Getting Republicans to agree to a vote on New START, while hugely important, wouldn’t count as winning something. It has been endorsed by a whole range of GOP foreign policy experts and former officials. It should be a no-brainer. Repealing DADT is the only remaining way this year for Dems to remind their supporters that they are still capable of winning, that there’s a reason to elect Democrats, and that Dems aren’t pathologically predisposed to getting rolled in the name of “compromise.”
Just do it. No nonsense about the calendar. No excuses about GOP obstructionism. Make it happen.
Other than completely ignoring that START is being held hostage for tax cuts, that DADT’s passage is hinged on Scott Brown’s need to look independent for the 2010 election, and that the Republicans have filibustered every major vote of the current session, this analysis makes sense.
Flounder
I read that and immediately thought of the Green Lantern theory of politics, where just willing something hard enough makes it happen. And the McCain method, where you sit everyone down and tell them to stop the b.s., magically solving the problem.
Hugh
I would refer you to Frank Rich in today’s times . There’s no back bone with the Democratic party. They deal with Republicans as if they’re different people than they actually are. Obama is missing in action politically.
Hugh
Obama is losing his defenders. He’s losing me that’s for sure.
Cacti
It’s the tinkerbell theory of politics.
Just clap your hands and wish for it hard enough, and 60 votes will appear for DADT repeal.
Hugh
I don’t see the point in expending energy trying to explain why the Democrats and Obama can’t do things when Obama keeps reaching out to Republicans for “compromise”. Obama is a gifted speaker. If he used his position and skills to hammer away at the Republicans for their awful, corrupt positions more would happen. He just doesn’t do it. It’s depressing beyond description. He refuses to set any agenda that way.
Odie Hugh Manatee
Hugh was a bit slow and didn’t get to make the first post an anti-Obama one so he had to settle for the next two…lol
Better luck next time.
Ok, three of the first five. We get your point. Already.
PeggyAI
It also bugs the crap out of me that extending unemployment benefits is a win for the Democrats. How is this not a win for the country? Are there no Republicans who are without jobs?
Cacti
@Hugh:
Just keep clapping those hands and say…
“I do believe there are 60 votes! I do! I do!”
Mr. Furious
I though that the Repukes were able to BLOCK votes solely by employing their own Tinkerbell Theory? The difference being that Democrats rely on fate or divine intervention to make their wish come true (which won’t be forthcoming), and the Republicans need only rely on the Democrats caving to make THEIR wishes cone true.
Michael
Obviously, the answer is in an Alan Grayson primarying of Obama. He’s obnoxious, bombastic and ready.
Common sense and realism apparently mean nothing when you’re a paid pundit – in my view, punditry for pay should be a felony.
John S.
It’s always Obama’s fault. If only he had done ____________, then he would have had 60 votes in the Senate to get ___________________ passed.
Someone needs to complete this political mad-lib so that it actually makes sense. Anyone?
cathyx
Obama will conveniently tie extending unemployment benefits to extending tax cuts for all. That way everyone is happy. And Obama supporters will have another excuse to support him.
Cacti
@PeggyAI:
That would require a certain amount of logic from our body politic.
Case in point, I have a relative who was “retired” from their job of 30+ years in 2009. Not quite old enough for social security, and too old to get hired in a bad economy, with their unemployment benefits about to expire…they still cheerfully voted Republican in 2010.
They willingly voted to slit their own throat economically.
Cacti
@Michael:
And white.
Hugh
@Cacti
There might be 60 votes if Obama stepped into the mix more. He doesn’t so there’s little pressure on anyone to vote the way he wants. Therefore, no 60 votes. That’s the deal with tax cuts too. Why bend over backwards to make that OK?
@Odie
I almost never comment. It’s very rare. But I felt moved to here because I’m so fucking depressed. We’re headed down a very bad road and Obama isn’t pushing back. He’s working on getting that dialogue going, bringing slices of pie to a gun fight. Take a look at Frank Rich. He says it so much better than I ever could.
The Grand Panjandrum
So who gets the blame if the DADT repeal doesn’t pass? Obama? Harry Reid? Tinkerbell? It certainly won’t be the Republicans. At least not in the mainstream press. The framing will always be the failure of the weak ass Dems and not a recalcitrant GOP whose only purpose seems to be a mad drive to regain power without a coherent public policy to go with it. (OK I overstated that point. I forgot about the magic elixir of tax cuts. Tax cuts, today. Tax cuts, tomorrow. Tax cuts, forever! When will Mitch McConnell have his Charlton Heston momemt and bravely shout from the podium, “You can have my tax cuts when you pry them from my cold, dead hand.”)
lacp
It would appear that Mr. Sargent has the President confused with Jean-Luc Picard. I very much doubt that Barack Obama can just say “Make it so” and expect tangible results.
Cacti
@Hugh:
And if he clapped a little harder.
General Stuck
Lovely supporters you have Mr. President. Fair weather liberals . It doesn’t make sense because the truth can’t be spoken in polite pointy head circles.
John S.
And when the Democrats trade extended unemployment benefits for extended tax cuts (as the news this morning seems to be making clear), how many of our delightful manic progressives will scream that it’s not enough and we should have gotten more from the deal?
It’s the healthcare debate all over again. The “true” liberals don’t mind bargaining with the lives of a few million people so long as they can feel that they won, got their agenda passed AND gave Republicans a black eye.
Mr. Furious
Sure. There are plenty. They are doing fine surviving on the secret trickle-down scraps from their Galtian Overlords.
Failing that, they can depend on hot air from Rush and Hannity heat their homes, and starbursts and tweets from Palin to make their bellies feel full.
Brian S (formerly Incertus)
It would be nice to see Democratic Senators everywhere making the point that Republicans are holding up very important stuff–unemployment benefits extensions, START, etc.–in support of a policy that only 26% of the country supports, namely, tax cuts for people making over 250K a year.
26% of the country. Hammer the shit out of that to anyone who will listen, and try to get through to those who won’t. But make sure it’s clear–Senate Republicans are pushing an unpopular policy, and they’re willing to damage the country in order to get it.
Hugh
@Cacti
I don’t understand your position. Do you have any affirmative way of dealing with Republican opposition or is all your energy given to explaining why the Democrats are neutered?
Odie Hugh Manatee
I’ve been reading the meltdown over at Kos and I have to say that place has really gone to shit. Polling over there shows that the Obama supporters greatly outnumber the opposition but to read the Wreck List you would never think so. I was reading away this morning and it hit me that I could probably find nicer things said about Obama at RedState.
The crazy left really enjoys bashing whoever is president but I think they particularly enjoy bashing ‘one of their own’ over any Republican. It’s like they think ‘Yeah, we couldn’t do anything to stop ‘insert Repub prez name here’ but we sure can do something to stop our guy!’.
Toss in the ratfuckers with these crazed nutjobs on the left and you have the incessant din that we are hearing today.
Cacti
@Hugh:
I don’t hear you clapping.
Michael
@Hugh:
Yeah, ‘coz Mitch the Bitch and James Inhofe and Jim DeMint will TOTALLY change around if Obama talks to them more.
John S.
Critical thinking fail.
There is not ONE fucking Republican vote to be swayed. Not ONE. Not to mention the handful of ConservaDems that like to stick the shiv in. So the GOP just march in lockstep and filibuster everything. Is your last name Van Winkle? Have you been asleep the past two years?
JGabriel
mistermix:
Typo? I assume you mean the 2012 election.
.
pablo
What Harry told
SallieBarack!Michael
@Hugh:
Short of treason trials with capital punishment, internment camps and enhanced interrogation, there is no real way to deal with them in a civil fashion.
Cacti
@John S.:
The ice witches of Maine support some liberal policies…
Except for when it’s time to actually vote on them.
And now they have to wingnut it up to try and stave off a teatard primary challenge.
debit
@Hugh: I think I missed it when the title President changed to Dictator.
Seriously, you’re making no sense. You say he compromises too much, then you say he should get into the mix more. Maybe you simply haven’t been paying attention, but even if he strong armed every single Democrat to vote his way it will do no good whatsoever because THERE ARE NOT ENOUGH VOTES TO BREAK THE MOTHERFUCKING REPUBLICAN FILIBUSTER. The only way we can get anything to even come to a vote is to get at least one or two Republicans to vote with us. He wants to get things done. He HAS to get things done. The Republicans can sit around with their thumbs up their butts and do nothing but clench all day if they want because they don’t care and won’t be held accountable.
Jesus Christ.
Nick
@John S.:
I especially like it when they complain he shouldn’t done something he actually did do.
Odie Hugh Manatee
@Hugh:
I don’t look for articles or posts to validate my thoughts, I already know things are fucked and I don’t need Frank Rich to tell me why because I already know why. Here’s a clue: It ain’t because of Obama. He is one person and one person did not get us in this mess, just like one person is not going to get us out of it. We have a legislature that has failed us miserably and has been failing miserably for decades.
Obama is a distraction. Our legislature and their rich patrons are the problem.
Brian S (formerly Incertus)
@John S.: This. So-called moderate Republicans saw what happened to their reasonable colleagues in the last primary cycle and would rather cave to the power than face Tea Partiers. The sad irony is that they’re going to get primaried anyway, and may well lose, so they’re only delaying the inevitable. But they’re certainly not going to get more moderate between now and then.
Is there any chance we can get 41 Democratic Senators to openly pledge to let all the tax cuts expire if the Republicans don’t change their tune? Let’s give them a taste of their own obstruction–they want the tax cuts way more than we need to give them to them.
General Stuck
some facts. Obama has gone down a list of sorts, for the items he campaigned on. Starting with the big ticket items, and the most difficult, like HCR, and moving on from there. In the first two years of a 4 year term. No other president in my lifetime, dem or repub has done this like clockwork. With a republican party in total opposition, and a gaggle of winger lite dem senators. And passed much of that agenda with compromise, almost entirely to satisfy other democrats in the senate. And still, he is a failure, and the ever coded “weak” from his supporters, that even the wingnuts haven’t adopted that scurrilous meme. He has a full legacy in just two years. Why should anyone put up with that kind of shit from alleged supporters?
Hugh
@Cacti
I’m taking your answer as a no.
@Odie
I don’t really read Kos anymore because it’s often too reflexively ideological.
If the Democrats were actively engaging in political battle, forcing Republicans to take votes that showed their complete corrupt nature, that would be different. But that isn’t what’s happening. This administration keeps giving ground, even when it doesn’t have to. The Federal pay freeze is a great example of this. Why give that up unilaterally when it could have been used as a bargaining chip? Today’s Republicans are horrible, amoral, bought-and-paid-for, tools of the plutocracy. That’s it. They have no superego function at all. But they DO have an ego function and if you make things politically hot enough you might be able to peel away a couple of votes. I see little effort from this administration to turn up the heat. Why is pointing that out portrayed as a betrayal and a manifestation of being a fair-weather supporter?
MBunge
@Hugh: There might be 60 votes if Obama stepped into the mix more.
What does “stepping into the mix more” mean?
Mike
Nick
@Hugh:
Give up whatever you need to give up to get something done, or don’t get anything done at all and just berate them for two years.
those are the only options and neither of them will make the Democrats like efficient.
WyldPirate
@John S.:
You don’t get it. Say he trades for a two year continuation of the tax cuts. There is not one word coming out of the Rethugs about actually paying for these.
Now let’s move on to the continuation of UI benes. They had been doing it for six months at a time. The Rethugs suggest that it has to be paid for. Where is the money going to be taken from? Unused stimulus? (that’s a zero-sum game, I guess. But for how long will they extend it? One year? Or will the Dems fold on even anything more than the regular 6 months?
But that is not really where this is going to come into play again to hurt Obama and the Dems. They still hold the White House and Senate (held hostage in it is more apt). Those Bush tax cut extensions will get extended and add 140+ billion to the debt. The Rethugs will hang this all around the Obama’s neck in 2012.
Obama is going to get fucked by this both coming and going.
MBunge
@Hugh: If the Democrats were actively engaging in political battle, forcing Republicans to take votes that showed their complete corrupt nature, that would be different.
Idiot, Nancy Pelosi got a lot of more progressive-friendly legislation passed in the House during the last two years. House Republicans almost unanimously voted against those bills all the time…and it didn’t mean a damn thing.
