I Hate That Name That We Came Up With For Ourselves

So apparently some campaign flack somewhere called out the professional left and called them firebaggers or something. Beyond the fact that it is stupid for OFA members to write shit like this, and putting aside the usual arguments and bullshit that come with any post on this subject, this made me laugh:

“Firebagger” is most likely a combined reference to the liberal blog FireDogLake, founded by Jane Hamsher, and “Tea Bagger,” a less-than-flattering term for Tea Party activists.

Umm, “firebagger” is what they named themselves, back when the fashionable progressive thing to do was to join arms with Grover Norquist and share Rahm horror stories:

Call me PUMA. Call me Firebagger. Call me the last true Progressive standing.

I’ll just call you stupid and leave it at that. It’s also worth remembering that “true progressives” have had it in for this administration before the first year was up, so I’m not quite sure what on earth Glenn is talking about in this post– ain’t nothing going to stop our progressive betters from attacking Obama right on through the election. At which point, no matter what happens, they can claim victory. They can either laughably assert they were the driving force behind his re-election, or they can claim his defeat validates everything they have been shrieking about since day one.

Either way, they are important and here is a link to a 20,000 word exegesis telling you how important they are. And a link to contribute to their PAC so they can continue their IMPORTANT work. Also, too.






353 replies
  1. 1
    The Dangerman says:

    Silly me; I thought it was a dating ranking:

    One-bagger. Two-bagger. Fire-bagger.

  2. 2
    Corner Stone says:

    Sigh. Why can’t they put Thursday Night Football on on a Wednesday night?

  3. 3
    Strandedvandal says:

    Actually it was a blogger who accurately named them. The random OFA dude just C&P’d it. Deniability and all that.

  4. 4
    Sam Houston says:

    Sam Houston: Remember that whatever may be said by a lady or her friends, it is not part of conduct of a gallant or generous man to take up arms against a woman.

    (Maybe he was winking when he said it?) ;)

  5. 5
    Just Some Fuckhead says:

    So yer calling the firebaggers stupid because OFA attacked Krugman as a firebagger?

    I don’t get it.

  6. 6
    boss bitch says:

    This is what that “flack” said:

    On the evening of Aug. 1, just after Congress passed legislation to raise the debt ceiling, Obama for America (OFA) New Mexico State Director Ray Sandoval sent an email to supporters with the subject line, “Please take 5 minutes to read this, Please.”

    “I know many of you have raised frustrations, but please, I implore you, please take 5 minutes and read the article below. It does a great job of explaining the Debt Ceiling deal,” Sandoval wrote in bold text.

    It was this post:
    Paul Krugman is a Political Rookie. Or How Barack Obama Left John Boehner Holding the Teabag, Again.

    http://www.thepeoplesview.net/.....r-how.html

    The author of that article says they did not use the term “firebagger”. I didn’t see it myself.

  7. 7
    Strandedvandal says:

    @Just Some Fuckhead: That is a true statement. You don’t get it.

  8. 8

    Teehee. And the cherry on top, is that all of these terms like “firebagger” “PUMA” and ‘obot, or obamabot” ’11 dimensional chess” “messiah” etc … were coined by the so called “progressives”, and they are the ones whining about being called things like firebaggers, and all the divisive terms being bandied about.

    The only one I can think of coined by Obama or obots, was professional left, which is kind of milquetoast as derisive terms go. I mean you can call me Obot, Obamabot, or ray, and it don’t make me no never mind. Tender souls our prog betters. But if they didn’t exist already, someone would just have to invent them.

  9. 9
    Comrade Mary says:

    @boss bitch: Ctrl-F shows one “Firebagger” in the article.

    Dumb move by the OFA flack to email the link, dumb and preening move on the part of whatever Firebagger came up with Firebagger, dumb and priceless for the Teabaggers to proclaim their love of scrotum-swiping to the world.

  10. 10
  11. 11
    WyldPirate says:

    Cole sez:

    I’ll just call you stupid and leave it at that. It’s also worth remembering that “true progressives” have had it in for this administration before the first year was up, so I’m not quite sure what on earth Glenn is talking about in this post- ain’t nothing going to stop our progressive betters from attacking Obama right on through the election.

    No. Wrong. The reason why “true progressives have had it in this administration since the first year…” is because Obama says stupid fucking shit like this that validates the goddamned conservative’s horseshit like this:

    If we’re willing to do something in a balanced way–making some tough choices in terms of spending cuts, but also raising some revenue from folks who’ve done very well, even in a tough economy–then we can get control of our debt and deficit and we can start still investing in things like education and basic research and infrastructure that are going to make sure that our future is bright. It’s not that complicated, but it does require everybody being willing to make some compromises.
    __
    I was in Holland, Michigan, the other day and I said, “I don’t know about how things work in your house, but in my house if I said, ‘You know, Michelle, honey, we got to cut back, so we’re going to have you stop shopping completely–you can’t buy shoes, you can’t buy dresses–but I’m keeping my golf clubs’–you know, that wouldn’t go over so well.”

    the above quote was lifted from this post by Digby.

  12. 12
    boss bitch says:

    @Comrade Mary:
    Okay I see it now. I was reading on Twitter that the author called Krugman a firebagger and that’s what I was looking for.

  13. 13
    Strandedvandal says:

    Welcome to pieville pablo.

  14. 14
    Thoughtcrime says:

    No True Progressive

    Alice: All Progressives like Hamsher.
    Bob: My uncle is a Progressive, and he doesn’t like Hamsher!
    Alice: Well, all true Progressives like Hamsher.

    The names have been changed to protect the innocent(?)

  15. 15
    John Cole says:

    @Just Some Fuckhead: I think the OFA guy was a total idiot for that bullshit. Leave that crap to stupid blogs like, um, this one.

    I just went off on a tangent when I re-read that stupid damned comment that coined the term.

  16. 16
    boss bitch says:

    Add this to the list of things Obama never said but the PL will say he did:

    Ex. Professional Left, Retarded, and now Firebaggers.

  17. 17
    mk3872 says:

    I just love the way these attention whores (aka Firebaggers / Professional Left) use any single mention of their lameness to make themselves more self-important.

    Today’s edition of “hippie-punching” came from an OFA dude who forwarded an email of a blog post he liked.

    And they try to tie this back to Obama ??

    Classic Firebagger self-loathing.

  18. 18
    Raven (formerly stuckinred) says:

    There is something comforting about finally having been banned from that snake pit.

  19. 19
    Just Some Fuckhead says:

    @John Cole:

    I just went off on a tangent when I re-read that stupid damned comment that coined the term.

    Yeah, but that wasn’t a firebagger that wrote about how the term was coined. It was just someone on Huffpo.

    And the update they posted from Jane didn’t say a word about firebags, firebaggers or firebagging.

  20. 20
    Thoughtcrime says:

    Can we get back to something we can all agree that’s more productive and stimulating – maybe like posting more deep-throating corndog pics?

  21. 21
    jl says:

    ColePAC.

    Think about it. It has a ring to it.

    Cole will be able to feed Rosie and Tunch without resorting to cooking everything from scratch at home over a fire built from scrounged lumber (perhaps a little wild speculation snuck in there, but I want to be responsible in my commenting).

  22. 22

    @Comrade Mary:

    Dumb move by the OFA flack to email the link, dumb and preening move on the part of whatever Firebagger came up with Firebagger

    You know, actually it isn’t a dumb move politically, It is a classic maneuver by all dem, and repub presidents to be in conflict with their most ideological factions of their base. It is tried and true to win reelections, to move, at least in rhetoric toward the moderate center. Contrary to blog myths, these fringe parts of both parties are quite small, at least in the center left coalition, and the overwhelming majority of gettable voters, or true indie voters, flatly do not like ideological purist types.

    It is why a Perry will have a very hard, if not impossible time pivoting to that center place of moderation, having started out in loony tune land, it is just a bridge too far. Mittens could do it though.

  23. 23
    Karen says:

    What is OFA?

    I think that unfortunately for Obama, he wasn’t prepared for people who were willing to scorch the earth if they didn’t get their way.

    I think the sane part of the country wasn’t prepared either.

    Obama’s “Yes we Can” had an emphasis on “WE.” But the FDL/GOS group wanted “Yes I Will.” It didn’t matter that when Bush/Cheney ruled by “Yes I Will and fuck the Constitution it’s what I say it is” and FDL/GOS HATED IT. If it was for what they deemed was important and what they demanded, Obama could put on a crown and abolish the Constitution with a military presence for all they cared.

    Obama is a WE. He sees the country as you and me and how can WE make it a better one. He wants to govern, not be a dictator and apparently we’ve reached a point in this country where if you’re not a dictator, you’re considered to be a wimp.

    If people continue with the Carter comparisons, Carter has done a lot of good for the world and for the country with Habitat for Humanity. I’m sure that if Obama loses next election (and the chances are higher every day) he’ll continue to do good things for the country and help around the world. There are worst people to be compared to.

  24. 24
  25. 25
    Arclite says:

    If you’re not going to complain about policies that you believe should be better, how do you expect policies to change? Isn’t this the whole point of attacking Obama from the left: to get him to adopt more progressive policies? Otherwise, it’s just the right complaining, and Obama moving right to accommodate them.

  26. 26
    zizi says:

    Cole, the OFA guy did NOT call anyone firebaggers!!! Get Your facts straight

  27. 27
    Danny says:

    is most likely a combined reference to the liberal ratfucker blog FireDogLake, founded by Jane Hamsher

    Fixed.

  28. 28
    andrewsomething says:

    @mk3872:

    I just love the way these attention whores (aka Firebaggers / Professional Left) John Cole use[s] any single mention of their lameness Paul Krugman to make themselves more self-important blather about firebaggers?

    Or something…

  29. 29
    Karen says:

    @Arclite:

    Isn’t this the whole point of attacking Obama from the left: to get him to adopt more progressive policies?

    There’s attacking Obama from the left. Then there’s Erick Ericksoning him from the left where he’s hate bombed on an ongoing basis.

  30. 30

    The OFA guy did not attack Krugman personally as a “firebagger” This is what he said, about the overall lefty blogosphere. Which is totally correct, as a whole.

    Now let’s get to the fun part: the triggers. The more than half-a-trillion in defense and security spending cut “trigger” for the Republicans will hardly earn a mention on the Firebagger Lefty blogosphere. Hell, it’s a trigger supposedly for the Republicans, and of course, there’s always It’sNotEnough-ism to cover it.

  31. 31
    Comrade Mary says:

    @Just Some Fuckhead:

    Yeah, but that wasn’t a firebagger that wrote about how the term was coined. It was just someone on Huffpo.

    Fuckhead, run a Ctrl-F on the Hamsher article John linked. Some commenter at FDL used the exact phrase John quoted.

    I have no idea if they also write at HuffPo or they were quoting it, but it was a comment at FDL.

