do that every day, or at least every week.
    And it’s got absolutely nothing to do with being tough or macho.
    You’re just making excuses.

  165. 165
    General Stuck says:

    @General Stuck:

    In the cause of being honest, after pondering for a while, I’m not precisely sure who I voted for in the 1992 election. I remember being undecided, even going into the booth, only time that ever happened for a potus election. But no matter who I voted for between Clinton and Bush 1, I thought, and still think Bush 1 was a decent president, and don’t apologize for that, regardless of how I voted in 92 .

  166. 166
    FlipYrWhig says:

    @Just Some Fuckhead:

    The rest of it is you talking to hear yourself talk.

    Or, discussing a fucking related topic, only not to your self-involved satisfaction. Piss off. Bradley wasn’t left. Unless you want to say that Obama was left. And I don’t think you would.

  167. 167
    FlipYrWhig says:

    @Corner Stone: You’ve never met douchebags who brag about what a deal they got on their car? That’s the mindset that keeps being applied to Obama.

    “Ah, jeez, buddy, you shoulda called me, I woulda made sure you didn’t get stuck paying a price like that.”
    “But my old car was all jacked up and I needed to get to work.”
    “Still, here’s the thing, you gotta make them feel like you’re gonna walk.”
    “I wasn’t gonna walk, I needed a damn car.”
    “Negotiating 101, my friend.” [does that finger-pointing, click-click tongue-to-teeth thing]

  168. 168
    FlipYrWhig says:

    @aimai: I think worrying about who wins and loses every single haggle is counterproductive. There’s another point, too. Haggling is a form of social interchange, and being willing to have that social interchange marks you as someone who might be worth doing business with. Think of the difference between being in the office card game to take your coworkers of all they’ve got, on the one hand, and being in the office card game as a sign that you’re a fun person with a life outside work, on the other.

    I think Obama’s view is that he earns something intangible by being always willing to sit down. I don’t think he’s worried about who walks away from the table with what, because the real game is somewhere else: it’s in being seen as an honest broker and a good sport.

    You don’t have to like it. You can think it’s bad strategy. Maybe it _is_ bad strategy. But IMHO that’s the strategy. Talking about it in those terms sends the discussion in a different direction than “he’s such a wuss because he loses every negotiation.” He’s not negotiating. In fact, everyone’s _other_ big complaint is that there’s no negotiating with Republicans, because they don’t vote for stuff anyway. So what’s the problem?

    What does a winning negotiation look like? He can’t get one, right, hasn’t that been established? Because to get one would involve bringing Republicans over, and they won’t come over, no matter what. I’m not clear on what’s supposed to happen, when the only thing that you can justifiably call a win absolutely can’t, and everyone agrees that it can’t.

  169. 169
    Corner Stone says:

    @FlipYrWhig: I know douchebags that do a lot of things. I don’t set them as the standard for those other things either.
    To extend the car analogy a little further, I do not go to the car dealer and say, “I’d like that blue one please. What’ll it take to get me in it? Here are some floor mats I brought from home for it. But you can keep them if you like them.”

    My usual form of negotiation is consensus building. Yes, I’m sure that’s difficult to believe. But I have a lot of different personalities with varying goals. And usually all the stakeholders each get an equal vote, in the small d democratic version.
    I never, ever offer something up in a good faith effort because it is always bound to fail/backfire. People don’t value things that come cheaply. And the people who wanted that now roll to their Option #2 as the new baseline.
    Ah, I could go on but there’s no point. I can see by your #168 it’s useless.

  170. 170
    FlipYrWhig says:

    @Corner Stone: Yeah, but the Republicans aren’t stakeholders and don’t behave like stakeholders, so you can’t build a consensus with them, so the whole exercise is meaningless, so maybe the only thing to do is make goodwill gestures that play to the public. I don’t like it, but if Republicans don’t negotiate, which is well-established by now, I don’t see why we keep taking time to talk about how Obama _should_ negotiate as though it’s possible to negotiate effectively with them. It isn’t. Why not just do a Potemkin negotiation that everyone inside knows will fail but that might impress the casual visitor?

Comments are closed.