Mike
John S.
@Nick:
My theory for quite some time, and proven correct more each day, is that a vast number of liberals wanted Obama to be a bizarro Bush. He would just casually ignore the law when it suited him, ram shit down the Republicans throats and humiliate them, but it would all work out okay because he was abusing his power for all the RIGHT reasons, not like that awful Bush.
Nick
@Hugh:
Actually, that’s exactly what’s happening Hugh. That’s exactly what happened with unemployment benefits, with the 9/11 health bill, with DADT, with the DREAM Act and with tax cuts yesterday.
Cacti
@General Stuck:
A part of me would like to see Obama walk away in 2012 with his back turned and middle finger in the air to the professional left.
Then they can nominate a great white hopeless like Grayson, Feingold, or Kucinich and watch him get Mondaled as the black vote mostly sits it out.
mr. whipple
Gee, there isn’t anywhere else on the internet you could share your massive disappointment, surrounded by like-minded doomsdayers?
General Stuck
@Cacti:
same here
beergoggles
@The Grand Panjandrum: That’s because Republicans weren’t the ones who decided to make the DOJ appeal the DADT lawsuit after it was struck down.
Villago Delenda Est
In order to “just do it”, a miracle has to happen.
Harry Reid has to grow a spin.
Na gonna happen.
Nick
@John S.:
partisanship does make hypocrites, but not all are like that. Glenn Greenwald, for all his faults, would not be ok with that.
I think this is the after effect of the 2000 election and eight years of Bush. Liberals want payback.
They’re fighting a civil war, not looking to govern the country.
Hugh
I guess what I’m missing from this thread is what folks suggest the Democrats should be doing differently if anything. There’s only lots of energy pushing back against any criticism of the Democrats and Obama, often with personal invective.
beergoggles
@John S.: And then it turned out that
debit
@Hugh: What’s your suggestion? Be specific, what parliamentary procedures should Obama and Reid be using to push through the bills we wants? Let’s hear it.
Nick
@Hugh:
Hugh, MoveOn.org stood in front of our local Congressman’s office on Thursday asking people to sign a petition and/or join their rally to pressure our Congressman to not give in on tax cuts for the rich, and tell Obama not to either.
In an hour and a half, on a busy New York street, only 20 people stopped to sign the petition…20 people.
MoveOn.org couldn’t get people to join the fight. The only way Democrats are ever going to fight back, and be effective at it, is if their supporters, outside the activists group, actually gave a damn.
Cacti
@debit:
About the only procedural tool left is the nuclear option, which is not guaranteed to muster 50 votes in support and is potential pandora’s box of unintended consequences.
JPL
As the website http://www.WhatthefuckhasObamadone.com shown much has been accomplished but more needs to be done. We are not going to shut up the whackos and although Brown and the ME senators say they support DADT, they will filibuster unless they get their tax cuts for the rich.
edit…the link is incorrect..it should be
http://whatthefuckhasobamadonesofar.com
Obama can use his voice but I’d rather see Biden at this point. Biden can come across like a comedian or a pit bull both of which we need. Obama is just too Presidential…lol
Odie Hugh Manatee
@Hugh:
And why is it not happening? Maybe because the legislative side is not making it happen? Could that be the problem? Obama is in the executive, not the legislative side. He can holler all he wants for something from them and every single time they fail to deliver it he would look weaker and weaker to the M$M, which they would quickly broadcast to the world. I can see why Obama wouldn’t want to expend political capital on trying to exhort the congress to get off its ass and do something. They won’t and the M$M will have a blast ripping on his weakness when they fail to.
I could respond to more of your questions but there are easy answers to them too and I’m just too tired of the bullshit to go over it again and again. Trust me, while Obama is nowhere near perfect, he is not the solution (or blame) for all of our problems. The more you focus on him the less time you are spending going after the real culprits.
Our Congress. Too many on the left want their version of W. They are only interested in what interests them, their pet issues, and they are only interested in getting their issues addressed first. Others are interested in tearing down Obama, for whatever reason. Still others are confused and don’t know who to believe so they focus on the ‘big cheese’, who everyone they seem to side with seems to be pissed off at. When the three mix you get the non-stop Ratfucking Firebagger Carnival and House of Horrors that we have had running lately.
Like I have said a few times now, stupid is beating the shit out of smart. I can’t believe it but that’s what’s happening.
Hugh
@debit
I think Obama could be making much better use of the bullypulpit to frame the debate. For example why has he accepted the frame of debate to be about reducing the national debt and not about jobs? He institutes a federal pay freeze when he could be proposing a big, dramatic jobs bill that catches the attention of the media. He’s really, really good at communicating. This is why his passivity in this regard feels so mystifying. We keep arguing on Republican terms. That’s a huge lose.
Nick
@Hugh:
This is a joke, right? The only thing that will catch the attention of the media is how much this jobs program will cost and what Sarah Palin tweets about it.
If you’re relying on the media, you might as well just rely on Palin herself, because the two are one in the same at this point
Anya
@Hugh: How do you lose something you’ve never had?
Hugh
@Nick:
I take your point. It’s a bit of a feedback loop too. There might be more energy if the Democratic leadership had more fire. Harry Reid doesn’t get the blood pumping. Nancy does though. I love her.
cleek
wow, looks like somebody turned on the OBot Emergency Defense Signal.
halp, halp, our leader is being criticized. swarm. swarm.
debit
@Cacti: Yep.
@ thread: Look, I understand that people are unhappy with some of the decisions Obama has made. I’ve been unhappy as well. But what I don’t understand is the willful ignorance and gleeful bashing I’m seeing on supposedly liberal blogs from supposed liberals. So he didn’t push for a specific thing, he didn’t stop the DoJ from fighting a court decision, he didn’t go down to the Senate floor and pistol whip Jim DeMint into submission. Have you seen pictures of him lately? Have you seen his hair going gray, the lines in his face? He’s aged ten years in two. Do you think that possibly the man is dealing a million things, each of them more of a crisis than the previous?
How many of you call your rep or senator? How many of you write letters to the editor? How many attend local political meetings? The man can’t do it on his own, and unless you’re working just as hard, you might want to think about that before you start whining about he’s not doing enough. You’re supposed to be part of the process too.
Cacti
The mad lib idea was a good one, but I think we should make a left wing bingo game for all of their favorite buzzwords concerning the POTUS…
One square can be…”bully pulpit”
Some others…”public option,” “the base,” “sell out,” “corporatist,” “primary him”…and so on
Hugh
@Nick:
I think this comment is very illuminating. Democrats are very fearful of what the Republicans might do if the Democrats try to give them a bloody nose, so often they don’t try. So much of the energy here is about explaining why the Democrats can’t do more.
WyldPirate
@debit:
Well what is your alternative plan, debit? Seriously, what is it?
I see all of you Obama defenders whining and saying that he is powerless to do anything other than keep giving in to the republicans on everything. That he can’t do anything else.
Seriously, the Rethuglicans were seriously dictating the agenda when they controlled absolutley nothing
Why even have a Democratic President or a Senate or a House if it keeps moving further and further right? Goddamn, it’s to the right of where Nixon was back in the 70s already.
What do you Obama defenders have other than whining and sniveling that the President is powerless?
Rhoda
@Nick: First of all, they’d have more success if they didn’t frame it as the President caving and being weak. What folks don’t recognize is there is a reason why #43 was defended to the death by his party in the face of his ignorance, stupidity, and incompetence. Acknowledging those truths made THEM look the same; The professional left doesn’t recognize when they call out Obama as weak they’re calling THEMSELVES weak because the regular voter sees a calm, rational Obama they like and his own party bad mouthing him when the Republicans said jack shit about Bush and they turn on the LEFT not Obama per se.
Chris Bowers had a post about how the President’s poll numbers are at 45% and a lot of the replies couldn’t believe it because they’re in their own world of hate for the President.
Frankly, Congress is the problem. No one has been willing to say it because Democrats control Congress. Come January, Republicans will control the House and you’ll see (IMO) the President running against the House and Pelosi/Reid follow suite. And the conservadems fucking things up for the party won’t matter as much because anything John Boehner can push through the house will be easily passed by those assholes.
They dynamic is COMPLETELY different. But the only way it’s completely assured is getting this middle class tax cut (the President having promised and campaigned on it) off the table ’til 2013. Temporarily extending everyone (1) provides a bit of stimulus and (2) is another way to run against the Republicans the next two years (they don’t mind voting to extend the tax cuts to the rich but want everything for the middle class offset etc etc).
Whatever.
I personally am not taking everything seriously until after the State of the Union and the President’s next budget drops; then we’ll know how the game is going to be played the next two years.
debit
@WyldPirate: I’m not the one complaining, buddy. Let’s hear your plan.
ETA: Whining and sniveling? Are we talking here, or are we being assholes who don’t care about anything but scoring bully points? Because I can go either way.
Odie Hugh Manatee
@cleek:
I would find it ironic if the guy who wrote the pie filter ends up being listed on it…lol! That said, criticize to your hearts content.
Ok, you can stop when your fingertips are raw and bleeding.
Cacti
@debit:
Bully pulpit!
John S.
@Brian S.:
Maybe, but in a weird sort of way you’re talking about Democrats operating from the minority position. It seems to work just fine for Republicans, but I recall when Democrats tried their hand at that we got the NUCLEAR OPTION! and a compliant media screaming about up-or-down votes for a few months.
@WyldPirate:
No, YOU don’t seem to get it. The Republicans don’t actually give a shit about paying for anything. How did they propose to pay for the extra $700 billion in tax cuts for the wealthy? Oh, they didn’t. They only use the illusion of caring about the deficit to whip up idiot Tea Party Republicans while requesting $1 billion in earmarks themselves and proposing policies that add to the deficit.
The Republicans have loyal supporters and politicians who march in lockstep like good little Brownshirts. And even when the GOP politicians screw over their voters, they convince them that they aren’t peeing on their leg, but that it’s the EVIL LBRULS peeing on their legs. And they buy it.
And we have people like you and Ben Nelson and Mary Landrieu, ready to stick the knife in at every possible instance with glee, and blame Republican piss on Obama.
@beergoggles:
You know they created a tag around here for idiots just like you! Obama’s worse than Bush – he sold us out!
debit
@Odie Hugh Manatee: It would crack me up if cleek made the pie filter impervious to listing him.
John S.
@cleek:
Oh no, somebody isn’t blaming Obama enough! Attack, attack, attcak! Care to take a stab at my mad-lib?
Or do you just have more bullshit to throw on the pile?
scarshapedstar
Lemme get this straight.
The Republicans want to thin the ranks of Our Heroes Overseas because they might be gay. To put it another way, if they had a choice between a gay soldier sniping Bin Laden or the same gay soldier being dishonorably discharged, they would prefer to let Bin Laden get away.
Oh, and by the way, the reason they want to put The Troops and The Homeland at risk is so that Paris Hilton can get a tax cut.
I’m fairly sure that if the shoe were on the other foot for some reason, the Republicans would find a way to make this issue into a political winner.
debit
@scarshapedstar: The first part is too complicated. But I love the Paris Hilton angle.
Cacti
@John S.:
I’ll give it a shot…
It’s always Obama’s fault. If only he had done *50 jumping jacks on Thursday morning* then he would have had 60 votes in the Senate to get *the tariff on imported Japanese Eggplant* passed.
Hugh
@scarshapedstar:
Well said. And I think there are lots of examples of that. Obama is a nice guy! I think he genuinely is and it isn’t in his nature to go on the attack. But the Republican party is full of people who aren’t nice and will stick a shiv in you if it means getting an extra buck for the rich.
beergoggles
@John S.: They should change it to Obama, not worse than Bush, but so much worse than he should have been.
But I can see how that won’t play into your strawman.
Hugh
Thanks for the fun. Gotta bring my little one to her swim lesson. I posted more this morning than I have for the past two years and had a blast. All the best to all of you. I mean it. :-)
TooManyJens
Oh, god damn it. Fucking boner pills. Let’s try that again.
Obama’s opponents are fueled by totally irrational hatred. Their real problem with Obama is that a black Democrat dared to become President of their country.