  32. 32
  33. 33
    cleek says:

    who gives a fuck who coined the phrase ‘firebagger’: shit’s applicable. makes sense. does not need explanation. resonates because it’s fucking true.

    don’t want to likened to a teabagger? don’t act like one. fuckin idjits.

  34. 34
    lol says:

    @Arclite:

    You’re supposed to advocate push for progressive policies from the left, not constantly try to kneecap allies who are generally on board with you but can’t enact your policies because of political realities like Republicans controlling the House.

  35. 35
    some guy says:

    Clap Louder

  36. 36
    cleek says:

    sack your own QB! that’ll show him!

  37. 37
    Just Some Fuckhead says:

    @Comrade Mary: Run a search for what?

  38. 38
    MikeBoyScout says:

    Ironic. The Republicans don’t need to divide and conquer us because we will divide ourselves and make the conquering all the easier.

  39. 39
    Danny says:

    @WyldPirate:

    So that quote, that’s part of his stock pitch w/r/t to debt reduction and investments. It’s him using standard rethorical tools to advocate:

    a) Revenues must be part of deficit reduction, and
    b) We cant stop investing to grow the economy, and
    c) We cant put to much of a burden on the weakest members in our society

    I watched both of his latest townhalls and he made the exact same pitch both times. And he’s been doing that in pretty much every speech and adress I’ve seen him make for quite some time now.

    Is there something in a), b) and c) that you don’t agree with, as a progressive? Those are mainstays of progressive philosophy he’s advocating.

  40. 40
    Comrade Mary says:

    @Just Some Fuckhead: The term “firebagger” being embraced by a commenter at FDL. If it was coined earlier somewhere else, I’m not aware of it.

  41. 41
  42. 42
    Big Baby DougJ says:

    @Corner Stone:

    I love the preseason, I’m not ashamed to admit it.

  43. 43
    Just Some Fuckhead says:

    @Comrade Mary: I’m not disputing “firebagger” was coined by commenters on FDL. But it’s completely irrelevant to the OFA story and further, to use a third party writer’s speculation as to the origin of the term as a jumping off point to get yer five minute hate on for Hamsher/FDL is just fucking retarded.

    This would make more sense as “Hey, Dumbshit Terkel, here’s where the term originated..”

    And even that would be ridiculously tangential to the overarching story.

  44. 44

    Way to emo for me. Movie time.

  45. 45
    J.A.F. Rusty Shackleford says:

    @WyldPirate:

    the above quote was lifted from this post by Digby Downer.

    Wamp! Waaaaaah.

  46. 46
    boss bitch says:

    Isn’t this the whole point of attacking Obama from the left: to get him to adopt more progressive policies?

    Your time would be better spent getting him a more Progressive Senate.

  47. 47
    Arclite says:

    @Karen:

    There’s attacking Obama from the left. Then there’s Erick Ericksoning him from the left where he’s hate bombed on an ongoing basis.

    Okay, but if the right brings a pitbull to a dog fight, and you bring a chihuahua, which is Obama going to bet on?

  48. 48
    SiubhanDuinne says:

    Isn’t that a picture of a weasel? Seems singularly appropriate.

  49. 49
    boss bitch says:

    @some guy:

    Pound Harder! Yell Louder!

  50. 50
    Comrade Mary says:

    @Just Some Fuckhead: Ah. Missed the word “about” in your original comment. Somehow read it as “aboot”.

  51. 51
    Arclite says:

    @lol:

    You’re supposed to advocate push for progressive policies from the left, not constantly try to kneecap allies who are generally on board with you but can’t enact your policies because of political realities like Republicans controlling the House.

    Okay, I agree we shouldn’t attack allies. But if we don’t push, if we just sit quietly, how do we advance more progressive policies? What’s the methodology for achieving that?

  52. 52
    andrewsomething says:

    @Danny:

    So that quote, that’s part of his stock pitch w/r/t to debt reduction and investments. It’s him using standard rethorical tools to advocate:
    [snip…]
    Is there something in a), b) and c) that you don’t agree with, as a progressive? Those are mainstays of progressive philosophy he’s advocating.

    That quote doesn’t seem to bother me as much as some, but as usual Digby has a point:

    I hate the family metaphor anyway, but this iteration of it — arguing over whether the little woman gets to buy shoes and dresses or not — takes the absurdity to a new level. Evidently the president thinks that these drastic cuts in discretionary spending — most of which hit the most vulnerable people in the nation — are comparable to a fashionista having to cut back on her trips to Bloomingdales. And worse, the problem with all this is when hubbie won’t give up golfing in exchange.

  53. 53
    jl says:

    Query: is that a weasel, a marten, or a stoat, or what in that picture at the top of the post?

  54. 54

    @Comrade Mary:

    Ah. Missed the word “about” in your original comment. Somehow read it as “aboot”.

    Dang, me too. It all makes sense now.

  55. 55
    Just Some Fuckhead says:

    At any rate, I’m completely mucking up John’s anti-FDL 400 comment thread with thinking. Apologies all, going to watch a movie with Stuck.

    Carry on.

  56. 56
    Jenny says:

    @General Stuck:

    The only one I can think of coined by Obama or obots, was professional left,

    PL is an old term. Immigration advocate Frank Sharry uses it appears in the HBO documentary on the 2007 effort for immigration reform, “The Senators’ Bargain”.

  57. 57
    WyldPirate says:

    @Danny: @Danny:

    Is there something in a), b) and c) that you don’t agree with, as a progressive? Those are mainstays of progressive philosophy he’s advocating.

    Sorry if I was a bit lazy and didn’t expand on why I think Obama’s statement is fucked up. I’m dog-tired.

    What bother’s me about is exactly what Digby said her post (that it is a fucked up metaphor) combined with the fact that Obama is constantly validating some of the conservatives whack-a-loon rhetoric.

    More to the point, Obama, it bothers me that Obama also is tacking so hard to the “mushy middle” Independents who simply have a fence pole lodge in their asses. I understand why he does it; he needs to to win re-election. However, I think Obama is just too fucking smart to not know his history and the very real numbers that a.) Keynesian economics has a track record of success in the type of economic times we are in now, and b.) that the effective tax rate on the uber wealthy is as low as it has been in 50 years or more.

    Digby’s point is of the piss-poor metaphor is well-taken, i think. The wealthy won’t miss a minimal hike of top bracket to what it was during the Clinton years. That would do a lot in and off itself to improve the deficit and render unnecessary the further degradation of the safety net.

    Obama’s metaphor by itself makes sense and is appealing to folks not paying attention. OTOH, it is his his seeming constant track record of validating conservative horseshit by echoing it that pisses me off. He does this sort of stuff all of the time IMO.

  58. 58
    Jim, Foolish Literalist says:

    @jl: I’m betting ferret (are they weasels?)

  59. 59
    ThatLeftTurnInABQ says:

    @Arclite:

    If you’re not going to complain about policies that you believe should be better, how do you expect policies to change?

    Seems to me that the best way forward is to put pressure on members of Congress to introduce more progressive bills and to force votes on them, and to work harder at electing more and better Dems especially in swing districts. I have yet to hear Obama say he will veto a bill because it is too progressive. At lot of the criticism I’ve read of Obama really boils down to pointing out what a shitty job he is doing of being Speaker of the House and Senate Majority Leader. I guess I shouldn’t be surprised that the black guy is expected to hold down 3 jobs or else he just isn’t working hard enough, in some people’s eyes.

  60. 60
    WyldPirate says:

    @andrewsomething:

    Thanks for throwing that in, andrewsomething. That helps clarify what digby’s complaint was.

    Sorry I was too tired to add it initially.

  61. 61
    mcd410x says:

    Skepticism is so 20th century.

  62. 62
    Ira-NY says:

    What evidence is there that Jane Hamsher is a liberal?

    It seems to me there is a considerable amount of evidence that she is on the other team.

  63. 63
    EnoughIsEnough says:

    This is what the PROFESSIONAL LEFT and the FIREBAGGERS seem NOT to understand – the ANSWER to a very simple question. Do you or don’t you want a President who is more focused on and more willing to be a positive influence on liberal ideals? If the answer is yes, then STOP bashing President Obama. What you are doing is depressing the vote. Everyone is not engaged with detailed policies. All they hear is Obama BAD. Teabaggers BAD, but Obama BAD, too. You cannot not ASSuME that the average citizen is politically astute. So the CONSTANT criticism of the President serves the Republican Party. Bashing President Obama is NOT going to change the way teabaggers vote in the House of Representatives. Staying home and bashing the President is partly the reason we have lunatics in the majority in the House. I say Enough is Enough and I don’t care who doesn’t like it. I’ve lived too many years under Republican Presidents and I would like to live the few years I might have left at least living under a Democratic President. If you think there’s no difference, then you’re a fool.

  64. 64
    Jenny says:

    So no one actually called Krugman a firebagger.

    Well, calling him a firebagger would be inaccurate, anyways. But that said, he is a PUMA.

  65. 65
    urizon says:

    I agree; the worst aspect of most blogs, progressive or otherwise, is the self-obsessed host.

  66. 66
    WyldPirate says:

    @WyldPirate:

    Jeezus. I really need to try proofreading before before I hit the fucking submit button.

  67. 67
    scott says:

    Shorter John Cole — Blah blah blah progressives hate Obama and always will blah blah blah Firebaggers blah blah blah Tunch is Teh Coolest blah blah blah heirloom tomatos blah blah blah Firebaggers Teh Suck and Glenn Greenwald is a homo!

    This is why I delinked Balloon Juice from my blogs linky links section months ago and why my readers thanked me by the droves when I finally did so.

    Nice to see some things never change here at BJ Cole.

  68. 68
    jl says:

    @Jim, Foolish Literalist:

    Thanks. I forgot about ferret. Looks like a ferret.

  69. 69
    TK421 says:

    Umm, “firebagger” is what they named themselves

    No, it’s what one unknown person in one comment came up with. Every time someone asks “what’s this ‘firebagger’ crap all about?” that same one quote gets dragged back up.

    If one commenter at Balloon Juice said “sometimes I want to strangle Rick Perry”, and Bill O’Reilly said “that comment shows that John Cole and everyone at Balloon Juice are violent goons” you people would hurt yourselves laughing at what a fool Bill was.

  70. 70
    WyldPirate says:

    @J.A.F. Rusty Shackleford:

    Maybe there is a reason why Digby is a “Downer”, Rusty. The economy is in the goddamned toilet for many people.

  71. 71
    theBuhjaysus says:

    This whole time I thought firebagging was something teenagers were doing that involved flaming testicles being snuffed out in waiting mouths…my bad.

  72. 72
    Derf says:

    Listen up Chicken Little Cole. I am a progressive and I resent the fact you are associating yourself with me. You are no progressive. You voted for the Texas Dummy twice. Full stop! You think libertarians have some good ideas. Full stop! You think Greenwald’s opinion matters. Full stop!