I’m baffled by the idea that Obama trying to strongarm them would somehow make them less intransigent, as opposed to fueling their resentment. How does that even work?
cleek
halp halp.
people aren’t clapping loudly enough.
eemom
@Hugh:
1. Fuck Frank Rich. He’s a glorified concern troll.
2. are you the FDL “Hugh”?
eemom
@cleek:
if yer happy and you know it clap your hands…..
debit
@cleek: I detect a note of insincerity in your cries for help. Perhaps if you added a “dearie me” and possibly “lawks” they would ring true.
joe from Lowell
Facepalm.
La-di-da-di-da. Gee, why didn’t Harry Reid think of that? Maybe he’ll wake up Monday morning, and while he’s shaving, stop in mid-stroke and say to himself, “Hey! I know! I’ll just make it happen!”
Oh, what a happy day that will be.
Sheesh.
WyldPirate
@debit:
No, you’re not getting away with that shit debit.
The people who have been criticizing Obama have at least at least proposed something. Like fight back. Hone your messagbe. Bang the republicans relentlessly for their obstruction. Quit giving away shit at the beginning of your “negotiations”. Have a real, honest to goodness filibuster.
These things, while perhaps doomed to failure, are at least something different. They are at least something.
You and the Obot crew are proposing NOTHING but continual whining that Obama is powerless.
Obama is getting spanked in the optics department. He looks weak as hell even though he might not be so weak. Voters do not like that shit.
And you folks can forget the 45% approval rating. That is meaningless come 2012. It’s electoral game on then. Obama is really weak in states that will really matter. And as this past election demonstrated, there was a surge of people from the right that didn’t vote in 08.
What the fuck do you think is going to happen when the TeaTards get wound up again and Obama is dealing with a demoralized base that doesn’t want to help (and this is real, too)? I’ll tell you what will happen. A right-wing version of ’08 is what can happen.
joe from Lowell
OK, saw the update:
Unfortunately, there’s one other thing to do to “just make it happen,” with “no excuses” – EXCUSES! YOU FUCKING DISINGENUOUS SCUM WEASEL! – “about GOP obstructionism.” You have to strike a deal to extend the tax cuts.
Because, you see, GOP obstructionism isn’t an “excuse.” It actually exists, and that’s the cost of overcoming it.
So, the Protest People are going to get to denounce the Democrats for giving up, either way. “Boo, they gave up on the tax cuts!” or “Boo, they didn’t do what they had to do to pass DADT!”
Stillwater
@WyldPirate: The Rethugs suggest that it has to be paid for. Where is the money going to be taken from?
Exactly. The little scenario you described shows the genius of GOP messaging. Tax cuts for the wealthy actually increase the deficit, but the GOP base thinks they’ll pay for themselves via excessive Laffer. Political win for the GOP! UI benes also add to the deficit, which GOPers will highlight, saddling the Dems with the burden of finding a way to trim spending somewhere else, like Medicare or school lunches or somesuch. Political loss for Dems!
They get away with this because GOPer frontmen are brilliant liars and con-men. And about their lying, there is no hope of change, my friends.
MBunge
@scarshapedstar: I’m fairly sure that if the shoe were on the other foot for some reason, the Republicans would find a way to make this issue into a political winner.
But the shoe wouldn’t be on the other foot. That’s half the answer. The other is that the Democrats in 2004 ran for President a frickin’ war hero who was given the Silver Star for killing the enemy, the GOP still attacked him for being a pussy and our media and political elite never even blinked.
Mike
debit
@WyldPirate:
Fight back how, precisely? I actually would like to know what you think they should do.
Hone your message how, exactly? I seem to recall that in the last few weeks of October Obama was campaigning almost non stop, crisscrossing the country. You know what the AP’s headline was a week before the elections? “Obama campaigns quietly from White House.”
Have a real, honest to goodness filibuster? That is what they’re doing according to the rules. They can change the rules, next session, to make a filibusterer take the floor, but for now it’s not required.
And I think what makes him look weak is assholes attacking him from his own side, but that might just be me.
Oh, and I’m asumming from your derisive “Obot” that’s it’s to be assholes instead of discourse.
joe from Lowell
@WyldPirate:
Uh, Pirate? In case you haven’t noticed, it’s been “electoral game on” for Obama’s opponents for the past two years. It’s the Democrats and Obama who haven’t had their “electoral game on,” because they’ve been actually governing instead. And as you note, the effect of this on the president has been an approval rating in the mid-to-high 40s, which is not too shabby.
You want to know what will be different in 2012 – Obama and the Democrats will be actually bringing their electoral game, instead of maneuvering to get actual legislation through the actual Congress with zero votes to spare (something they’ve been remarkably good at for the past two years).
Corner Stone
Somebody call for the whaaambulance!
Tell them to bring lots of blankies and nighty night story books.
debit
@Corner Stone: Throw in some cookies and I’m so there.
MBunge
@WyldPirate: The people who have been criticizing Obama have at least at least proposed something. Like fight back. Hone your messagbe. Bang the republicans relentlessly for their obstruction. Quit giving away shit at the beginning of your “negotiations”. Have a real, honest to goodness filibuster.
Let’s take a look at that list of supposed proposals.
1. “Like fight back.” Blather.
2. “Hone your message.” Blather.
3. “Bang the republicans relentlessly for their obstruction.” Blather.
4. “Quit giving away shit at the beginning of your negotiations”. Not blather, but Obama’s actually accomplished a lot doing it his way.
5. “Have a real, honest to goodness filibuster.” Which Obama is supposed to force Harry Reid and the Dems to do…how?
5 proposals. One legitimate. Four pretty much bullshit.
Mike
Nick
@Hugh:
so do I, the media doesn’t.
Amanda in the South Bay
Aren’t there a couple of prominent posters here who have asserted for the past couple of months that a repeal of DADT during the lame duck session is all but guaranteed (Martin, Joe from Lowell)?
WyldPirate
@John S.:
I get that fucking perfectly, John S.
But what does Obama and the Dems do in return?
Mismanage their agenda because they were so cowardly that they boxed themselves into a corner on tax cuts. The closest our clueless electorate comes to paying attention is at election time. Could the Dems bring the tax issue up then? They clearly have the public on their side with the issue of tax cuts. But what does Obama do? He makes a meaningless gesture on freezing Fed pay and gets PUNKED by the Rethugs.
You can leave me out of that shit. He lost my ass when he started dealing shit away to Big Pharma and wi8th his Afghanistan escalation. that was the straw that broke my back. I worked my ass off to get him elected. I’ve talked to a half-dozen of the people at least in recent weeks that I worked with, knocked on doors with, etc. Every single one say “not this time”. They are all done. No time volunteered at all. Obama may get their vote, but they won’t get anything else.
debit
@MBunge: I actually understand a lot of the frustration I’m seeing. People want things to get done. People want justice. I spent 8 long years in a quiet, seething fury and when at last “our” side was in charge and I didn’t get the justice I wanted all that emotion just exploded. I’m calmer now, still angry and disappointed but calmer. The things I want want may never be, but there’s still a lot of other things that can be (and have been) done.
And it’s funny but it’s posters like Pirate that made me change my perspective and start defending my president again.
Stillwater
@MBunge: My own $.000002: 1, 2 and 3 above aren’t blather, their genuine criticisms. But correcting them would require a somewhat unified Democratic caucus in the Senate. The problem the Dems have currently is the same one we’ve always had: there is no unity in the Senate about any particular policy – in fact, many Dem Sens are actually GOPers in clever costumes – so there can’t be any unified messaging. I mean, try to imagine Al Franken speaking to the press as the voice of the Sen Dem caucus. Unpossible.
WyldPirate
@MBunge:
So what the fuck have you got, MiBunge?
A big old pile of WHINE that Obama is powerless is all I’ve heard.
Let’s hear YOU’RE proposals aside from the one that Obama is just powerless and should let the Rethugs steal his lunch box on the way to school and depants him in public.
debit
@WyldPirate: I get that it’s easier for you to rage and froth while flailing about, but you’re not getting it: YOU are the one saying Obama’s fucked everything up by not doing it your way. Let’s hear your way. Specifics, real world specifics instead of vague “Go out there and kick some ass” rah rah bullshit.
ETA: You keep using emasculating phrases and imagery. Seriously, I’m pretty sure Obama’s manhood is just fine. If you’re projecting that much, you may want to consider Cole’s suggestion to seek help.
lol
The Professional Left’s problem with Obama is that he got nominated and elected without their permission: House Negros are supposed to sit in the corner, stay quiet and vote Democrat, not run the fucking country. But what do you expect from a community that’s as white, rich and male as a Mississippi Country Club?
WyldPirate
@joe from Lowell:
Well, we’ll see in ’12 I suppose, Joe.
I think that Obama and the Dems had better learn how to multitask PDQ. All of Obama’s “hands across the water” bipartisanship didn’t work well.
I say Obama is toast in very important areas unless the economy makes a miraculous recovery. I don’t think that will happen because it took the economy 6 years after the 01 recession to get close to replacing the jobs it lost. This one is much deeper.
Obama is a victim in part to horrible timing of which he had no control over. He didn’t have a real part in the lunacy that made the deficit so bad or the decisions of Reagan, Clinton and Shrub that led directly to the economic crash. It has become HIS economy now, though. And he will take some heat for it–perhaps fatal heat.
What he has done has been stupid. get the fuck out of Afghanistan would have been a start. That saves 50+ billion a year that could and should be plowed back into the US. He needs to stop the bipartisan efforts. They are useless.
WyldPirate
@debit:
Over the weeks here, I have proposed multiple things.
All I’ve heard from you is that Obama is powerless and it is his base that is the problem.
Whine and bupkus is all you Obots have. Fucking crickets chirping when you are not crying like babies and making excuses or like Stuck screaming racist at anyone that criticizes Obama.
You’ve got nothing other than crying like a big pussy and making excuses for Obama.
lol
Also, I love the revolving “solutions” from the Poutrage Brain Trust:
1. Obama needs to stop reaching out to Republicans and simply force them to vote against the bill. The optics will make this a winner politically.
2. Obama needs to step in and get some Republicans to vote for the bill so it’ll pass. Results are all that matter.
3. Obama needs to stop reaching out to Republicans and simply force them to vote against the bill. The optics will make this a winner politically.
4. Obama needs to step in and get some Republicans to vote for the bill so it’ll pass. Results are all that matter.
5. Obama needs to stop reaching out to Republicans and simply force them to vote against the bill. The optics will make this a winner politically.
6. Obama needs to step in and get some Republicans to vote for the bill so it’ll pass. Results are all that matter.
etc etc
RosiesDad
@Hugh: Frank Rich is more depressed than I am and it has driven him to delusion. Stockholm Syndrome? Bullshit. Obama isn’t suffering from Stockholm Syndrome; he’s suffering from lack of balls. Or he was full of shit all along and he’s just another plutocrat.
And the Democrats just suck. Just suck. There is no reason to elect Democrats, just wait 4 – 6 years for the poor people (the numbers in this demographic are increasing on an accelerating basis) to start resorting to 2nd Amendment solutions and hunker down in your shelter with canned goods and bottled water and wait for the dust to settle.
Nick
@Stillwater:
Which begs the question, when a group of Democratic Senators was filibustering the Civil Rights Act championed by a Democratic President, why was there no complaint about messaging or discussion of unity.
The answer;
-The media was more focused on the horrible events going on in the South, rather than if LBJ satisfied Richard Russell and Robert Byrd’s egos.
-the public was willing to NOT vote for Republicans who didn’t support civil rights, even if they had for the past three (or in some cases, four) Presidential elections, and that helped the Democrats get GOP votes.
If either of these things weren’t true, Civil Rights would never have passed, no matter how much “arm-twisting” LBJ did.
Nick
@WyldPirate:
So let’s of course kick the man anyway.
RosiesDad
@Hugh: Nancy has a bigger pair than Obama and Harry Reid combined. And God love her for it.
Corner Stone
@RosiesDad:
But who are they going to be shooting at?
Corner Stone
And you can love em or hate em, but Atrios puts it down here:
Anya
You want to know how crazy Obama haters are, just check Glenn Greenwald’s tweet: I
Yes, that’s right, he compared a blogger who documents Obama’s achievements accompanied by pretty pictures in her personal blog to Leni Riefenstahl. What does that make Obama?
ruemara
@WyldPirate:
Here’s the issue, Pirate. He ran on an escalation in Afghanistan. Period. How he was supposed to not do that, despite clearly saying he’d do that, I don’t know. I’m not happy at the merest suggestion that we won’t be leaving until 2014, so that’s something that pisses me off. But I’m not pissed that he escalated, when he said he would.
@Anya:
Jumped, the shark has been.
As a black woman, I am probably not going to support any more netroots anything lefty goodness. Maybe I’m the bigot, but my heart has broken over the nonsense I’ve seen lately. Fucking facts mean nothing on the left or the right in America. Just as long as you hate like we hate.
RosiesDad
@Nick:
Obama is a victim to his own awful ability to communicate. And his allowing the GOP to determine where the goal posts are. For example, on the Bush tax cuts, the White House position should have been: “The economy was doing great with reasonable tax rates under Bill Clinton. Then the GOP lowered tax rates, squandered a huge projected surplus and doubled the nation’s debt. Therefore, we think it is in the nation’s best interest to allow these unfunded tax cuts to expire.” From there, they can negotiate a compromise–temporarily extend lower rates on income under $250K (or $1M), with a return to Clinton era rates when the economy is on better footing. Instead, they START at the point where they are making the Bush tax cuts permanent on income under $250K (which will cost $3.2T over the next decade) and are only negotiating over lower taxes on the upper 2%. How fucking stupid is that???
Corner Stone
@ruemara: Love it. He had to, right? Had no choice?
Nick
@RosiesDad:
You do realize he RAN on keeping the tax cuts for those under $250,000 for expiring. That was HIS campaign platform.
RosiesDad
@Corner Stone: Look at the French Revolution, the Russian Revolution. I think they’ll start with the czars and other members of the ruling class if it comes to that.
We are a nation of ridiculous income disparity with one in seven living under the poverty line. And we are also the most heavily armed nation on the planet. Not necessarily a good combination and it worries me. Not enough that I’m packing my bags today but if the GOP takes back the rest of Congress and the WH in 2012 (and they already own a Supreme Court quite beholden to the concept of plutocratic rule), all bets are off.
How far can the People be pushed before they push back violently? Just saying…
Jon O.
@WyldPirate: What he has done has been stupid. get the fuck out of Afghanistan would have been a start.
You’ve portrayed this as a betrayal twice, with no acknowledgement that he claimed he was going to do this during the election. I thought it was a bad idea then, but I never pretended he was going to do anything differently.
That’s not the most damaging fallacy, though. Earlier up in the thread you claimed that Republicans set the agenda despite controlling nothing. This is wrong, and has been wrong since Scott Brown’s election. Because of how fucked our system of government is, a political party with 41% representation can unilaterally kill pretty much any legislation. They don’t suffer for it – there’s no ACTUAL filibustering going on, and moreover our media is not inclined to make them look bad for it – and the end result is frustrated lefties feeling betrayed because they keep getting steamrolled procedurally. I think it’s bullshit that that’s happening, but Obama is just about the last guy you should be blaming for it. If you’re looking for people to direct ire to, you can go with the sociopaths in the Senate, from “tradition”-respecting assholes like Chris Dodd who can’t see what the filibuster is doing to Ben “Wario” Nelson and his crew, for extracting their pound of flesh from every worthwhile piece of legislation to cross the table.
ruemara
@Corner Stone:
Ok, Stone. What’s your disengagement plan? How would you remove the troops, prop up the corrupt government enough so you can leave safely, and save some sort of face by reducing the chance that Al Qaida will just move back in? Plus the soundbites you’d use along with the methods to get Congress to go with it.
Anya
@Corner Stone: Let’s exchange, give me 5 major Obama accomplishments that you support and believe he did a great job, in exchange, I will give you 5 major Obama failures and/or less than stellar, that drive me nuts?
scarshapedstar
@MBunge:
Would it kill him to describe the GOP’s blanket filibuster as unprecedented, undemocratic, and dangerous? And also that the Constitution says nothing about a filibuster? Because the media won’t. According to them, it’s just that Democrats and Republicans disagree. On every single bill that comes through the Senate. And when Obama says he needs to be more bipartisan, he reinforces this false narrative.
As far as the filibuster, Harry Reid is quite capable of changing the Senate rules. It is entirely, 100% up to him whether the filibuster remains in his current form, reverts to the Mr. Smith Goes to Washington form, or is entirely abolished (my personal preference).
I would like Obama to remind Harry that it’s a lot easier to pass legislation when you control at least one house of Congress. And in our new political reality of filibuster-by-default, the Democrats do not control the Senate.
They can change it, or they can wimp out, and Obama will be a one-termer. Given that Harry Reid is safe for 6 years, I guess he really probably just doesn’t give a shit.
Suck It Up!
@Anya:
omg! I have no words for that.
RosiesDad
@Nick: He also ran on believing in a single payer health care system. And, man, I could see by how hard he worked for it that he must have been crushed when it wasn’t in the HCR package.
Change we can believe in? Hardly.
Listen, not to say Obama hasn’t done some good things. Elizabeth Warren for one. But he also kept Bernanke, promoted Tim Geithner and brought back Larry Summers. So from where I’m sitting, it’s more like he’s throwing an occasional bone to the people who got him elected than anything else.
Hugh
This is from my phone at the pool so forgive any typos.
I defended and still do defend the health care bill/law. My big complaint is that Obama and the dems too often let Republicans frame the terms of debate. This will always result in a lose for us. The debate shouldn’t be about the debt. It should be about jobs.
Dems look afraid of the Republican spin machine so they try to get ahead of it b yoffering things like the federal pay freeze and holding outreach meetings with Republicans to blunt attack. The attacks will always come and they’ll come with lies.
I gave two hundred dollars to Obama duringf the primaries and defended him during the health care debate. I think he’s very smart and wants to do good things. He has done some important things. He is tone deaf when it comes to his base and he appears to believe the Republicans will respond to dialogue. They will not. And because of this the Republicans are not afraid of him and will bring us to ruin as best \ I can see. He has to be more than a nice, smart guy. He has to be a political warrior from time to time.
This took forever to type.
Corner Stone
@ruemara: Love your setup.
None of those things have to happen. It’s 2011. Do you somehow dream that there will be a stable Afghan govt outside of Kabul in 3 years? Or that the last ~100 AQ members are worth spending $180 million a day on?
ruemara
@Hugh:
Here’s where y’all have missed the boat. Obama says nice things about republicans at public podiums. This does not mean he thinks they’re angels. Every. Last. Politician. Does. This.
I’ve stood next to a local senator at a fair as she gladhanded the republicans at the GOP booth. We were both there for Dem outreach and HCR outreach. It made me ill. I asked her why, these guys don’t say nice things about her when a mic is in their face. She told me that this is how it works. Dems play nice because their people expect it. Republicans rant and froth, their people expect it.
You’re upset because the standing president who has called out obstruction, can go on the tv and speak “bipartisanship” and “outreach”. Be more upset that people who voted in Republicans last election neither feel that republicans are capable or willing to work with the president, yet still want “bipartisan” solutions.
@Corner Stone:
So you have no answer, just do it. Ok.
Suck It Up!
@RosiesDad:
THAT is a big FAT lie. Obama told us he would prefer single payer but that he is not interested in tearing down the entire system and would rather work with what we have. He told you flat out that it ain’t happening. He didn’t run on it, he didn’t run on believing it, he answered the question a couple of times and that was it. God damn, even Sanders said single payer would only get 18 votes.
WyldPirate
@Nick:
No, let’s not make excuses for him doing things that clearly make the matter worse.
1. Too small of a stimulus (no votes in the House from the Rethugs at all on what DID pass) and three Rethug votes in the Senate (Susan Collins, Olympia Snowe, and Arlen Specter.
2. Too much tax cuts in the stimulus that did little (although some were useful). Study after study shows that tax cuts have the least stimulative effect on the economy.
3. Worthless empty gestures like the upfront giveaway on freezing Federal pay. Nothing gained in return. It’s a rounding error on the deficit and the money spent has a multiplying effect in the economy and on job creation. Plus it made him look like a clueless child when the Rethugs turned around and punked him the next day with the “hostage letter”.
Nick
@scarshapedstar:
apparently not
http://tpmdc.talkingpointsmemo.com/2009/12/is-obama-growing-weary-of-the-gops-filibuster-everything-mo.php
xian
@Brian S (formerly Incertus): your wrote
ftfy
Nick
@RosiesDad:
What? no he didn’t.
Are you so desperate that you’re resorting to lies now?
Nick
@Hugh:
They don’t get to set the terms of the debate, the moderators do.
The moderators are the media.
How good would a Democrat look in a one on one debate with a Republican if the moderator kept asking questions like “Why do you believe women should be allowed to murder their unborn babies” or “why do you not agree on harshly interrogating someone who was involved in a mass murder of 3,000 Americans on 9/11?”
Anya
@ruemara: The netroots is full of assholes who think they know everything, not to mention PUMAS and Edwards supporters who still cannot get over the primary wars. I am through with them and their irrational hatred.
RosiesDad
@Suck It Up!: Actually what he said was that if he was building a system from scratch that he would do it as a single payer system but since he wasn’t, that it made more sense to build on what we already have. And that among the options that people should have was something like a single payer system. This is what the pols termed “the public option” when HCR was running through Congress. Did you ever see him out pushing for a public option as part of the process? Not really.
In 2003, Obama was totally for single payer health care.
Nick
@RosiesDad:
He wasn’t running for President in 2003.
you know, I’m for single payer, but not on the federal level because i don’t think it would work there at the moment.
Yeah, I’d have to two different positions if i was running for the state legislature and federal office. I want to see the states establish these systems first, then see them spread nationally.
Corner Stone
@ruemara: the problem is that Obama decided to escalate. So nothing anybody says is going to make a difference to you. After he made the decision then it was by default the only correct one.
All the bullshit you try to frame up the question with is wankery. There isn’t a govt in Afghanistan. There will not be one any time soon, including in 2014. AQ has at most some ~100 people in country. You going to keep holding them up as a boogeyman forever? Because we can always find under 100 of just about any group there if we need justification.
And if you’re looking for sound bites that will appease the republicans then I have a pony under a bridge to sell you, next to my oceanfront AZ property.
IOW, excuses – you haz them.
WyldPirate
@Jon O.:
He had a 10 month long study commission in the military on the issue. He fairly obviously had objections that gave him cover to say, “after reconsideration and recommendations from my advisors, it is clear that escalation of our military efforts there will nor be helpful”.
In the end, he capitulated out of fear of criticism from the Rethugs (some of whom were against escalation).
The only thing escalation has done is a.) waste US treasure and lives, b.) support a corrupt regime that stole an election and is stealing billions in US dollars and shipping them out of afghanistan.
great Job, President Obama….
ruemara
@RosiesDad:
He still is. During the healthcare debate, someone asked about single payer. He said, “We don’t have the votes.” This does not mean he is now against single payer, it means to pass this, we do not have enough elected officials who will vote yes. This is not a betrayal, this is a fact of our government process.
@Corner Stone:
I neither held up a bogeyman nor did I claim that 100 AQ were worth the money. I asked the questions about how to do it. I’ve already said I am against it, it was one of the key questions I had to ask myself about supporting Barack Obama. Unlike you, this didn’t slip my notice in the primaries. Wankery, as you call it, is how shit gets done in government. He ran on escalation, he escalated.
RosiesDad
@Nick: Nick:
I’m not desperate, I’m disappointed. I donated hundreds of dollars and hundreds of hours of my time to get him elected because I wanted Change We Could Believe In.
And I do not blame him for the economic crisis that he inherited, nor do I criticize him for doing what he’s doing in Afghanistan b/c he’s doing what he said he would do.
But I’m sorry, it’s not been Change We Can Believe In when the financial crisis was dealt with in such a way that no one was held accountable and two years later, we’re back to business as usual. It’s not Change We Can Believe In when Big Health and Big Pharma get to write substantial portions of HCR legislation (presumably to win Republican support that never materialized???) so that the price of covering most of the uninsured is a gift to Big Industry. And it’s not Change We Can Believe In when he is going to cave on continuing reduced tax rates for those (including myself) who can afford to pay more to help improve the financial health of the nation.
Suck It Up!
@RosiesDad:
Like I said, You lied. You just provided the proof.