    You are not in the same ballpark as what I consider progressive. I really don’t know what the hell you are. Maybe you are just dumb. I don’t know.

  73. 73
    TK421 says:

    @Karen:

    Obama’s “Yes we Can” had an emphasis on “WE.” But the FDL/GOS group wanted “Yes I Will.” It didn’t matter that when Bush/Cheney ruled by “Yes I Will and fuck the Constitution it’s what I say it is” and FDL/GOS HATED IT. If it was for what they deemed was important and what they demanded, Obama could put on a crown and abolish the Constitution with a military presence for all they cared.

    Thank you for that textbook example of attacking a straw man.

  74. 74
    WyldPirate says:

    @WyldPirate:

    Jeezus. I really need to try proofreading before before I hit the fucking submit button.

    Fuck it. I give up. I’m going to bed, folks. Ya’ll have fun raging about this latest iteration of “Firebaggers v. Obots”. I’m sure this thread will top 300+ in short order.

  75. 75
    Jim says:

    The bottom line is that if you take FDL at its word, it is one of the least successful activist groups ever. They have lost approximately every single battle of the last three years. Wouldn’t it behoove everyone for them to pack it in?

  76. 76
    ThatLeftTurnInABQ says:

    @WyldPirate:

    More to the point, Obama, it bothers me that Obama also is tacking so hard to the “mushy middle” Independents who simply have a fence pole lodge in their asses. I understand why he does it; he needs to to win re-election.

    It isn’t just his re-election that hinges on getting the mushy middle Indys. The Dems need that voting block to get (back) and hold a majority in the House especially. A factor that seems to be frequently overlooked is that the voting power of the mushy middle is multiplied many times over as a result of gerrymandering of Congressional districts. Gerrymandering is a leveraged bet (made by the party drawing the lines) against the partisan state of the electorate remaining what it was in past elections. The more advantage the party in power siezes via this tactic, the more heavily leveraged the bet is. That means that a large swing in House seats from one party to the other can result from the shift of a small number of voters in the middle from one column to the other. The majority of our elections from 2002 thru 2010 were “swing” elections, favoring the GOP in 2002 and 2010 and the Dems in 2006 and 2008. That isn’t normal by the standards of past US political history, to have so many swing elections in such a short span of time, and increasingly efficient computer modelling driven gerrymandering is the reason. Effectively over time an increasingly smaller and smaller slice of the electorate is being allowed to decide the results of our national elections when it comes to setting the table in the House.

    Personally I don’t welcome our mushy middle electoral overlords and I’d like to see gerrymandering suppressed, but I can see why professional pols pay so much attention to them.

  77. 77
    aisce says:

    i may be missing something here, but what does some random campaign director in even-more-random new mexico have to do with barack obama personally? or anybody in the white house, for that matter?

    look obviously the “professional left” is not held in high esteem by the president’s top staffers, let alone those further down the chain, but so what? the professional left proved their untrustworthiness in the health care effort, and they’ve only become worse since. and thepeoplesview is a largely respectable blog. not when they’re chest-beating about an economy that’s growing less than inflation, but when you operate exclusively under a siege mentality, you tend to become a little delusional now and then.

    this is the ultimate tempest in the teapot that does nothing for anybody except for jane hamsher’s persecution complex. as if that needed any extra help.

  78. 78
    Jenny says:

    So apparently some campaign flack somewhere called out the professional left and called them firebaggers or something. Beyond the fact that it is stupid for OFA members to write shit like this

    Why would it be stoopid? It’s waste of time and it’s irrelevant, but how would it be stoopid? It’s not like Lady Blah-Blah and Boy Wonder and their disciples are going to vote for Obama.

  79. 79

    Heh. I always wondered where the term “firebagger” came from. Frankly. I’d only seen it used here (but then I pretty much only spend online time here anyway …)

    So I kinda thought John Cole or Doug or one of the other regulars made up the term. LOL. Didn’t know they’d named themselves that.

  80. 80
    Derf says:

    @Jim: You can pretty much say that about any of their so called progressive heroes.

    Remember Grayson? Gone!

    Then there is Kucinich. I don’t think he has ever had a single piece of legislation get out of committee much less passed the house. Probably one of the least effective congressmen there is.

  81. 81
    Danny says:

    @Arclite:

    If you’re not going to complain about policies that you believe should be better, how do you expect policies to change? Isn’t this the whole point of attacking Obama from the left: to get him to adopt more progressive policies? Otherwise, it’s just the right complaining, and Obama moving right to accommodate them.

    Yes, this flawed thinking is indeed used by professional emobaggers when they want to justify waging full out war against the President. (It’s just one of many justifications that people like JH alternate between, depending on whatever’s most useful at the moment)

    It’s telling in it’s lazyness and cluelessness. The theory being that the loudest complainer wins.

    There are several problems with that theory but the biggest problem is that the President is not a king. However much he would like to, he cant deliver legislation by decree. He’s not your daddy and he cant go out and buy you a pony if you bitch at him hard enough.

    Furthermore, the complainers represent maybe somewhere between 10-30% of self identified liberal democrats (probably closer to 10%). That’s perhaps 5% of voting americans, tops.

    5% of voters complaining that the president isnt taking the kosher policy positions or exercising the kosher media strategy doesnt move any Overton windows – because moving Overton windows isnt about a miniscule portion of the electorate blackmailing the President into doing stuff the rest of the electorate doesnt like. That’s an overreach and it usually results in a backlash.

    Rush Limbaugh, Focus on the Family and the Dirty Harry movies: they moved Overton windows. By taking stuff that was way outside mainstream at one point and pitching it to a national audience. And that’s the key: you want to convince people in general – or a substantial part of them – that something that was considered extreme is worth considering.

    Problem is the emobagger crowd are to lazy to actually figure out how to convince anybody who’s not already solidly on the left (let alone actually go out and do some actual convincing) so their brilliant solution is to dream up a magical scenario where

    1) Complain about the President.
    2) ????
    3) Overton Window moved.

    If 3 doesnt happen then it must mean that Obama sabotaged 2. Brilliant.

  82. 82
    MikeJake says:

    Is it really such a big deal that progressives are irritating the president? Isn’t that actually a good thing? If anything, it at least pulls him slightly away from the center out of sheer annoyance.

    I haven’t been terribly thrilled with President Obama myself, but I do recognize that it’s much easier to expect everything from the president than it is to acknowledge how bad Congress is and prepare for the arduous task of identifying and replacing the weak links up for election next year. That takes real work.

  83. 83
    TK421 says:

    @EnoughIsEnough:

    I’ve lived too many years under Republican Presidents and I would like to live the few years I might have left at least living under a Democratic President.

    Since you said “Democratic president” rather than “Democratic policies” you might just get your wish. Enjoy the slashing of the safety net, the endless war, and the bailouts for rich bankers. At least they’re being done by a (D) rather than a (R).

  84. 84
    NR says:

    Meanwhile, in actual, relevant news for next year’s election: Obama hits a new low on the economy. 26% approve, 71% disapprove. Among independents, only 23% approve of Obama’s handling of the economy (which is weird, because I could have sworn that people around here were saying that all his focus on the deficit was supposed to help him with independents).

    Now, riddle me this: If and when Obama loses next year, will it be because of a) Firebaggers, or b) The fact that 71% of the public thinks he’s doing a bad job managing the economy?

  85. 85
    RinaX says:

    I’m glad to see The People’s View getting a wider readership. Baggers of all stripes, stay mad.

  86. 86
    boss bitch says:

    @andrewsomething:

    I hate the family metaphor anyway, but this iteration of it—arguing over whether the little woman gets to buy shoes and dresses or not—- takes the absurdity to a new level. Evidently the president thinks that these drastic cuts in discretionary spending—- most of which hit the most vulnerable people in the nation—- are comparable to a fashionista having to cut back on her trips to Bloomingdales. And worse, the problem with all this is when hubbie won’t give up golfing in exchange.

    This is some serious reeeeaacccchinng.

  87. 87
    Strandedvandal says:

    @scott:

    This is why I delinked Balloon Juice from my blogs linky links section months ago and why my readers thanked me by the droves when I finally did so.

    So your Mom isn’t a big BJ fan?

  88. 88
    ornery says:

    Cute ferret, nice to see!

  89. 89
    Elizabelle says:

    Yes! NYTimes alert:

    Justice Department Investigating S.&P. Over Mortgage Securities

    The Department of Justice is investigating whether the nation’s largest credit ratings agency, Standard & Poor’s, improperly rated dozens of mortgage securities in the years leading up to the financial crisis, according to two people interviewed by the government and another briefed on such interviews.
    The Justice Department has been asking about instances in which the agency’s analysts wanted to award lower ratings on mortgage bonds but may have been overruled by S.&P. executives, according to the people with knowledge of the interviews.

    The investigation began before Standard & Poor’s cut the United States’ triple-A credit rating this month, but is likely to add fuel to the political firestorm that has surrounded that action.

    Read More:
    http://www.nytimes.com/2011/08.....tml?emc=na

  90. 90
    TK421 says:

    @aisce:

    the professional left proved their untrustworthiness in the health care effort

    Yes, that was very untrustworthy of them to campaign on a public option, then jettison it behind the scenes, and to promise to hold deliberations on C-SPAN but do them in secret.

  91. 91
    cleek says:

    @NR:
    if you think the GOP will yield better results, then by all means, proudly, openly, fight for your champion.

    otherwise, admit that Obama will be the Dem choice next year, and make the most of that fact. the options are simple: either fight for the best chance progressives have in 2012, or fight for the sworn enemy of everything progressives stand for.

  92. 92
    TK421 says:

    NR, it is quite simple really: the “professional left” are

    A) such a tiny minority that that they can’t affect anything, so it is stupid of them to claim otherwise

    and

    B) destroying Obama’s ability to govern by criticizing him.

    I hope that answers your question.

  93. 93
    J.A.F. Rusty Shackleford says:

    @WyldPirate:

    Maybe there is a reason why Digby is a “Downer”, Rusty. The economy is in the goddamned toilet for many people.

    Wamp! Waaaaaaah.

  94. 94
    aisce says:

    @ tk-421

    i have a fun idea. how about you actually let the law be enacted and see how it goes the first few years? and then if it does a great job at all it’s advertised to do, great!

    and if not, then push for even better tweaks to the new (and still much improved) framework. such as…a public option, perhaps.

    you know, progress?

    rather than declaring the whole enterprise a failure and a betrayal before it even has a chance to prove its mettle. which, by the way, it’s proved itself so far with distinction. it’s so far and away the administration’s finest achievement, it’s scary. and they’ve done a lot of other really good stuff.

  95. 95
    some guy says:

    This is some serious reeeeaacccchinng.

    Balloonhead lack of political and rhetorical awareness in a nutshell.

  96. 96
    Arclite says:

    @ThatLeftTurnInABQ:

    Seems to me that the best way forward is to put pressure on members of Congress to introduce more progressive bills and to force votes on them, and to work harder at electing more and better Dems especially in swing districts.