Corner Stone
@WyldPirate:
Actually, IIRC, the study proposed three paths. All escalation, just in different amounts.
So the decision to pack up was never even considered.
WyldPirate
@WyldPirate:
Just as an addendum to my post linked above, Obama is clearly not responsible for all of the haggling in the bill (recovery act). The Dems are, although I’m pretty sure Obama came out at the start of the cry for the tax cuts in the recovery act and said yes and giving them credence.
Anya
@Suck It Up!: What I don’t understand is why did he waste his nazi attack on a lowly blogger with very few followers? I don’t think you get to use more than one Nazi accusation in a life time, if you want to be left with some semblance of credibility.
RosiesDad
@ruemara: I’d feel better about it (maybe) if I saw him out there FIGHTING for what he believed in. George Bush–who couldn’t string two coherent sentences together–used the office of the presidency to beat Congressional Democrats into supporting invading Iraq. Into supporting unfunded tax cuts. Into supporting a huge unfunded entitlement program.
The American people aren’t subtle or intelligent enough to “get” that Obama is playing three dimensional chess (if this is in fact what he is doing). He needs to be out there POUNDING the fucking GOP over extending unfunded tax cuts. Make them take ownership of it, make them explain how we pay for it, make them explain why it makes sense. And when they use their bullshit “You can’t raise taxes on job creators” horseshit, point out–FORCEFULLY–that we’ve had these rates for 7 years and WHERE ARE THE JOBS???
But he doesn’t do that and although I am also a smart guy, cerebral doesn’t do it for me at a time when we need impassioned.
Nick
@RosiesDad: Then stop lying.
WyldPirate
@Corner Stone:
He went big if IIRC, too.
Though it is risky, one doesn’t have to always have to follow military advice.
Historically, it was a bad decision. I think that they also know that the Iraq insurgency was basically a “pay off” opertation to keep them from fighting. Iraq is still a big mess. Skilled Iraqis that got out at the height of the mess over there and that came back are leaving.
Afghanistan is less developed and just as fragmented. Success in propping up a central government was a longshot at best.
Both of our decisions to do what we did in Iraq and Afghanistan will go down as historical mistakes, IMO. You don’t establish democratic governments at the point of a gun.
Nick
@RosiesDad:
No, you wouldn’t, just like everyone else who said the same bullshit, you’d ignore when he’s fighting and say “yeah, well, FISA!” or “he’ll cave in the end” and then when he’s forced to anyway, because fighting doesn’t work, you’ll whine that he never fought in the first place, because God forbid it turns out that it’s not the political panacea everyone thinks it is.
Suck It Up!
@Anya:
I shouldn’t be surprised. Greenwald is very childish and is not above belittling others. What upsets more is that that blogger left DKos because she felt attacked by many of the commenters over her diaries. I don’t know if she even knows about that tweet, but she is just someone minding her own business and she doesn’t need to be picked on by Glenn Greenwald.
joe from Lowell
@Amanda in the South Bay:
Yup. And it remains so.
ruemara
@RosiesDad:
I have seen multiple clips of him saying this at public events, at the weekly addresses, so I would like you to please give me a definition.
What would you consider fighting? What is the pounding form? Should he write op eds? Should he go on the View and talk taxes? I am not in anyway connected to the President, but I will sit down and write my 2¢ worth of suggestions to every person that even gets to wander near the Oval Office if I think I have something worthwhile to offer. But I am not getting any sense of what fighting means to those of you who throw that out there as what Obama has failed to do.
joe from Lowell
@WyldPirate:
As a matter of fact, Obama’s Congressional strategy resulted in the passage of the most significant body of legislation of any presidential term since FDR, and virtually every single item had to be rammed through with virtually no Republican support, and no votes to spar.
You seem to be judging entirely by how well the Democrats did in the election. Elections are supposed to mean something, and he got more out of this Congress than anybody could have reasonably predicted.
But as Obama has said, that period is over now. With the House gone over to the GOP, the big legislative agenda is at an end. He’s trying to squeeze a few last bills out of his during the lame duck, and then it’s going to be executive action and implementation for the next two years.
Recall that George Bush won re-election a mere 3 years after that recession – and that was a recession that began on his watch, not more than a year earlier.
And I just done see how you can claim that withdrawing from Afghanistan would be his political salvation. He’s withdrawing from Iraq – he’s reduced the troopage there by about 70% – and that was a much-less popular war than Afghanistan. Did that withdrawal save him and his parties? What withdrawal from a war has ever been a boon for an American president?
Hugh
@ruemara:
My complaint isn’t that he says nice things in public and by implication pushes a hard line in private. He just doesn’t seem comfortable sticking in the knife when it’s called for and he hangs way too far in the background in shaping the debate.
As I keep saying, why are we debating the national debt when we should be talking about jobs? How is it that the Republicans have been successful here? Are they magic? Is it possible that Obama has some responsibility in this regard, that he could do more to set the agenda? Is it a betrayal of him to even suggest it?
@Nick
The subtext of so many of your posts is that Obama and the Democrats are outgunned and at the mercy of the media, so they are in effect powerless. Can this really be your position? You keep arguing why they can’t do anything. I think they can. I think they’re afraid to face the Republican attack machine and therefore they avoid it all too often by caving, as they did by punting the vote on taxes to after the election.
Of course it’s also important to consider that the Democratic party is corrupted enough to make unified action for progressive causes extremely difficult. This is a real problem for Obama. But that doesn’t mean he can’t do anything about it. Arguing for his powerlessness strikes me as an awful kind of support.
Keith G
@Hugh: The time it took to type your comment was worth it.
Effective presidents have been hard chargers: They set goals, frame the debate, organize a team of effective communicators, enter the competition of ideas with their “A” game. They frame a message of the day and they pound it in to the lard-headed fucks that are the general population of the United States. It’s a 24/7 operation.
And….no….Just doing the above would not start the magic pony show, but it is a key element in a heads up effort to market one’s ideas/programs to the voters.
And even though this is unfortunately cro-magnon, the folks out in the hustings respond to warrior-leadership. They say they want cooperation, but they expect certainty and respect definitive decision making.
And god knows, they love a show.
Team Obama doesn’t seem to care about this.
edit for a few boo-boos
RosiesDad
@Suck It Up!: Obama has expressed the opinion that philosophically, he favors a single payer system. Follow the link and read the quotes.
Does that make me a liar? Do you even want to go down this road (as opposed to having a civil discussion)?
His actions betray his philosophy. Read David Sirota in Salon from 2009. The gist is that if Obama says one thing and does something else. Is this a question of political pragmatism or is he being intentionally dishonest about what he really believes while sucking up to Big Health (and enjoying their financial support)? I dunno. And neither do you.
Let’s just say that based on the final structure of HCR, with its gifts to the Big Health, to Finance Reform, with its gifts to Wall Street and Big Banking, I have my concerns.
Does it mean that I think he’s as corrupt as the Republicans? Absolutely not. Maybe it just means that corporate money has so polluted our political system that we’re fucked regardless of who holds the reins of power.
But this isn’t Change I Can Believe In. Sorry.
joe from Lowell
@RosiesDad:
Is this a joke? He ran on THINKING THAT A SINGLE-PAYER SYSTEM WAS NOT POSSIBLE, SO HE WASN’T GOING TO TRY TO PASS ONE.
Nick
@Hugh:
yes
That’s just restating what I said. They’re afraid of the Republican attack machine because they can’t beat it with the media environment we have today
What can he do? Fiercely advocating for a position to the very end and never compromising is going to do what, exactly? Make the part less corrupted?
He is powerless. We can help give him his power back. We can fight the real enemies, the corporate media, but until we do, he IS powerless.
Nick
@RosiesDad:
yes. because you specifically said he RAN on it.
ruemara
@Hugh:
What is sticking in the knife? How is he not shaping the debate? He’s been saying the tax cuts for the middle class should be extended since the campaign. He’s publicly bitchslapped republicans at their own meeting, it did not change a damn thing. I’m not saying that you’re wrong, I’m saying that whatever it is that you want, it is not as well defined as you’d think.
RosiesDad
@Nick: I think the source of my frustration was well articulated a few weeks ago by Jack Hitt on This American Life, during an episode entitled “This Party Sucks.” Listen to it. It’s the last 15 minutes of the episode.
joe from Lowell
@WyldPirate:
…or maybe he disagrees with you. Have you considered that possibility that people might actually not share your opinion?
I wanted more of an effort in Afghanistan since about 2002, when Shrub’s attention sort of wandered. I assure you, this had nothing to do with any fear of Republicans.
Nick
@RosiesDad:
That’s nice, but I don’t know anything about that show, and don’t care, just stop lying, if you do that, you may less frustrated.
Hugh
@Nick:
If your position is indeed that Obama is powerless then I think we can end our debate and call it a disagreement.
joe from Lowell
@RosiesDad:
This is yet another false statement.
Even in the poisonous political atmosphere of 2002, the Congressional Democrats voted against the Iraq War AUMF by a 58-42% margin.
Merkin
@Hugh: I guess the debate here ends up being who thinks he can do something vs. who thinks he can’t
I happen to agree with Nick here, just watching people like Chris Matthews and David Gregory ask Democrats how they’ll pay for unemployment benefits, but not asking the same question of Republicans with tax cuts, I don’t know how anyone could deny the media hamstrings Democrats.
RosiesDad
@Nick: You wanna argue semantics or discuss Obama’s actual track record? I think you are harping on the wrong thing.
I’ll stipulate to the fact that what I said–that he ran on promoting single payer–is stated badly. He was on the record as saying that he supported single payer philosophically but didn’t think it was immediately politically possible. (This was a CYA position, IMHO.)
Now do you want to talk about any of my other concerns? About the gifts to Big Health and lack of vocal support for a public option? About the gifts to Wall Street and Big Banking? About keeping Bernanke and bringing in the same gang of Robert Rubin disciples who helped lay the foundation for the financial crisis to fix it? About poor messaging?
Hugh
@ruemara:
I agree that it isn’t easy. The Republicans aren’t stupid and they do indeed have a lot of money and infrastructure behind them. That’s tough stuff. However the polling on jobs vs. national debt suggests strongly that people don’t care very much abou the debt and they do care about jobs. Obama’s clearest act after the election is to do something (and a meaningless something to boot that hurts his base!) about the debt.
What I’m suggesting he might do is craft a significant piece of legislation about jobs and engage his own infrastructure to hammer the talking points about it. FDR didn’t focus on the debt (well, eventually he did and it cost him). Would this work? I don’t know. But it’s an affirmative act and not a response to someone else’s affirmative act.
RosiesDad
@joe from Lowell: When was the last time 42% of Republicans got beaten into supporting ANYTHING on Obama’s agenda?
That is exactly my point.
WyldPirate
@joe from Lowell:
Outside of HCR, it isn’t really all that “outstanding”. The ARA was pretty much a given that something was going to pass as we were losing 750K jobs a month when he took office. It was way too small, the projections way too optimistic, and next to nothing has been done since re: the economy. There was much “fail” in that legislation.
HCR, well it may be a big deal, but I think that there is a better than even chance that it gets repealed in 2013 before much of it takes effect or part of it gets overturned as it wends its way through the court system. We’ll see. It’s a start. Much more needs to be done. Insurance costs are going up about 10% this year alone. There is no reason for that other than profit gouging.
The 2001 Bush recession is nothing like what is going on now. No comparison. Check out the 2nd chart down in this post that shows the decline in employment in this recession vs others.
This is Obama’s economy now, even though he wasn’t responsible for the shit that led to the damage. I don’t blame him for the causes of the bad economy. I find fault with some of his actions and more specifically his inaction and seeming lack of a sense of urgency over the matter of the economy.
I don’t believe I said it was his salvation. I was against escalation from the moment he advocated it as a candidate. I don’t agree in lockstep with everything my candidate or President proposes or does.
The public was against the war in Iraq and we went anyway. They were for withdrawal and Bush started the withdrawal. The public wants us out of Afghanistan, too. It’s a mistake and a tragic waste and I think it was done for purely political calculations–not in the best interests of the nation.
joe from Lowell
@RosiesDad:
Republicans aren’t Democrats. They’ll voted against things they support, just to screw the Democrats.
Our side aren’t nihilists, and theirs is. This isn’t a reflection on Obama’s leadership, but on the character of their opponents.
Hugh
@Keith G:
Thanks! And surprise surprise I agree.
RosiesDad
@Nick: You’ve never heard of TAL? Really?
Can I suggest that you spend a little less time insulting me and a little more time widening your horizons? Because they clearly need to be widened.
RosiesDad
@joe from Lowell:
Really? And how’s that working out for ya?
WyldPirate
@joe from Lowell:
Isn’t this a bit disingenuous, Joe? The Iraq AUMF bill passed in the Senate 77-23.
A total of 29 Dems voted for it and 21 against in the Senate. There was no “filibuster” (not sure one could be used), but that’s not the point. The Dems were cowed at the time and the vote was held at the most strategically important point possible, one month PRIOR TO THE ELECTIONS.
The Dems could have done the same thing with the extension of the tax cuts. They didn’t have the balls.
FlipYrWhig
@RosiesDad:
Um, so your political prescription is that Obama should have been out there fighting to raise everyone’s taxes under the worst economy most of us have ever seen, even though he ran on giving everyone making less than $250K a tax cut. The first wave of stories would be about how hard the Republicans were hammering him over this, and the next wave of stories would be about how “Democratic strategists” were worried about how it would look, and then Nelson, Lieberman, et al would run to the media and express how awful an idea it was.
And then when the compromise is a short-term extension of the tax cuts, you think it would play as a triumph of level-headedness, not Republican pushback saving the day from Democratic tax-hike fervor.
The one good thing about your suggestion is its poke at Republicans for making the mess in the first place. But I really don’t think the specific suggestions would result in positive outcomes for Democrats or Obama. Canny operators like Boxer and Murray didn’t want the tax-cut debate to happen before the election because they didn’t like how it would play in _California and Washington_. I think we need to give them some credit for having a modicum of political sense — credit I don’t extend to Nelson and Lieberman and others, who IMHO are just concern-troll douchebags.
Nick
@WyldPirate:
The President did.
FlipYrWhig
@WyldPirate: I think you’ll find that politicians suffer a lot less from endorsing wars against swarthy foreigners than they do from endorsing a “$700 billion tax increase.” The people who didn’t “have the balls” to hold the vote included people who are normally on the right side of the issues I care about. Maybe they knew something.
Hugh
@WyldPirate:
Well said. This is much of what is so frustrating, the missed opportunities to push back hard.
Edited due to a blockquote issue…
Nick
@RosiesDad:
Really
Funny, I was about to make the same suggestion to you
RosiesDad
@Hugh: I agree with you; crafting legislation targeted at creating jobs ought to be priority #1. Put people back to work and you increase the tax base and some of the deficit issues are made easier to deal with.
The most valid criticism I’ve heard about Obama compare how FDR used his fireside chats to explain issues and provide context to the American people about the what he was trying to do to improve things. Obama ought to take a page out of FDR’s playbook and do something similar. And he ought to hire Paul Begala to help him with messaging.
RosiesDad
@Nick: I’ve insulted you?
WyldPirate
@joe from Lowell:
Of course I have. I don’t mind that. I reserve the right to voice my displeasure as I have in written letters to the White House and ALL OF MY RETHUG REPS IN CONGRESS. It’s about the most I can do.
evidently, it seems my my worst fears about the place are coming true.
It was pretty much a waste after Bush let OBL slip away by not employing the brigade of 10th Mountain Division that was sitting at Bagram Airfield while the Tora Bora siege was going on. Instead, the Afghans double-crossed us and let OBL buy his way out of the country.
I suppose that after we overthrew the Taliban there, we had an obligation to establish some sort of government. But that was doomed, anyway. I would have been cool with just exterminating as many of AQ as we could but our
real enemiesallies in Pakistan make that sort of difficult.Nick
@WyldPirate:
and most of them voted no ANYWAY
Hugh
@WyldPirate:
lol edit needed!
Nick
@RosiesDad:
who is going to broadcast these fireside chats? Fox?
He can’t even hold a press conference with the networks bitching he’s cutting in to their prime time. Cable news have cut off his speeches for car chases.
Suck It Up!
@RosiesDad:
You are a liar. You tried to get away with saying Obama ran on single payer. end of story.
RosiesDad
@FlipYrWhig: I think that at a time when Republicans–who totally fucked our economy–are harping on fiscal responsibility, you need to pound on their record, the lack of historical proof for their assertions (David Stockman has renounced trickle-down as bullshit and he wrote the book) and the fact that the only thing guaranteed by their proposals is MORE DEBT. The GOP criticizes the Dems for “Tax and Spend” but their track record is “Borrow and Spend.” When Reagan took office, the national debt was under $1T. It is now $14T and 75% of it was accrued when Republicans were controlling the Federal government.
RosiesDad
@Nick: Okay Smart Guy. So what’s your plan? Other than whining and insulting people to point of banal repetition and boredom?
Anya
@RosiesDad:
Here are some of Obama’s statements about single payer:
Nick
@RosiesDad:
Fight the damn media. Like I’ve been saying for years. Why has no one on the left taken the fact that a Saudi Prince who is part of a family that funds terrorists also owns the second largest share of Fox News? I haven’t seen that on one liberal blog.
RosiesDad
@WyldPirate:
I believe we share the same frustration.
lol
@RosiesDad:
If we just pounded the table a little bit more, we’d get more Republicans to vote for our bills. Because that’s what they care about most: whether someone’s pounding the table and not whether they support what’s in the bill or not.
MJ
@Suck It Up!:
Just so we’re clear, Greenwald’s legal advocacy of notorious white supremacist Matthew Hale (on 1st Amendment grounds) is praiseworthy & unimpeachable, but BWD’s advocacy of the 1st African-American President on a tiny WordPress blog is “creepy reverence” & worthy of public mocking?
Add to the above that BWD is a Jewish-American blogger who lives and posts from Israel, and G.G.’s snarky attempt to mock her blog by comparing her work to that of a Nazi Propagandist =incredibly tone deaf & downright mean.
Suck It Up!
About messaging? If Obama and Democrats are not getting the message right, why is it that all the polls taken on the issues almost always favor the position of the Democrats and Obama? Something is getting through.
Also, those fireside chats? This is 2010. This is the America that got upset that Obama was going to preempt Lost and the WH had to change times. Obama has the WH Whiteboard, the weekly addresses, Facebook, OFA, e-mails, He’s done townhalls and he did some backyard chats during the mid-terms (something that got very little attention). In fact all of these get very little attention but the MSM if they wanted to could show these things on their programs, liberal blogs like this can report on it, all of you are free to send the links to your friends and family, but it doesn’t fit the narrative that Obama is failing so it all gets ignored.
RosiesDad
@Nick:
Olbermann, Maddow and Jon Stewart have all raised this issue. Repeatedly. So have Cenk Uygur at The Young Turks, John Amato at Crooks and Liars and others.
What else you got?
WyldPirate
@Nick: @Nick:
Not my point and you know it. Not even 60% of the Dems voted for it. Had it been a cloture motion, well, you get my drift.
On the other hand, I think all but one or two Rethugs voted for the AUMF. They stick together and either have the courage of their convictions or are bullied into voting as a single bloc.
Suck It Up!
@MJ:
Yeah, I agree with you. I hope when you wrote “just so we’re clear” you didn’t think I was on Greenwald’s side?
Nick
@Suck It Up!:
Like I mentioned yesterday, MoveOn.org stood outside a Congressman’s office with a microphone and no one on the busy NYC street cared less.
Fireside chats only work if people listen to them.
FlipYrWhig
@RosiesDad:
How is that “your point,” though? 42% of Republicans don’t do anything that isn’t dictated to them from Central Command. They’re totally in lockstep because, having been reduced to the smallest body of Republicans in generations, they undertook an experiment to see what would happen if they were purely obstructionist — and they not only didn’t suffer for it, they prospered.
But Democrats have a bunch of people inside the tent who complain about the other people under the tent and even the tent itself. They waver and dither when it comes to issues of “security” and “spending” and “taxes.” Obama didn’t create that problem. It’s true that he hasn’t solved it, but it’s not clear how it can be solved. When he used carrots, like giving the HCR foot-draggers the goodies they wanted, people in the left blogosphere complained about that. People only want to see “fighting” and “toughness” and “arm-twisting.”
I think that the center-right of the body of Democratic politicians has come to realize that there are enough of them to affect every initiative Democrats create, and so they act the way Republicans used to act: they slow-walk and hold out for a more conservative policy. They say, “Without us, you get nothing, and trying to make examples of us only makes us stronger, because our ‘brand’ is that we stand up when Democrats get too ‘liberal,’ and if we lose, you’ll get crazy Republicans in our place, which you’ll like even less.” And the Democrats have been _so_ close to filibuster-proof majorities that turning off even one possible Yes vote just can’t be risked.
So Obama has no leverage with Republicans and practically no leverage with center-right Democrats. He contends with the ill will of the former and relies on the goodwill of the latter.
Now, once it’s clear that in this upcoming Congressional session there’s no hope of ever getting 60 votes together, I expect to see a different set of tactics — because politics will be much more about symbolism and posturing than about painstaking assembly of coalitions that hang by a thread.
IMHO for Obama and Democrats to switch to being more combative, they have to set up that they have tried and tried and tried to arrive at a constructive working arrangement with the other party — which involves rhetoric that grates on people like us, but _we’re not the audience_ — but Republicans refuse to be responsible, refuse to tackle hard problems, and if you want to see anyone do anything to help the country, you need to reelect a Democratic president with a Democratic Congress and let us get back to work, because playtime is over.
So I hope to see more combativeness emerge in the new session, because the downside will have been substantially reduced. I’m not sure I’ll get it, because Team Obama has a lot invested in projecting cool and composure and grown-up-ness, but we’ll have to wait and see.
Nick
@WyldPirate:
had it been a cloture motion, cloture would have succeeded, I’m not sure what your point is.
Though the whole Iraq War debate is pointless because Bush would’ve just invaded anyway, with or without AUMF.
WyldPirate
@RosiesDad:
Yep. absolutely.
Nick
@RosiesDad:
well then, I guess there is nothing we can do.
RosiesDad
@lol: It’s not just pounding the table to get a couple of Republican votes; it’s about framing issues so that you win on Election Day.
Do you think the Dems would have lost as big if, a month before Election Day, they had taken the tax cuts to the floor of the House and Senate and made it abundantly clear that most Americans were going to have to pay more taxes in 2011 because the Republicans were insisting on tax cuts for millionaires at a time when our nation is running a $1.2T/year deficit?
Especially since most Americans favor allowing the tax cuts on income over $250K to expire. (45% +/- favor not renewing tax cuts on income over $250K, another 12% +/- favor letting all of the tax cuts expire. Thought I would explain myself before I got called a liar again.)
It’s all about framing and timing. Skills the Democrats sorely lack along with their lack of balls.
RosiesDad
@FlipYrWhig:
Don’t hold your breath.
FlipYrWhig
@RosiesDad: Obama does a weekly radio message and a lot of events. The media landscape isn’t set up anymore for the president’s message to be heard unfiltered in real time except in truly exceptional cases, and even then the people who would benefit the most from listening don’t listen. Neil Postman in _Amusing Ourselves to Death_, a book that IIRC predates the popularization of the internet, commented on how strange it seems that people in the 19th century would turn out to hours-long debates between Lincoln and Douglas. How many people would do that anymore? The advent of “pull” media makes it extremely hard to reach people who don’t care to be reached, and that’s who would gain from having been reached. It sucks.
Merkin
@RosiesDad:
I’m not sure how anyone could think otherwise. Dems were losing on an issue completely unrelated to taxes, and half the country are preconditioned to blame Democrats for a tax hike.
Ever hear of voting against your interest? Huge swaths of the country have been doing it since the 60s
RosiesDad
@Nick:
You can keep calling people you probably substantively agree with liars and see how that works out for you.
WyldPirate
@Nick:
Two things. The cloture vote would have succeded because the Dems would not have prevented it from succeding. They are cowed and afraid–always. It is their operative mode.
I don’t blame everything on Obama. But goddamn if he doesn’t need to stop rolling over with fruitless gestures that a child can say are useless.