    Yup, good points. That’s where the legislation will come from. But the president has a lot of influence there, and it frustrates me for Obama to essentially give away most of the farm before negotiations have even begun: drug negotiations, single payer, public option, social security cuts, no tax increases, etc. etc.

  97. 97
    cleek says:

    @WyldPirate:
    Digby’s a downer because her default setting is hyperbolic pessimism. she’s smart, but unless you agree that everything is shit, she wears

  98. 98
    OzoneR says:

    @Arclite:

    Isn’t this the whole point of attacking Obama from the left: to get him to adopt more progressive policies?

    You’d think so, but the DailyKos and FDL response to his job plan proposal is “too little, too late, just words, want actions”

    If your goal is get him to adopt more progressive policies, and then when he does, you accuse him of just pandering to you, then you’re not serious, you’re just looking for a reason to justify your own crass cynicism, which is why I suspect most of the activist internet left is nowadays.

  99. 99
    Marc says:

    @cleek:

    It’ll heighten the contradictions and bring about the revolution!

  100. 100
    cleek says:

    @Arclite:

    it frustrates me for Obama to essentially give away most of the farm before negotiations have even begun

    how do you know when negotiations began? any chance they started before media started paying attention? any chance Obama had already discussed things with people before things started going public?

    no?

  101. 101
    boss bitch says:

    @aisce:

    i have a fun idea. how about you actually let the law be enacted and see how it goes the first few years? and then if it does a great job at all it’s advertised to do, great!

    OR they could work to get single payer passed in individual states like Vermont has done. I thought this would have been the next logical step for the left. Seek out states with Dem Govs and Dem majorities and push them to pass single payer. Obviously I was wrong because these guys are still crying over a watered down public option.

  102. 102
    NR says:

    @cleek: Congratulations on writing a reply that had nothing whatsoever to do with anything I posted.

  103. 103
    Dee Loralei says:

    @jl: ferret

  104. 104
    TK421 says:

    i have a fun idea…

    That’s irrelevant to the point I was making, so I won’t address it.

  105. 105
    cleek says:

    @NR:
    i’ve been reading your comments here long enough to know exactly what your point was. you’ve been consistently anti-Obama for years.

    well, your choice next year, like it or not, will be Obama or the GOP guy. that’s it. something or less than nothing.

  106. 106
    ThatLeftTurnInABQ says:

    @cleek:

    any chance they started before media started paying attention?

    That anything of significance could escape the laser-like focus of our world-class news media, that good sir is unpossible!

  107. 107
    TK421 says:

    @OzoneR:

    If your goal is get him to adopt more progressive policies, and then when he does, you accuse him of just pandering to you

    Are you referring to the job-creation proposals Obama has recently been talking about: a payroll tax cut, an infrastructure bank, free trade deals, and , of course, deficit reduction?

    Unfortunately, those are not progressive ideas. So it’s wrong to criticize people for not being happy with them after calling for progressive ideas.

    And they are pretty weak proposals, too. So there is nothing wrong with people calling them “too little”. Are they too late? They are definitely far too late to maintain control of the House of Representatives, and based upon polling data they may be too late to salvage public opinion of Obama’s economic policies.

  108. 108
    Ripley says:

    Had a ferret once – playful but moody, he bit too hard, he cried out loud (really) when he wasn’t getting a lot of attention, and he smelled nearly as bad as a skunk.

    So, yeah, firebagger.

  109. 109
    OzoneR says:

    @cleek:

    NR – June 20, 2008 | 12:14 pm · Link
    And by the way, Cindy Sheehan is a complete nutjob, but now… I hope she wins. She couldn’t be any worse than Pelosi.

    uh huh

  110. 110
    shortstop says:

    I actually didn’t know they came up with the name themselves. That makes it even funnier when they whine about it here a la the teabaggers who indignantly insist that no tea partier ever used the term to refer to himself.

  111. 111
    OzoneR says:

    @TK421:

    Are you referring to the job-creation proposals Obama has recently been talking about: a payroll tax cut, an infrastructure bank, free trade deals, and , of course, deficit reduction?
    Unfortunately, those are not progressive ideas.

    infrastructure development is not a progressive idea? Color me surprised that suddenly it’s not.

    Oh, he needs to “fight for something,” right?

  112. 112
    Ian says:

    @Arclite:

    Okay, I agree we shouldn’t attack allies. But if we don’t push, if we just sit quietly, how do we advance more progressive policies? What’s the methodology for achieving that

    What’s not the methodology is having an entire blog of people (fdl) who only wish to see Obama defeated because he isn’t purist enough.

    I equate FDL to the 2000 Nader supporters. Sure they are liberal progressives, and they will give us the next Bush

  113. 113
    TK421 says:

    @OzoneR:

    An infrastructure bank is not, no.

  114. 114
    Danny says:

    @WyldPirate:

    You go on and on about how it’s a “bad metaphore” and how it “validates” republican messaging, but provide no specifics. Where’s the beef?

    The only specific thing you seem to object to is the implication that higher revenues would mean shared “sacrifice” for millionaires and billionaires. Your implied position seems to be that it would mean little or no sacrifice for them because they are so rich that paying a little bit more in taxes wont be a problem.

    Is that your gripe?

    If that’s the case, then sure, imho it’s true as a factual matter that the suffering and sacrifice by poor people in a recession is real sacrifice and paying a little bit more in taxes is nothing. I agree with that sentiment 100%.

    But if you demand that the president say on the record “those rich fuckers should pay up and stop being heartless bastards about it” rather than saying as he does now “I think the fortunate among us can afford paying a little bit more, if they are asking the unfortunate to sacrifice” then you know jack sh-t about politics in general, and US politics in particular. Sorry but that’s a fact.

    Put yourself in the shoes of the opposition for a second. Any Republican who ran for president on a platform of “anyone who ever aborted a baby is a murderer” would be toast, and yet 15%+ of voters think that that is just as true as what you and me think about the rich, taxes and shared sacrifice. You have to find a way of presenting your position that can appeal to large groups of people, but it’s still the same position you’re advocating.

  115. 115
    Brian says:

    This ceased to be funny long ago, but now, with Perry in the mix, this is heart-attack serious. Be a “real” Progressive all you want, but if you a THING to help the GOP nominee to win, you’re an idiot. No, that’s insulting to idiots. You a self-defeating, delusional asshat. Play time is over, kids. We have a crop of the worst, most dangerous candidates I can think of, and all decent, thinking people need to get over themselves and make sure Obama wins. I can have my feelings of conflict abut his words and deeds (I’m not a huge fan of his, to be honest), but I’m not going to be in any way part of a GOP win in 2012. I couldn’t live with myself. How would you? Not only is Algore fat, he’s also not the former President. How’d that work out for us?

  116. 116
    OzoneR says:

    @TK421:

    An infrastructure bank is not, no.

    do you even know what an infrastructure bank is, or did the word bank trigger a reaction like the right gets with “mosque” and “taxes?”

  117. 117
    OzoneR says:

    @Arclite:

    But if we don’t push, if we just sit quietly, how do we advance more progressive policies? What’s the methodology for achieving that?

    no one said sit quietly, Congress should be your goal, state legislatures should be your goal, local elections should be your goal.

  118. 118
    aisce says:

    @ tk421

    That’s irrelevant to the point I was making

    i know, right? it’s almost as though i deigned not to address your bullshit first.

    because anybody who would say the administration is untrustworthy when it comes to ensuring americans and reducing federal health care expenditures is obviously completely fucking nuts.

    but you wouldn’t want to be completely fucking nuts, would you?

  119. 119
    phil says:

    So Democrats can’t disagree with our President because some johnny come lately, ex-republican, center-right blogger tells us?

    I guess I didn’t get the memo.

  120. 120
    Jim says:

    The whole thrust of all this seems to be that liberals are blaming Obama for insufficiently motivating them at the polls in 2010, making it impossible for any liberal measures to get passed now and making it more difficult for the more liberal presidential candidate to win in 2012.

    Seriously, gripes about policy are fine and many do that well — DDay is great. But FDL is primarily a space for Hamsher to make money for doing nothing productive and for white college kids and out-of-work lesbians to post about how it would get great if we could elect Kucinich or Feingold or Cindy Fucking Sheehan or what the fuck, Ron Paul because he won’t be able to private Social Security unilaterally but will somehow end the drug war with the stroke of a pen on January 20th.

    These people are DUMB, but beyond being dumb it’s important to recognize how little they actually give a shit about the policies. They screeched for 2 years over DADT as if it was the most oppressive thing ever and how Obama lost 2010 because three gay men voted Republican, but now that DADT is on its last legs the general sentiment is “I’m not gay so wtf do I care — also why does Obama want gay soldiers to die in Afghanistan?” Obama could pass ENDA and they’d say “okay now where’s EFCA?” and vice versa is equally true. Obama is too weak and should get angry at Perry… oh no he’s getting angry, well obviously because he wants to distract voters from the economy. Obama should goddamnit listen to voters and not touch Social Security, but also too goddamnit he needs to pass cap and trade by executive order in the face of overwhelming voter opposition because fuck them they’re dumb. He should be using the bully pulpit every day, but oh my Christ did you hear that metaphor in his speech the other day, how out of touch is this black guy with real white trash in Mississippi?

    Every other comment on FDL is some version of “better an actual Republican than a Democrat who acts like one.” It’s really just a group of dumb people who like to thrash around and do cannonballs in the politics pool but aren’t committed enough to actually learn how to swim laps. They feel they got tricked by Obama because they were stupid enough to think that every force in favor of keeping the status quo magically disappeared in 2009.

    FDL doesn’t decide elections, of course. But it is worth considering what they really care about. Obama is going to be fine whether he wins or loses in 2012. Voting against him or staying home to cap off your personal pity party is going to hurt other people much more than it hurts him, and that is true no matter how many times you say chained CPI.

  121. 121
    Strandedvandal says:

    @phil:Didn’t get a clue either. What is it with you baggers? Is there some sort of Bat-Signal?

  122. 122
    Danny says:

    @NR:

    Now, riddle me this: If and when Obama loses next year, will it be because of a) Firebaggers, or b) The fact that 71% of the public thinks he’s doing a bad job managing the economy?

    A: The actions of the Emobagger crowd – and especially those with a platform – increases the likelyhood of lower dem base turnout, and thus increases the likelyhood that Obama will lose next year and democrats getting fewer seats in congress.

    If Obama loses, it will be on account of multiple factors, as is always the case when an election is lost. You lose a thousand votes because of this, another thousand because of that.

    So all we can say really is that the actions of the Emobagger crowd makes him more likely to lose. A bad economy also makes him more likely to lose.

  123. 123
    TK421 says:

    do you even know what an infrastructure bank is

    Yes. Do you?

    @aisce:

    This is why I said I wouldn’t address your comments. You are ranting and raving against something I didn’t even say, so there is no point in trying to talk you down.