Why do you think that most of the base is enraged at Obama? What they are seeing is not their imaginations. The Dems are getting rolled and have been for almost the entire year. On their signature achievement–HCR–the Rethugs used it as a cudgel to frighten the oldsters with lies. Their was not much counter message to their lies. The Dems were all too busy out on vacation in Aug 09. The Rethugs turned one of the best things in HCR–the repeal of the Medicare subsidies to big insurance companies–into a club to beat the Dems with and win votes.
FlipYrWhig
@RosiesDad:
Barbara Boxer and Patty Murray, among others, didn’t want them to do it.
Yes, Democrats acting in a coordinated, coherent way would be better than what they do. But the issue is how to _make_ them act in a coordinated, coherent way, when a big chunk of them think they earn cred with their voters by standing against what Typical Democrats do and want and say.
Nick
@RosiesDad:
when they lie, I will, liar
WyldPirate
@FlipYrWhig:
C’mon, Flip. Come off the defense.
I asked debit upthread for suggestions from the Obama defenders as to what he can do to change the optics and narrative.
What about you? You got anything other than defense and saying that Obama is powerless and can’t do anything and quit being mean to him? I thought the POTUS was the most powerful man in the world.
Give me something instead of the infernal whine of the Obama defense crickets….
Nick
@WyldPirate:
Most of the base is not enraged at Obama
RosiesDad
@FlipYrWhig: Yep, it sucks. And it makes me worry for my children every day.
But my feeling is that we don’t have a chance unless we fight back. Call liars what they are. There are people out there doing this in a non-hyperbolic way. Rachel Maddow is one. Jon Stewart is another. But we need our politicians to take a cue from people like Rachel and Jon, just as the GOP gets its messaging from FauxNews.
Nick
@WyldPirate:
you thought wrong, once again you bought another media-created narrative aimed at promoting American exceptionalism.
If anything, the American president is the least powerful world leader politically.
WyldPirate
@WyldPirate:
Damn. I need to read what I write before I post. “say” should be “see”. “Their” should be “there”. I’m sure there are more f’ups.
Nick
@RosiesDad:
Well, first you might want to get people to actually watch Rachel and Jon at the numbers they do Fox
and Jon Stewart isn’t exactly helpful since his big theme is “both sides are radical and need to stop.”
He calls out people like Olbermann and Ed Schultz too.
RosiesDad
@Nick: You know, I stipulated to the fact that one of my statements was inaccurate. And provided context to what I initially wrote.
And I challenged you to dispute anything else I wrote, which you have not done. So let it go. And grow up.
FlipYrWhig
@RosiesDad:
True, but if, in pursuit of creating a policy that allows tax cuts on income over $250K to expire, your bill gets bottled up by Republicans in ways that will be invisible to most people who don’t follow politics closely, you end up creating a policy that lets all of the tax cuts expire… then you stand to run afoul of–to use your numbers–88% of the public. They wanted to see tax cuts on income under $250K and didn’t get it. Republicans wanted to give them tax cuts on income under $250K and over $250K, but stubborn Democrats raised their taxes anyway. That’s what they’d be able to say, and it would correspond to the stereotype that Democrats want to raise your taxes, so it would _feel_ true. Making Republicans look like tax-hikers is never going to feel true, even when it is true.
Nick
@WyldPirate:
I think you mean “Leader of the free world” because POTUS is no where near the most powerful man in the world. That title probably belongs to someone like Bill Gates, Ben Bernake or Steve Jobs
Hugh
I said in an early comment that Obama was losing my support. That was an impulsive vent more than a real position.
Having said that, folks who feel the need to invalidate criticism of Obama as insincere or racist or rigidly ideological or otherwise unserious lose something. In fact, this whole idea of the “professional left” is weird and destructive. I didn’t like the FDL approach to the health care bill at all. Glenn Greenwald irritates me many times and strikes me as often mean.
BUT – maintaining a line to them and people like them is politically very important. Glenn Greenwald is someone I want on my side in a fire fight. When it comes to policy he’s for good things! Does that mean being held hostage to him and Hamsher? No. But keeping your base engaged isn’t a loss of integrity.
Obama has a real problem here. In the areas of civil liberties and big money he hasn’t made very visible stands. This is frightening and dispiriting. He’s made a mess of his relationship with the queer community. If he loses the next election we’ll all be in deep shit. He’s contending with huge problems given to him by Bush. I thought he began his administration with admirable energy and resolve. But – he underresponds (if that’s a word) to the danger of today’s Republican party. It certainly feels that way to me. I think the fear of where we’re heading as a country fuels some of the intensity directed towards Obama. That isn’t fair to him.
But you know what? He’s President of the fucking United States of America. This is what he signed up for.
I think it’s good that his base WANTS to feel excited. They/we yearn for it. Do we want some emotional juice? Yup. Presidents have to engage emotionally with the folks they serve. It comes with the job. It helps them be good at the job. An excited base would help a lot.
debit
@WyldPirate: And I replied I wasn’t the one bitching about him.
You don’t seem to understand; if my meal is okay, I’m not going to send it back to the kitchen. You are unhappy with yours, but keep sending it back without telling the kitchen what’s wrong with it, and all the while screaming at the other restaurant patrons.
RosiesDad
@Nick: In the grand scheme of things, NO ONE watches cable news compared with the total number of TV viewers at any given moment. So if Bill O’Reilly has 2.2 million viewers on a given night, to Keith’s 1.7 million viewers, it seems like O’Reilly has a huge advantage of viewership. Except 75 million people are watching other things.
Stewart calls people out for hyperbole. Rachel is not hyperbolic and that’s why she got the interview. But, as Jon says, even though he occasionally calls out Keith or Ed Schultz (and it is really not that often), Fox–especially Beck–holds a place near and dear to his heart. He hammers them 3 out of 4 nights per week. Sometimes 4/4.
WyldPirate
@Nick:
Then explain to me then why and how Bush got through most of his agenda with the exception of SS
reformtheft with smaller majorities.and a.) no I don’t want a dictator and b.) if there were crimes committed by Bush in achieving his agenda, why hasn’t Obama done anything about that? (I can predict the answer already, I’m fairly certain).
Furthermore, explain to me how Obama and the democrats do anything to change the dynamic in DC. You Obama defenders are putting forward no suggestion other than lot’s of rancid whine.
PS–suggestions that a mere poster on BJ become a marketing director for MSNBC seem rather far-fetched suggestions. Let’s hear something Obama CAN DO and that the Dems in Congress can do other than roll over and bare their throat.
FlipYrWhig
@WyldPirate: Um, I said that I hope he will be more combative in the new session. I think his hands have been tied in this past session because every initiative _could_ pass if everyone tiptoed through eggshells on the minefield. I think the wage freeze thing was stupid, and the discretionary funding freeze was stupid.
Ideas…
I don’t know how it would play to people who only follow politics casually, but I’d like to see more talk of filibuster reform, more explanation of how Republicans have abused the process, more talk of extensive corporate funding of Republicans, and–my pie in the sky idea–a conscious effort to explain to people that Republicans mislead and manipulate them. I think a “green jobs” push would be interesting too. Explain that you have all kinds of excellent ideas to make the country work better, but Republicans won’t let the public see them, because they’re too scared we’ll actually like them. If Obama wants to be above the fray, then let key Senators do it.
Basically, invent a non-whiny way to call out Republican obstructionism as both deliberate sabotage and bad sportsmanship. Americans like fairness and they like working together. Tap into that.
RosiesDad
@FlipYrWhig: The key is making sure the Republicans look like the bad guys. Harry Reid should have, once the GOP strategy of procedural filibuster became apparent, made them stand up on the floor of the Senate and actually filibuster.
Look, the Republicans play hardball and the Democrats play T-ball. As a result, we are getting our asses kicked.
No. Republicans don’t give a shit about tax cuts on income under $250K, they only care about lowering tax liability for the wealthy. That’s why the wealthy got 70% of the financial benefit of the Bush tax cuts.
It’s all about framing.
FlipYrWhig
@WyldPirate:
Several center-right Democrats flipped to the Republican side on issues of war, terrorism, and taxes, because those are issues that have dogged Democrats since the ’60s. Other issues didn’t trigger that same skittishness. The big one that doesn’t fit that frame is No Child Left Behind, but there I think Democrats were dealing with a Democrat-friendly issue like education, and it fits the now-bygone mold of a bipartisan compromise on a way to handle a pressing social problem. I don’t foresee legislation like that happening again.
debit
@RosiesDad:
Except for the fact that he couldn’t. The rules for each congressional session are set at the beginning of that session. You can’t change them later. The rules right now are that no one has to stand and talk. It was a “gentleman’s agreement” that worked in the past and that the Republicans have taken advantage of because they assholes, not gentlemen. There’s talk of changing it for this upcoming session, but until then, nothing changes.
Cacti
@joe from Lowell:
Pretty weasely way of citing the numbers.
29 of 50 Senate Democrats voted FOR the Iraq Resolution.
A straight party line vote in the Senate + Jeffords + Chafee = Iraq Resolution defeated 52-48.
RosiesDad
@debit: The Republicans greatly increased their use of the procedural filibuster during the 110th Congress. Reid should have threatened the Republicans (much as Bill Frist had threatened the Democrats with the “nuclear option” when he was majority leader) on filibusters once it was clear that the Dems would hold an even larger majority in the 111th Congress. But he didn’t and as a result, hundreds of pieces of legislation passed by the House never made it through the Senate, a large number of Obama administrative and judicial nominees never received their hearings or confirmation votes, and so on and so forth.
Dems play T-Ball and the nation suffers as a result.
debit
@RosiesDad: And when the Republicans called his bluff? What then?
RosiesDad
@Merkin: For the record, I have seen David Gregory ask John Boehner, Mike Pence and others Republicans repeatedly how they would pay for tax cuts. Matthews has also. And they have asked these same clowns what programs they would be willing to cut to reduce the deficit (since the GOP always says that the problem is one of too much government spending). The Republicans never answer.
Do they hammer them hard enough? Questionable, but the last time Gregory had Pence on MTP, I couldn’t criticize the interrogation. Pence just pleaded the 5th until the segment was over.
The point it, Democratic members of Congress need to do the same thing.
FlipYrWhig
@RosiesDad: It’s “all about framing,” but you can’t “frame” your way out of tenacious political stereotypes. Republicans aren’t worried about looking like they raised taxes. It does not compute. In a showdown between “Republicans favor the rich” and “Democrats raised your taxes,” I think the latter is going to win. And add to that the notion that Republicans could say, “We wanted to give 100% of people a tax cut, Democrats said they wanted to give 98% of people a tax cut, but in their zeal to punish the top 2% the Democrats made sure that 100% of us got a tax hike.”
What you’re suggesting is a good job of political framing and would be good for Democrats to _try_, were they unified, which they aren’t. But I don’t think it would be as persuasive as you do. I think Obama’s own framing has been fine, that Republicans and Democrats agree on the policy that would affect income up to $250K, but Republicans can’t take “yes” for an answer, and they’re so obstinate that they’re willing to sacrifice that broad agreement to dole out extra favors to the top 2%.
If I were Obama: I’d be continually linking everything Republicans do to their obstinacy and, for lack of a better term, bad sportsmanship. People find those qualities very unappealing. Republicans aren’t responsible, they just play games, they can’t take yes for an answer, they don’t have any coherent plans. If they did, I’d say, we could find areas of common ground. But they seem comfortable throwing bombs and tearing things down. Come up with a variation on the car/ditch fable.
I think that “the left” would bristle at the rhetoric of “common ground” and willingness to engage, and would complain about how Obama was being a wuss every time he said something like that. And I’m sure Obama knows there _isn’t_ a way to find common ground with Republicans, because they’re ideologues and dicks.
But that “framing”–we want to solve things, they don’t help; we’re grown-ups, they just play games–plays to Democratic strengths and jiu-jitsus the political moment by tagging tea party energy as tantrums rather than power.
RosiesDad
@debit: Call his bluff? How? The rules of the Senate are adopted by majority vote at the beginning of the Congressional session. No cloture vote. No supermajority needed. Reid can do this on January 5 (I think that’s the day the 112th Congress is seated) and as long as he gets 51 votes, the procedural filibuster is a thing of the past. The only caveat is that the Dems need to live with the same rules. And because they have no balls they are worried that it will be too hard.