  124. 124
    Uncle Clarence Thomas says:

    .
    .
    Hey, balloon-juice.com balloonemo grifters, I’ve done my part to coin the phrase “balloonbagger” so you could get your fair share of the pie. Don’t get greedier.
    .
    .

  125. 125
    EnoughIsEnough says:

    @TK421

    I’m old school and we use to say put up or shut up. Show me where President Obama is cutting ANY benefits to Medicare/Medicaid or Social Security. You know, you can actually go to WhiteHouse.Gov and READ what’s in the debt ceiling bill. Oh yeah, and since the President has already brought home 100,000 troops from Iraq and the drawn down in Afghanistan starts AND unless you are a prophet I don’t know how you know the wars are endless. Oh yeah and TARP was instituted under Bush. Geez.

  126. 126
    Quidity says:

    @General Stuck:

    There once was an Obot named Ray, (Sandoval)
    Firebaggers he’d verbally flay,
    and Paul Krugman he hates,
    for the truth that he states,
    “Hail the Prez” is all you should say.

  127. 127
    TK421 says:

    FDL is primarily a space for Hamsher to make money for doing nothing productive and for white college kids and out-of-work lesbians to post

    It’s a good think we have people like you to clearly articulate liberal ideals.

  128. 128
    NR says:

    @cleek: Yet again, you fail to address any point I actually made.

    Here’s a hint: What I’m talking about has nothing to do with anyone on this blog. Rather, I’m talking about actual problems Obama will face going into his re-election campaign.

  129. 129
    neal peart says:

    This makes Geddy, Alex and all of fucking Canada pleased. Go on Mr. Cole. I love you.

  130. 130
    Corner Stone says:

    So all we can say really is that the actions of the Emobagger crowd makes him more likely to lose. A bad economy also makes him more likely to lose.

    Good.Sweet.Christ.

  131. 131
    angler says:

    “I’ll just call you stupid and leave it at that” lets agree on that one, adios.

  132. 132
    Jeremy says:

    @cleek: You’re damn right I’ll sack my quarterback if he keeps giving the ball to the other team on nearly every damn play!

  133. 133
    OzoneR says:

    @TK421:

    Yes. Do you?

    yes, I do, a centralized government agency that raises funds and keeps tabs on infrastructure projects thorough the country.

    How is this not a progressive idea? I really don’t understand this.

  134. 134
    Uncle Clarence Thomas says:

    .
    .
    @Danny:

    So all we can say really is that the actions of the Emobagger crowd makes him more likely to lose. A bad economy also makes him more likely to lose.

    Dear Balloonemo Prime
    This is a variation of the old “both sides do it” argument, complete with the conspicuously unacknowledged fact that one of them is 1,000 times as likely to occur. False equivalency, thy name is Danny.
    .
    .

  135. 135
    Danny says:

    @phil:

    So Democrats can’t disagree with our President because some johnny come lately, ex-republican, center-right blogger tells us?

    You can disagree on policy and you get respect, we’re all friends and we can discuss the nitty-gritty.

    You call Obama a traitor, sellout and his supporters centrists and faux-progressives and advocate third parties and sitting out elections, then it’s my prerogative to call you an emobagger & idiot and accuse you of hurting progressive objectives.

  136. 136
    EnoughIsEnough says:

    @Jim

    You make too much sense for some on this blog.

  137. 137
    NR says:

    @Danny:

    A: The actions of the Emobagger crowd – and especially those with a platform – increases the likelyhood of lower dem base turnout, and thus increases the likelyhood that Obama will lose next year and democrats getting fewer seats in congress.

    Obama’s doing that all on his own. Look at the poll I linked to. Only 53% of Democrats approve of the way he’s handling the economy. And it’s not because of anything so-called “Emobaggers” are saying.

    So all we can say really is that the actions of the Emobagger crowd makes him more likely to lose. A bad economy also makes him more likely to lose.

    Okay, so if you have a hangnail and four gunshot wounds to the chest, I guess you’d want the doctors to spend their time treating the hangnail. After all, all we can really say is that they both make you more likely to die.

  138. 138
    Anya says:

    @aisce:

    i may be missing something here, but what does some random campaign director in even-more-random new mexico have to do with barack obama personally? or anybody in the white house, for that matter?

    Yet another similarity between the ‘progressives’ and the wingnuts — victimhood and constantly accusing the President of misdeeds.

    @NR: hold the toasting and the confetti — it’s too soon, the race hasn’t even started yet.

  139. 139
    William Hurley says:

    Note the difference in realities Mr Cole.

    True Progressives worked tirelessly (organizing, registering, phone banking, door-knocking, …) for Obama in the ’08 primaries and the generals leading to huge turnouts in demographic categories that had until then been low- or no-shows in both the Democratic Party primaries of the past and the generals v. McCain/Palin.

    Then, 2010 happened. Registered Democratic turn-out was low as was voluntary participation in the work efforts enumerated above. You know the outcomes that resulted from uninspired turn-out across the nation. I know you know because you and a goodly number of your fellows constantly harp on TeaOP obstructionism as a root of all of Obama’s failures. I can assure you, Scott Brown’s win, capturing former “Lion of the Senate” Ted Kennedy’s seat, over state AG (an elected office) Martha Coakley was aided and abetted by the White House’s nonchalance and hands-off disposition regarding that crucial race. The fact is that Coakley’s uninspired and uninspiring campaign was so unmoving that the President himself chose to avoid being tainted by the “uninspired” and “loser” labels – thereby allowing the GOP to snatch victory from the jaws of defeat regarding a better and more robust health care law. And then there’s the immediate history of legislative nonsense following Brown’s win that gave the TeaOP Senate minority enough votes to both filibuster at-will AND produce a 50-vote block – at-will – that effectively ended any and all chances at any real value in forcing cloture votes.

    And now we’re at this juncture, a point-in-time where the calendar begins to have real and lasting impact on affiliations, allegiances, organizational imperatives and broad recruitment of volunteers to aid the President’s campaign and those of the hundreds of House, Senate and state races that need every body and every dollar they can muster.

    To point, the loss of a band of unions’ support for the Convention is neither a small nor inconsequential fact, a fact all the more troubling at this time and in the face of GOtV, fund-raising and enthusiasm building. The public split announced by unions was, I can assure you, the result of those Progressive organizations own assessment of Obama’s past performance, of his chances going forward and – not in the least – the sentiments of those unions’ members. As a result, I’m curious. Do you and/or your colleagues here now consider unions and union members to be “firebaggers” too?

    Here are some real questions regarding the campaign environment.

    – Can the President win re-election if, as most economists now expect, unemployment remains at or above 9%?

    – Can the President win re-election if the cleavage with unions – as it stand or if is widens – leads to diminished monetary and in-kind donations to the campaign, DNC or superPACs affiliated with the President’s campaign?

    – Can the President win re-election if a new “debate” over the nation’s debt ceiling erupts 90 or so days before Nov 6, 2012?

    – Can the President win re-election if Bank of America fails or as it descends into failure a new “bank bailout” act is taken?

    – Can the President win re-election if the housing market(s) remain as they are today or, as indications suggest, those markets become less functional?

    – Can the President win re-election if the Affordable Care Act is functionally neutered or simply declared unconstitutional by the Supreme Court?

    – Can the President win re-election if the various states under taking voter registration/identification gerrymandering succeeds?

    – Can the President win re-election if the stock markets remain stuck at or near (above or below, that is) current levels?

    – Can the President win re-election if Medicare is cut as a result of his debt commission II’s failure to reach agreement?

    – Can the President win re-election if Medicaid is cut as a result of his debt commission II’s failure to reach agreement?

    – Can the President win re-election if Social Security is cut as a result of his debt commission II’s failure to reach agreement?

    – Can the President win re-election if news of US war involvement in Iraq, Afghanistan, Pakistan, Yemen, Libya, Somalia and elsewhere – cuts or no cuts to DoD budget?

    – Can the President win re-election if wages and salaries for the bottom 95% of Americans remains stagnant or lose more ground to inflation?

    Before you answer, in part or in whole, consider Gallup’s newest poll surveying Americans’ sentiments regarding the President’s performance. Among the many data points that are revealing, the survey reports that 71% of Americans disapprove of how he – yes, the President by name – has handled economic issues. 71% disapproval in an area of policy and responsibility in which he’s functionally neutered himself and in for which the broadest consensus expects worse not better future outcomes does not bode well for the President or those directly or indirectly dependent upon him for electoral viability.

    Last question:
    Should “Progressives” sacrifice both a majority in the House and Senate for a 2nd Obama term as President?

    $1 billion is a lot to waste merely to lose an election.

  140. 140
    aisce says:

    @ tk421

    yep, you changed the definition of professional left and it was just. so. clever. calling the administration the professional left instead (which, hey, at least admits they’re left-leaning, which is downright progress for the firebagging brigade) is just truly vintage snark. well done.

    and then dismissing the entire reform bill because of c-span negotiations, well, it’s clear i’m dealing with a firebagging pro. i’m just not prepared for your epic truth telling.

    fuck you, millions of soon-to-be insured. obama broke a c-span pledge. that’s like, the worst thing anybody could ever do. we should impeach him.

  141. 141
    Karen says:

    @TK421:

    Strawman? People on BJ who are usually on FDL and GOS say that if Obama did that they’d be fine with it because at least it’s policies they believe in.

    I guess I can count you in as one of those in the all-the-things-I-hate-that-a-Republican-does-is-fine-if-a-Democrat-does-it camp.

    And that makes you different from the Republican party how?

  142. 142
    Danny says:

    @Corner Stone:

    Shocking to entertain the notion that if you spend your time convincing as many people as possible that the President and establishment democrats are traitors; doesnt share your values; and/or are wimps – then you may succeed in convincing one or two people not to bother voting for them?

  143. 143

    This thread is being all it can be. Nice little asylum you run here senor Cole.

  144. 144
    B W Smith says:

    @Jim: Standing ovation, sir! You have captured my thoughts exactly. I actually thought you might get more push back from some of our friends here. Please continue to speak the truth.

  145. 145
    EnoughIsEnough says:

    I love it!! This ought to cause more whining and crying from the EMOprogs who need to grow up.

    http://www.thepeoplesview.net/.....mbest.html

  146. 146
    FlipYrWhig says:

    @Danny: It is truly one of the weirder things I’ve ever seen following politics, usually obsessively, since about 1984, that it has become an article of faith that The Household Analogy is a gateway drug to full-on conservative economic dogma. I think it happened last year. The complaint isn’t that it’s a flawed analogy — guess what, all analogies are flawed; when someone says after your breakup that “There are plenty of fish in the sea,” that doesn’t mean the Kama Sutra and _The Compleat Angler_ are exactly the same (fucking) book. The complaint has become that anyone who uses that analogy, on any occasion, and for any purpose, is validating conservative memes. Even if the analogy is being deployed to make a progressive case. That’s just some full-on stupid shit that totally gives up on attempting to understand political rhetoric beyond as a collection of red flags that you must never say.

  147. 147
    TK421 says:

    TARP was instituted under Bush.

    Yes, TARP was instituted under the presidency of Bush (and was pushed for, hard, by Senator Obama). But since then, president Obama has given an amount to the banks that dwarfs TARP.

    Meanwhile, over there:

    Iraq, U.S. to negotiate for longer troop stay

    Here’s what president Obama thinks about the safety net:

    Obama Sides With Panetta On Need To Cut Medicare Over Defense

  148. 148
    Ira-NY says:

    Is there anyone on the Right similar to Hamsher?

  149. 149
    Corner Stone says:

    @FlipYrWhig:

    that doesn’t mean the Kama Sutra and The Compleat Angler are exactly the same (fucking) book.

    Are you honestly trying to tell me The Compleat Angler was not a sex manual?

  150. 150
    EnoughIsEnough says:

    @William,

    Go to WhiteHouse.gov and read what is and is not in the debt ceiling bill and what is and is not part of the trigger. Social Security and Medicaid are NOT on the table. Medicare PROVIDERS (big pharma, doctors, etc) along with defense IS on the table IF the committee cannot reach an agreement. Really, it’s too long to spell out here, but at least go read it.

  151. 151
    Danny says:

    @NR:

    Maybe putting this in a historical perspective will make this easier for you to grok:

    – Chicago convention of 1968 – hurt Humphrey or didnt hurt Humphrey?

    – Teddy in 1980 – hurt Carter or didnt hurt Carter?

    – Nader in 2000 – hurt Gore or didnt hurt Gore?

    That’s not saying that stagflation, the Vietnam war and the MSM:s hitjob on Gore had nothing to do with those guys losing. I’m saying exactly what I said in my previous post: multiple factors lose an election. The actions by the Emobagger crowd (specifically by those with a platform) is one such factor and it’s gonna suppress dem base turnout next year.

  152. 152
    TK421 says:

    @Karen:

    Strawman? People on BJ who are usually on FDL and GOS say that if Obama did that they’d be fine with it because at least it’s policies they believe in.

    Who has said they would be fine with Obama ruling lawlessly?

    I guess I can count you in as one of those in the all-the-things-I-hate-that-a-Republican-does-is-fine-if-a-Democrat-does-it camp.

    Specifically, upon what are you basing that judgment?

    @OzoneR:

    How is this not a progressive idea? I really don’t understand this.

    It’s simple: the “bank” part is a way to remove the government from as much of the process as possible. Rather than take a big sum of money and build what we need, it takes a small abount of money and uses it to provide incentives for private investment in infrastructure.

  153. 153
    Strandedvandal says:

    @Ira-NY: Yes – Hamsher.

  154. 154
    EnoughIsEnough says:

    TK421

    Where’s your link? I want to see where PRESIDENT Obama has given banks MORE money than they were given under TARP. What does “pushed hard” even mean? Do you get away with posting this stuff everywhere or just here? I’m too old darling, you got to come better than you coming to make a believer out of me.

  155. 155
    eemom says:

    @Just Some Fuckhead:

    going to watch a movie with Stuck.

    hmmpff. So THAT’s where you two were off to after our group hug the other night.

  156. 156

    I’ve always loved that Amish Rake Fight page, I’ve been using it for years.

  157. 157
    TK421 says:

    @NR:

    Only 53% of Democrats approve of the way he’s handling the economy. And it’s not because of anything so-called “Emobaggers” are saying.

    Exactly. The president said his stimulus would keep unemployment below 8%. It didn’t. He said his HAMP program would help 3 million homowners. It hasn’t. He said cutting the federal deficit would stimulate the economy. It isn’t. And now most Americans disapprove of his economic performance.

  158. 158
    Ira-NY says:

    @Strandedvandal:

    Ha! Good point. I think there is a case to be made that she is a double agent.

  159. 159
    Danny says:

    @FlipYrWhig:

    Yes, that stuff is ridiculous. Especially so since taking the time to watch ten short minutes of the speech / townhall where Obama used that metaphor should make it bleedingly obvious to anyone with half a brain and a rudimentary understanding of rethorics that he’s taking the metaphor and twisting it to make a case for more revenue and more investment.

    Talking about “families” may be a bad model for understanding macroeconomics but its not ipso facto an act of manifested conservatism, especially not so if the metaphor is used to pitch progressive policy.

    The only conclusion is that the people floating that stuff are either teabagger stupid or teabagger dishonest and maybe both.

  160. 160
    OzoneR says:

    @TK421:

    It’s simple: the “bank” part is a way to remove the government from as much of the process as possible. Rather than take a big sum of money and build what we need, it takes a small abount of money and uses it to provide incentives for private investment in infrastructure.

    wait a minute, it’s a must that government must be 100% involved for something to be progressive? This creates a government agency that oversees infrastructure development? That’s not enough? For it to be progressive it must be all government money and government administered?

    The bank provides a way to finance job-creating infrastructure development, who cares how directly involved the government is? I thought the primary problem was jobs?

    It doesn’t sound to me you’re interested in creating jobs, it sounds to me you’re just interested in having the government take over shit.

  161. 161
    B W Smith says:

    @TK421: Are you sure you’re not a sock puppet for Eric Cantor? He has repeatedly said the same things. Your Republican mask is showing on this one. The difference is when he made that statement about 8% unemployment, PolitiFact stated it was “mostly false.”

  162. 162
    William Hurley says:

    @EnoughIsEnough: Done & done – a long time ago.

    Are you suggesting that the (impending) failure of the 5 Nordquist Pledge members and the 6 Democrats will be understood by the general public and, more specifically, the Plouffe/Daley dream voters a.k.a. Independents as anything other than cuts to their benefits? Or as causing increases in employee contribution withholding for employer-provider private insurance?

    Do you not remember the belief held by a shockingly large portion of the voting public regarding “death panels” and other fictions regarding ACA?

    The size of that group was sufficiently large that it did have multiple effects on policy and electoral politics – despite wide-spread political and media efforts to kill those zombie-lies.

    Still, health care as a singular issue determinant for most voters’ decision to go “D” or “R” falls somewhere “down list” of employment and employment and wages/income stagnation.

    Any thoughts on those, or some of the other framing elements of the up-coming loss by the President?

  163. 163
    NR says:

    @Danny:

    Maybe putting this in a historical perspective will make this easier for you to grok: – Chicago convention of 1968 – hurt Humphrey or didnt hurt Humphrey?

    Okay, so having started out saying that the actions of a few bloggers and blog commenters are comparable to a nationwide recession with high unemployment as far as Democratic electoral prospects are concerned, you’re now going to go on and say that the actions of a few bloggers and blog commenters are comparable to huge demonstrations in the street, complete with tear gas and police beatings, as far as Democratic electoral prospects are concerned.

    Perspective is quite clearly something you lack.

  164. 164
    Danny says:

    @TK421:

    It’s simple: the “bank” part is a way to remove the government from as much of the process as possible. Rather than take a big sum of money and build what we need, it takes a small abount of money and uses it to provide incentives for private investment in infrastructure.

    It’s creative book-keeping to inject money into the economy by means of infrastructure spending without it adding to the deficit and dept – thereby making it attractive to a majority of american voters and making it harder for republicans to oppose it. Get a clue, will you?

    Anyway, can you make a case that your objections are relevant with regard to stimulative impact / multiplier effect of the money spent on infrastructure? If you can’t your objection is immaterial to the usefullness of an infrastructure bank w/r/t job creation and getting the economy growing…

  165. 165
    TK421 says:

    @EnoughIsEnough:

    Where’s your link? I want to see where PRESIDENT Obama has given banks MORE money than they were given under TARP.

    Well here’s one for starters.

    http://www.pbs.org/wnet/need-t.....lout/3309/

    What does “pushed hard” even mean?

    It means he voted for it, and spent a lot of time and effort encouraging other Senators to vote for it.

    For instance:

    http://www.cbsnews.com/stories.....3155.shtml

  166. 166
    ProgressiveTechie says:

    Oh, am I too late to the firebagger game? Here’s the comment
    link by Knoxville calling his own kind firebagger–forgive me if someone already posted.

    But yea, who cares who coined the term. Like cleek said earlier, if you don’t want to be likened to a teabagger, then don’t act like one.

  167. 167
    William Hurley says:

    @TK421: Truer words are rarely spoken – and in this case the truth of those words harkens dark and difficult times ahead for Democrats, liberals and progressives all.

    The question that keep coming to my mind seeks an answer the support the President and lose both the House and Senate or the inverse. It’s clear that unions have made their choices – and they’ve chosen Congress.

  168. 168
    TK421 says:

    @Danny:

    It’s creative book-keeping

    Even if that were true, it’s irrelevant to my position.

    Anyway, can you make a case that your objections are relevant

    I have no interest in doing that now, because that’s not what is being discussed.

  169. 169
    TBogg says:

    Jesus. Over a 150 comments and not one lousy “I love TBogg, I just wish he’d leave FDL” comment.

    It’s like you people don’t even fucking care anymore.

    I am sad.

  170. 170
    William Hurley says:

    @TK421: There is also the so-called “back-door” bailout by which the Fed and Treasury invented trillions of dollars in assets which were then “lent” to financial services and other corps – domestic and non-domestic.

    The sum total of these “loans”, created by fiat with out Congressional support or knowledge, has been estimated to top $5 trillion.

    Here’s a link to a 2010 article in The Nation detailing Sen Sanders’ report, produced by the CRS, concluding that, at that time, more than $3.3 trillion have been invented and “distributed” by the Fed and the Executive branch agency known as the Treasury.

    http://www.thenation.com/blog/.....rporations

  171. 171
    Danny says:

    @NR:

    Okay, so having started out saying that the actions of a few bloggers and blog commenters are comparable to a nationwide recession with high unemployment as far as Democratic electoral prospects are concerned

    I never started out saying that, so it’s very tempting for me at this point to simply call you a liar and ask you to dig up a cite. But I’ll be gentle and just restate what I’ve said all along:

    Many factors lose an election. The actions of the emobagger crowd (those with a platform specifically) is going to depress dem base turnout and make us perform worse in 2012 than if they had chosen a different course of action.

    you’re now going to go on and say that the actions of a few bloggers and blog commenters are comparable to huge demonstrations in the street, complete with tear gas and police beatings, as far as Democratic electoral prospects are concerned.

    Huge demonstrations in the streets, tear gas and beatings applies to 1968 but not to 1980 or 2000 as far as I know. Do you think it’s a convincing refutation to a suggested historical pattern to find one set of events in ’68 that arent present today and just ignore the other two elections where factionalism within the progressive movement deeply hurt progressive objectives? It’s not. No-one proposed a Pigasus candidacy in 2000 and Nader still hurt Gore.