FlipYrWhig
@RosiesDad:
Except Senate Democrats like the filibuster, including now-former Sen. Feingold and now-dead Sen. Byrd. They like it as a perk of their senatorial power. I like the Merkley proposal for filibuster reform that Steve Benen discussed the other day: Merkley Points the Way on Filibuster Reform.
RosiesDad
@FlipYrWhig: I don’t think you can frame big picture philosophy, it needs to be issue by issue. Decouple the tax cuts (as they did yesterday) and let them fail when the Republicans obstruct them. Then let the old rates go back into effect for all taxpayers because of Republican obstruction. And the Dems can honestly say, “We tried to continue tax cuts for all income up to $250K (or $1M) and the Republicans blocked it.” And then don’t negotiate.
It’s a game of chicken and you have a year to play because they can always pass the tax cuts in 2011, retroactive to January 1.
And Paul Begala and James Carville would have won this game.
RosiesDad
@FlipYrWhig: I also like Merkley’s proposal. I also liked the proposal (don’t remember who proposed it) of raising the number needed to continue a procedural filibuster over time.
At the end of the day, it needs to be fixed because the current system is unsustainable.
WyldPirate
@FlipYrWhig:
Flip, I appreciate the effort. sorry I missed the bit about being more combative if you said that earlier. It’s hard to keep what everyone says in mind. If I keep up posting like I have been, it’s pretty clear I’m going to have to break out OneNote and start keeping a page on all ya’ll BJ’ers to keep track of what you said.
I like your “ideas” graph. I agree with most. I think the filibuster is killing democracy in this country. I can see a place for it under very limited circumstances, but it is paralyzing the legislative branch in dealing with very substantive problems and it is being used destructively. I think that corporative ownership of both parties is a huge issue and only getting worse–much worse. This is going to bring down the country in the end ina very nasty way, IMO. I hope we truly have a statesman (or stateswoman) emerge that can articulate the danger of this to our Republic. However, I’m afraid we may have passed the point of no return.
Thanks for taking the time to answer.
@debit:
Sooo..nothing is wrong and everything is hunky-dory. The Obama administration and the Democrats can’t do a thing to make in improvements. Not one single thing from either one of the two?
Ok.
WyldPirate
@FlipYrWhig:
This is something that I’m surprised that we didn’t start hearing very loudly after the elections–very loudly.
I hope that he is just “keeping his powder dry” and saving his fire til he “sees the whites of their eyes” and all that. As of now, though, I am not convinced that he has it in him.
Trying to woo Republicans is out of the question with only 53 Dems in the Senate and a good 4-5 that can’t be counted on. Shit, if they were to revise the filibuster rule, I don’t think the Dems can be effective in the next Congress even with that “hobble” removed.
debit
@WyldPirate: That’s not what I said. I said I’m mostly okay with the job my elected officials are doing. Things could be better, but having a screaming ragegasm all over the place isn’t going to make that happen. But you just keep trying, dude.
FlipYrWhig
@RosiesDad:
Right, I understand that, but I think that line gets whomped by the Republican line that “Democrats said they would lower your taxes, but instead they made sure you paid more. In the new Congress we will make sure everyone gets a tax cut.”
RosiesDad
@FlipYrWhig: Look at how much fear of being whomped by Republicans has done for us to this point. I think the choice the Dems have is to capitulate to the Republicans and look weak or take a principled stand that is supported by what most Americans want.
For the record, I think they will “make a deal” and capitulate to extend all of the tax cuts. But it’s a mistake, IMHO.
WyldPirate
@FlipYrWhig:
So, in other words, you are convinced that 51% of the American electorate are not functionally capable of understanding a very simple concept, or that the Dems are incapable of articulating it.
The numbers suggest otherwise:
Even 41% of Republicans polled think that the tax cuts should be extend for only the first 250K in income. 53% overall do.
Crazy. Same as the number of votes it got in the Senate.
Hugh
@WyldPirate:
The ongoing subtext for most of these posts is that Obama and the Democrats can’t do anything. All the energy goes in that direction. It’s remarkable really. Like that Hanna Barbera character from the 70s. “It’ll never work!”
Nick
@RosiesDad: .
like listening to conservative talk radio and reading Ann Coulter and Glenn Beck, yeah
Nick
@WyldPirate:
Bush had no agenda
Nick
@WyldPirate:
and yet they’re going to vote for Republicans whether they oppose it or not, politically speaking, they might as well just be considered supporters of the tax cuts on the rich.
when they threaten to vote Democratic if they don’t get it, you’ll see how fast the GOP squirms.
Nick
@RosiesDad:
…and look ineffective when it doesn’t pass.
That’s their choice, be weak or be ineffective.
choose your poison
Nick
@RosiesDad:
and if he doesn’t get 51 votes, then what?
Hugh
@Nick:
He didn’t? He got a lot of terrible stuff done for someone who had no agenda.
Nick
@Hugh:
yes, he did, but he had no agenda. He ran on tax cuts, that was it. Everything else came right out of his ass.
Hugh
@Nick:
I think tax cuts and generally making life good for the wealthy and big business was his agenda.
debit
@Nick: VP is the tie breaker.
Hugh
@eemom:
I keep forgetting to respond to this:
Frank Rich a concern troll? Frank Rich?
No. And I’m not a big FDL fan either. I didn’t like how Hamsher handled the health care bill at all.
Martin Gifford
@FlipYrWhig:
Republicans are Master Whompers! Therefore, Dems will be inevitably be whomped! That is an Unchangeable Fact Of Reality. The ending is already known – no need to read the novel. Those genius Republicans are always just too smart for the Dems. Political Einstens, those Republicans!
No offense, but you are the most committed Defeatocrat I have ever seen.
BTW, I replied to your long reply to me in yesterday’s thread. I will give a longer reply to you some time in the next few days. (I don’t have home internet, so I’m an irregular poster.)
Keith G
@Hugh: eemom might be better comprehended as emo mom. She can go from zero to “fuck you” faster than anyone I can think of. That is not to say that she cannot be rational – just that she does have an…edge.
WyldPirate
@Nick:
And Obama and the Dems fecklessness on the issue–continually making useless concessions, poor strategy, giving in to essentially a political bomb threat is going to convince a single one to switch how?
That is the point of Frank Rich, Krugman and a whole host of other participants here. It is the point of four of my friends that i volunteered easily 100 hours in 2008 to get Obama elected–a lack of visible leadership.
You really seem to be the one that is the nihilist, Nick. You are throwing up your hands and saying nothing can be done. That this is the best it will get.
Mark S.
@WyldPirate:
Of course Nick is a nihilist. In every fucking thread he shows up in he invariably argues that there is no point in standing up for any principles and the best course of action is always to take the position a millimeter to the left of the most far right teabagger. Also, the President has no actual power in our system of government and being insulted by Rush Limbaugh is the worst thing that could ever happen to a politician.
But don’t question any of his bona fides because he’s a better progressive than anyone here.
Hugh
@Keith G:
Thanks. As you’ve undoubtedly noticed I’m not a regular here. I truly didn’t know what I was getting into with my impulsive comments at the beginning of this thread. I had some sense in general from Balloon Juice but I haven’t read mistermix’s comments before and didn’t have a sense of the mistermix comment culture. Now I do a bit!
I think what’s great about Obama is he understands how much people project onto him. At least he’s said as much and I believe him. I certainly have been guilty of seeing him as a savior or sorts. Like, I bet, most of us in this thread, I cried when he was elected. It was lovely and it will always be lovely. I appreciated the gravitas of his beginning and his attempt at outreach. After that narcissist Bush, his presentation was so refreshing. The crushing disappointment of reality caused some very unfair blowback coming in his direction. But I think now enough data is in to make real and fair criticisms of him. I drives me insane when he gives things away to those bastards, today’s Republicans. They don’t deserve it. Plus I am gay and I have to tell you he has not won lots of support in my world. He comes across as a dude who just doesn’t viscerally get it at all.
But that’s not my main thing. Really. He’s alienating large parts of his base in his efforts to work with the Republicans. He will get nothing good for it. The mid-term elections needn’t have been this bad. Obama’s words and actions since the election suggest he still hasn’t accepted the fact that this is a war and not a dialogue. I’m a social worker. As a rule I’m a big believer in reaching out. But it does no good to reach out to someone who has no conscience. None. You have to show you’re a big, mean bastard. An inglorious one perhaps. Then when the respect is there you can soften up a bit. But you have to scare the assholes first and scare them bad.
Stillwater
@Hugh: I truly didn’t know what I was getting into with my impulsive comments at the beginning of this thread.
Let that be a lesson to you. At BJ, never, NEVER, get off the fucking boat, or the old hag patrol will tear you up.
Hugh
@Stillwater:
Lol. I’m a bit of a hag too you know. At least I like to think so.
MJ
@Suck It Up!:
I didn’t mean to question where you were coming from.
Sorry if that’s how it came across. The “just so we’re clear” in my response was my exasperation with at Greenwald’s irresponsible tweet coming through.
Keith G
@Hugh: Welcome to this mosh pit. Hope ypu stick around.
I do not get why some of the folks here can take constructive criticism of Obama so personally. He is a wonderful human being. He has accomplished so much and it is curious why he seems to not want to emulate the positive behaviors of recent president who have been able to win a second term.
Remember, Obama had good things to say about Reagan. That had given me hope, as the Gipper’s team was relentless image and message makers. Although is is probably a weakness, American’s seem to want to be led by “heroes” with swagger – by champions who will fight.
I am fascinated that so much turmoil is stirred up when this is pointed out.
edited
Martin Gifford
@Keith G:
I’m surprised that people would say that someone who promotes war (nobel lecture), drone bombs people, protects torturers from punishment, etc. would be called a “wonderful human being”. Seems to me to be some kind of cognitive dissonance going on. I think he should be in jail for the rest of his life, along with many many other politicians.
Yes, me too.
Hugh
@Keith G:
It is fascinating. I think Obama was a pretty amazing blank screen during the election. The comments here that point out he is doing what he said he would do are largely correct. He was always a centrist and he did enact the health care plan he basically said he would. I don’t mind a centrist as such. I do mind a corrupt politician posing as one. Many congressional Democrats are exactly that, corrupt and only looking like centrists. I don’t think Obama is. But I did hope for more of a fighter. Why? No good reason except that that’s what I wanted. That’s my fault. Obama didn’t suggest that he would be that kind of President. He said from the beginning that he would be something different. And I think he’s really trying to be.
But this is not what the times call for. And I do think it’s important for Presidents to adapt to what is needed. I fault Obama greatly for not doing this.
Nick
@WyldPirate:
They’re not going to switch, that’s the point. Are you the people who say Republicans are horrible people we shouldn’t even bother talking to? Why is it that doesn’t transpire to voters too?
Hugh
@Martin Gifford:
These things are very bad. Would any other president do differently? I bet not. Is that reason to let it go? No. But I think most people in Obama’s position would enable the inertia of eroding civil liberties. It is sickening so see the direction we’re heading. I live in NYC. One dirty bomb and all our civil liberties are toast. This is a terrifying time. Our institutions are so fragile.
FlipYrWhig
@Martin Gifford: Well, if you’re intent on doing something that a moment’s forethought tells you is going to get you clobbered, it might be a good idea to reconsider. I on this very thread have offered some different ways more Democrats could be talking. But I don’t think that any of them will salvage the plan to continue only the income under 250K cuts.
The one glimmer of hope I see is the noises the WH has been making about the necessity to include a continuation of unemployment in any deal. I can sort of imagine jiu-jitsu on that: Obama saying that he can’t sign a tax-cut bill that leaves unemployed Americans twisting in the wind, and following through on a veto threat. Because there _is_ an existing “frame” of Republicans as callous and heartless. So that’s a potential rhetorical victory.
I’ll try to find the other thread. The nasty one, I guess?
@WyldPirate:
Right, but, as I’ve explained several times, the people who believe the tax cuts should only be extended for the first 250K in income do not believe in it so strongly that they’d rather see their own taxes raised than see income over 250K get an additional tax cut, which is what the Republicans can force to happen, and even though they’re the ones who will have forced it, it will be laid at the feet of Democrats, because if your taxes go up, it’s prolly the Democrats who dun did it.