    You’re welcome to try again – if you’re up to the task….

  172. 172
    TK421 says:

    The difference is when he made that statement about 8% unemployment, PolitiFact stated it was “mostly false.”

    Look at this:

    Economist Christina Romer regrets saying jobless rate would stay below 8 percent

    “As she prepares to step down as President Obama’s chief economist, Christina Romer said Friday that she wishes she could redo one of her first official acts for the president: last January’s forecast that a big shot of federal spending would save millions of jobs and keep the unemployment rate under 8 percent.”

    Please, please don’t counter with a long discussion of whether that was a “promise” or a “projection”.

  173. 173
    Danny says:

    @TK421:

    Even if that were true, it’s irrelevant to my position.

    No it’s not irrelevant at all.

    You proposed that the infrastructure bank is “a way to” – in other words “is designed to” – keep the resulting infrastructure spending from government influence. I proposed that it is in fact designed to not add to the deficit and debt (since the money will be loans) and therefore make it harder for republicans to object to.

    So it’s relevant and you should adress it.

  174. 174
    AlphaLiberal says:

    Call me PUMA. Call me Firebagger. Call me the last true Progressive standing.

    Comment trolling is boring.

    Would it kill you guys to just fucking address the arguments being made? It would not. Try it, it’s safe.

    . It’s also worth remembering that “true progressives” have had it in for this administration before the first year was up

    Oh, for fuck’s sake.

    Obama for America owes Paul Krugman an apology. Their spokesman should be fired.

  175. 175
    TK421 says:

    Thanks for that link, William Hurley.

    With a suject like Obama’s support for big banks and Wall Street, the hard part for me isn’t finding links to illustrate it but choosing which of dozens of links that illustrate it I want to use in my writing.

  176. 176
    William Hurley says:

    @Danny: Humphrey and Carter were both lame-ducks walking during the campaigns you make reference to Danny. Neither was within reach of winning.

    As for Nader, his presence in the race was immaterial. As many, many analyses have shown, all things being equal, Gore simply had to secure a few percentage points in his home state to have won the election. Again, all things being equal – that is with the FL mess being the FL mess.

    I’m guessing, maybe wrongly, that you’re not suggesting that Nader was a big “D” draw in TN in 2000, right?

    As for a primary challenge of Obama, I’ve been advocating that alternative since spring 2010 – at various blogs and in local political get togethers/meetings.

    Here’s the thing. If Obama is as much of a lock as you and others believe him to be, then a primary challenge is nothing to fear or reject since such a challenge would fail ipso facto and have the added benefit of proving that the Democratic Party has one and only one leader.

    Conversely, the bitter, reactionary histrionics oozing from Pro-Bamists – here, there and from the White House itself – is a sign of fear and an inherent confession of your own awareness of the President’s electoral inviability.

  177. 177
    lol says:

    @William Hurley:

    Aren’t these the loans that the Fed repeatedly provided to cover day to day payroll and other expenses during the credit freeze? The interest rate was low because they were paid back the next day.

    The amount loaned adds up to a scary high number until you realize it’s just the some smaller amount being loaned dozens of times in a row.

  178. 178
    Danny says:

    @TBogg:

    In all honesty, TBogg, I’ve never followed your stuff. But you absolutely should leave FDL. Back when I used to follow FDL – up until a couple of months ago – the shear dishonesty and lack of journalistic and intellectual integrity of many front page bloggers gave me quite a shock really. Get your own home.

  179. 179
    TK421 says:

    @TBogg:

    We’re sorry! There there.

    :)

  180. 180
    Observer says:

    You people are all stupid. The anti-firebagger crowd is simply stupider than the pro-firebagger crowd.

    People, the original post names Krugman in the URL, names Krugman in the title, has Krugman as the main protagonist in the story of the post … and yet, to you people, this is all about FDL, Hamsher and other mostly anonymous blog commentators.

    And for the record, Krugman is an economist. He’s ably been pointing out since 2008 the economics solutions to the current jobs problems. And still the unemployment rate hovers about 9%. It’s not his job to figure out the politics to make the right economics solutions happen. That’s the job of people like the idiot OFA director who started this shit-storm and other losers like him.

    The correct response to “Krugman is a political rookie” is to say “he’s told you how to solve the economics problem your team was elected to solve, do you want him to do your job as well? It’s your fucking job to figure out the fucking politics once someone has handed you the correct fucking solution, so do your fucking job and figure it out on your fucking end. Asshole”.

    And gawd, you people are stupid.

  181. 181
    Ira-NY says:

    @William Hurley:

    Not so. The best studies have shown that Nader cost Gore an undisputed victory in Florida.

  182. 182
    Marc says:

    Hurley isn’t a progressive. He’s a fucking sniper. Anyone thinking that a primary challenge to Obama would help is deluded, ignorant of history, and detached from reality. Defeating Obama is more important to them than dealing with the nutcases threatening us all.

  183. 183
    NR says:

    @Danny:

    I never started out saying that, so it’s very tempting for me at this point to simply call you a liar and ask you to dig up a cite. But I’ll be gentle and just restate what I’ve said all along: Many factors lose an election. The actions of the emobagger crowd (those with a platform specifically) is going to depress dem base turnout and make us perform worse in 2012 than if they had chosen a different course of action.

    And it’s very tempting for me to simply point back to your comment upthread where you specifically compared the actions of people you term “emobaggers” to the bad economy and said that they both make Obama more likely to lose. But I’ll be gentle and just restate what I’ve said all along: Worrying about the actions of progressives criticizing Obama when the state of the economy, and voters’ opinions on Obama’s handling of it, pose so much more of a danger to his re-election prospects is completely insane. Period.

    Huge demonstrations in the streets, tear gas and beatings applies to 1968 but not to 1980 or 2000 as far as I know.

    You specifically brought up 1968 as a comparison to what’s happening today. Are you now admitting that it doesn’t compare after all?

  184. 184
    The Sheriff's A Ni- says:

    @William Hurley:

    Here’s the thing. If Obama is as much of a lock as you and others believe him to be, then a primary challenge is nothing to fear or reject since such a challenge would fail ipso facto and have the added benefit of proving that the Democratic Party has one and only one leader.

    Sincerely, Jimmy Carter.

    Oh, and while I’m here, you can take your Fed bullshit back to the Paul campaign.

  185. 185
    Samara Morgan says:

    @TBogg: i love tbogg and i wish you’d leave FDL.
    i have only found 12 entities to follow on twitter and you are one.
    FDL is holding you back.
    you should write for this blog.

  186. 186
    William Hurley says:

    @TK421: You’re welcome for the link, its a sad thing that there’s a link or, as you put it, a bounty of choices for sources to such despairing truth.

    If you’re looking for more thorough and/or commentary aided material, try Big Picture or Zero Hedge. Both sites have posted numerous items on the GDP-sized secret give-away to the world’s largest banks and corporations.

    The crazy thing is that despite largesse that’s nearly galactic in size, Bank of America may still collapse due to its inability to hide the black hole of insolvency at its core.

  187. 187
    TBogg says:

    @Danny:

    Oh. Well THAT certainly makes me feel better.

  188. 188
    OzoneR says:

    @William Hurley:

    If Obama is as much of a lock as you and others believe him to be, then a primary challenge is nothing to fear or reject since such a challenge would fail ipso facto and have the added benefit of proving that the Democratic Party has one and only one leader.

    No, because Obama will easily dispense of his primary challenge, but not before the media suggesting it as a sign that he’s losing, it leading to moderates lambashing liberals and liberals bashing moderates and not before the 20%-25% who voted for the primary challenger say their guy was ignored, mistreated, had the election stolen from him, and Obama is a corporate tool no one should vote for.

    And don’t tell me you’re going to wholeheartedly endorse Obama after he wins, because no one will take you seriously when you go from “He’s a corporate tool who needs to be defeated” to “We should vote for him with gusto” in a few weeks.

    Democrats don’t unite after primaries, they don’t play “follow teh leader,” they pride their independence. When their guy loses, they always take their ball and go home, they’re proud of that. They don’t do “one and only one leader.” Sarah Palin was the only reason they united in 2008, and even then that disunity has been rearing its ugly head ever since. And if not for the primary, I think the Democrat running in 2008 would have won 55%+.

    Obama’s on solid footing, a primary challenge would change that. Saying he should have nothing to fear from a primary because he’s on solid footing is like saying “since you’re healthy, you should have nothing to fear from this botulism”

    Seriously, is there any evidence that what you said will happen has EVER happened in the Democratic Party…EVER?

  189. 189
  190. 190
    TK421 says:

    I proposed that it is in fact designed to not add to the deficit and debt (since the money will be loans)

    Fine. But since when has not adding to the deficit/debt been a primary liberal concern?

  191. 191
    William Hurley says:

    @The Sheriff’s A Ni-: Good analog, accidentally I surmise.

    Obama is Carter, with much less “good stuff”.

    On the other topic you raise, the invention then giving away of trillions (for which you & I & everyone here are liable for), please help me understand your meaning.

    Do you doubt the events happened?
    DO you think the Congressional Research Service misunderstands the Feds and Treasury’s functions? Or that the CRS lied to Sen Sanders?

    Help a brother out!

  192. 192
    Danny says:

    @William Hurley:

    Humphrey lost the popular vote with 0.7%. Asserting that he was not within reach of winning is silly. Gore won the popular vote. Asserting that Naders votes couldnt have won him the election is equally silly.

    You’re trying to take factionalism off the table as a contributing factor in their losses by making the flawed assumption that only one factor can be considered as a cause of a Presidential candidate losing.

    But that’s false. Gore lost because of many factors and so did Humphrey and Carter. Factionalism was one of those factors in all three cases.

    That’s why it would be incorrect to claim that factionalism lost the elections of 1968, 1980 and 2000 – no one factor did – but it’s quite true that factionalism lost Humphrey, Carter and Gore votes in 1968, 1980 and 2000, and just as true that the actions of the professional / semiprofessional Emobaggers is gonna lose us votes and depress dem base turnout in 2012.

  193. 193
    OzoneR says:

    @Observer:

    It’s not his job to figure out the politics to make the right economics solutions happen.

    and yet, there he is, trying to convince us he knows the political ways these things could happen?

  194. 194
    Observer says:

    @OzoneR: No, he’s not.
    He’s proposing economics solutions, throwing up a ton of posts showing how the other economics are wrong and in the process of writing about that some of the politics comes up.

    Jesus H christ you people are dense.

  195. 195
    The Sheriff's A Ni- says:

    @William Hurley:

    Obama is Carter

    Amazing how the right-wing memes manifest themselves among alleged ‘progressives’.

    On the other topic you raise, the invention then giving away of trillions (for which you & I & everyone here are liable for), please help me understand your meaning.

    I’m saying you’re using the same scary ‘WHERE DID ALL THE FED MONEY GO’ bullshit we’ve been hearing from Ron Paul, Rick Perry, and the Tea Party like since the national debt became an A#1 priority of the right-wing.

    But again, amazing how alleged ‘progressives’ keep using right-wing memes.

  196. 196
    TK421 says:

    @Observer:

    But are we stupid? Hmm?

  197. 197
    Danny says:

    @TBogg:

    Just trying to do the right thing here and give you some feedback as a contributing member of FDL. I said the same thing to Ackerman in comments when Jane was teaming up with that rat Norquist.

  198. 198
    OzoneR says:

    @William Hurley:

    Humphrey and Carter were both lame-ducks walking during the campaigns you make reference to Danny. Neither was within reach of winning.

    Humphrey lost by less than a point, and was only a few thousand votes short of winning Missouri, Ohio and New Jersey and thus the Electoral College.

  199. 199
    OzoneR says:

    @Observer:

    No, he’s not.

    No, “The President Surrenders” is definitely a post about economic solutions.

    His piece about how the President should have let the Bush tax cuts expire even though it would’ve hurt the economy simply because he needed to stick it to Republicans was definitely about economic solutions.

    His snide remarks about how sad it was that the “progressive hero” was losing battles, then adding that he told us so, is definitely about economic solutions.

  200. 200
    cxs says:

    @TBogg: But m_c loves you! I keed, I keed both of you.

  201. 201
    Samara Morgan says:

    @cxs: you’re a mormon?
    /gasp

  202. 202
    TK421 says:

    @Danny:

    Asserting that Naders votes couldnt have won him the election is equally silly.

    Why? There is no corellation between Gore’s level of support and Nader’s. When approval of Gore went down, approval of Nader did not go up, and vice versa. People who think Gore lost because of Nader have nothing more than “it just feels true”, but of course feelings carry no weigh in matters like this.

    Polls show that most people who voted for Nader would have stayed home if he hadn’t run. So there’s no costing votes for Gore.

  203. 203
    Anya says:

    Just think what we would have been spared if Hillary was the President? Hamsher’s house of crazy, Adam Green, GOS front pagers gone mad, and all the white privileged progressives’ wailing. I am also sure that Tavis Smiley and Cornell West wound’t be hating on President HRC!

  204. 204
    OzoneR says:

    @TK421:

    Fine. But since when has not adding to the deficit/debt been a primary liberal concern?

    since the creation of the fucking country.

    I mean is this serious? Will the infrastructure bank create jobs or not? If it does, what fucking difference does it make if it doesn’t ad to the deficit or not?

    It really sounds like you’re only interested in discrediting the right, not creating jobs.

  205. 205
    Samara Morgan says:

    i think a lot of Obama hatred is subliminated psycho-sexual jealousy from white males like TK421 and Glenn Greenwald towards Black Men.
    its subliminated fear of Black Male Sexual Prowess.

  206. 206
    Observer says:

    @OzoneR: A guy writes maybe a few thousand posts over the span of 5 years. I don’t know how many words that is but you want to cherry pick some stuff.

    It’s called political economy for a reason. The economists propose solutions, the elected politicians implement them.

    Do your fucking job. Me doing my job well and commenting on how shitty a job you’re doing in your totally different job isn’t actually, you know, actually doing your job or proposing how you should do it.

    Asshole politicians who want the ego thrill of being written about in history books ought to do their job. The unemployment rate is 9%, you’ve got a solution, do your fucking job and quit whining about comments from the peanut gallery.

  207. 207
    OzoneR says:

    @TK421:

    Polls show that most people who voted for Nader would have stayed home if he hadn’t run.

    If only 25% of Nader’s votes voted for Gore, he would’ve won New Hampshire and Florida, the latter by over 17,000 votes.

    Hell if 1% of Nader’s voters in Florida voted for Gore, he would’ve won.

  208. 208
    Marc says:

    @Observer:

    His credentials as an economist are quite good and I tend to agree with him. His political instincts, on the other hand, are nothing special – and in fact they are often quite poor.

    It doesn’t help that he detests Obama and it colors absolutely everything he writes about the man. It’s not easy to be cool and objective about motives or actions under those circumstances.

  209. 209
    Anya says:

    @TBogg: Nah, stay where you belong. Obviously you’re there for a reason. Us O’bots are all about unity.

  210. 210
    Marc says:

    @Observer:

    Pro tip: acting like a flaming asshole may feel good, but it rarely convinces anyone.

  211. 211
    El Cid says:

    __

    Call me PUMA. Call me Firebagger. Call me the last true Progressive standing.

    No shit. I had no idea. I had been assuming a portmanteau the whole time.

    Jeesh, that’s ludicrous. Even if I regularly posted on a liberal/left/whatever website and were angry/etc and there was the name “Fire” as a first word in the title, there’s no way I could claim such a term as “Firebagger” if I weren’t trying to be silly or sarcastic or whatever.

  212. 212
    El Cid says:

    @TBogg: I love TBogg. He’s great. Much better than CATS. I’m going to read him again and again.

  213. 213
    Samara Morgan says:

    @TK421:

    Fine. But since when has not adding to the deficit/debt been a primary liberal concern?

    that is a feature of non-linear system collapse.
    Bailing the banks didnt create jobs, because there are no linear breakpoints….the subsystems are all failing simultaneously.
    A balanced budget amendment wont create jobs either.

  214. 214
    OzoneR says:

    @Observer:

    The economics propose solutions the elected politicians implement them.

    If Krugman wants to comment on how shitty politicians are at implementing his solutions, he should also face the criticism from politicians and their supporters when they feel he’s being unfair.

    You’re saying he should be allowed to comment on politics, but he shouldn’t be attacked because he’s just an economist. Bullshit, he’s injected himself into the political debate. he’s suggested his great, but completely unrealistic, ideas can be implemented, therefore he is subject to criticism when those in politics suggest they can’t.

  215. 215
    TK421 says:

    @OzoneR:

    Will the infrastructure bank create jobs or not?

    My take is, it has a lot less chance of creating jobs than direct investment, as is true for any scheme that minimizes government involvement as a way to increase private- sector participation.

  216. 216
    OzoneR says:

    @TK421:

    My take is, it has a lot less chance of creating jobs than direct investment, as is true for any scheme that minimizes government involvement as a way to increase private- sector participation.

    Are you saying the private sector isn’t going to create jobs? Can you explain this?

    You do realize that even direct investment requires private sector involvement. All it would do is use government money to contract private construction companies to build stuff. That’s how it worked during the New Deal too.

    When an interstate highway is built, it’s not the United States government doing it, it’s Joe’s Asphalt Company using money it got from the US government.

    That’s how it works. So what’s wrong with the government saying “Hey Joe’s Asphalt, we’re not just going to hand you money, we’re going to hand you money and you’ll match it with your own investments”

    businesses have money, we know that already because we’ve been looking to tax the shit out of them.

  217. 217
    Observer says:

    @Marc: Make love not war. wev. I’m not trying to convince you of anything that’s important to me personally.

    You people *are* stupid, sometimes I just don’t feel like or have the mental energy to pretend you’re anything otherwise just to make *you* feel good about yourselves.

  218. 218
    TK421 says:

    @OzoneR:

    If only 25% of Nader’s votes voted for Gore

    But there’s no evidence that they would have.

    @Samara Morgan:

    “A balanced budget amendment wont create jobs either.”

    That’s for sure.

  219. 219
    Observer says:

    @OzoneR:
    If you took the time to notice, Krugman is a big boy and he can defend himself. You might notice that he rarely throws hissy fits. But he does do his job well.

    People who *don’t* do their jobs well have no standing to complain about others commenting on the shitty job they’re doing. The Obama team specifically need to do their fucking job and FOCUS on doing their fucking jobs instead of whining about others.

    Do your fucking job, then you can complain about others.

    EDIT: and I gotta tell you, when you’re doing a shitty job and someone hands you the right tool to do the job…don’t whine about the guy who just gave it you, just go and do your fucking job.

  220. 220
    ChrisNYC says:

    Yay John Cole!!!!! Fucking fantastic. More please!

  221. 221
    TK421 says:

    @OzoneR:

    what’s wrong with the government saying “Hey Joe’s Asphalt, we’re not just going to hand you money, we’re going to hand you money and you’ll match it with your own investments”

    Because there is little incentive for private money to pay for infrastructure. Suppose GM puts up a lot of money to update some roads in order to get people to buy more cars; how much of that money will they recoup? And will those new roads boost their sales more than Ford, Honda, etc?

    And we see this effect already, as corporations have trillions of dollars in the bank yet aren’t using it to upgrade public infrastructure. So how will a $50 billion or $80 billion infrastructure bank spur them to change?

  222. 222
    Samara Morgan says:

    @OzoneR:

    Are you saying the private sector isn’t going to create jobs?

    i’ll say it.
    the “freed” market can actually only create jobs as a side-effect….a side effect of improving the human condition of the oligarchs.
    The free market is a lie.
    The only reason it SEEMED to work for Americans was because Americans were the global overclass.

  223. 223
    William Hurley says:

    @Danny: You attribute statements and assertions to me that I neither made nor insinuated.

    If you had read my first contribution to this thread thoroughly, you’d know that I consider electoral success or failure at the Presidential level to be a multi-factorial result.

    So too with regard to my comment on Gore’s loss. All things being equal, had Gore – like all Presidential candidates – won his his home state he would have won the election. Considering “other things”, specifically the big other thing being Florida, the outcome of that state’s voting has been proven – as the conclusion of numerous studies – that Gore would had been declared winner of FL and thus the Presidency (w/o TN) had the SCOTUS not invented a reason to terminate the ballot recounts.

    In short, Nader was irrelevant.

    That H-3 lost the popular vote by a fraction, but lost the truly and singularly important EC vote by several states’ margin proves that the wide-spread discontent with the old, slow-to-reform, southern dominated, back-room Democratic Party’s candidate was not the factor nor a crucial factor in his loss. As you know, Gore won the popular vote – yet lost. How does Nader’s presence in that vote total square with the rationale you offer?

    Lastly, I see your commentary regarding Carter is a tad data-light. Care to remedy that condition?

    Or maybe you’d like to try your hand at addressing/answering any one (or even a few) of the questions I posed re: Obama’s inviability – an electoral deficiency that’s clearly multi-factorial.

  224. 224
    Samara Morgan says:

    @Observer: Obama does his job. He has consistantly tried to make Congress do theirs.

  225. 225
    Samara Morgan says:

    @William Hurley: /yawn
    Obama’s inviability only exists in your head.
    as hard as the punditocracy tries, there just isnt a horse race yet.

  226. 226
    William Hurley says:

    @OzoneR: So, you’re arguing that H-3’s fractional deficit in the popular vote and his losses in 3 different, demographically distinct states were all the singular result of wide-spread discontent with the Democratic Party’s nominee?

    Did LBJ’s decision to skip re-election efforts have to do with the impending failure of his candidacy at the hands of Party insurgents? Or to the pallor of the electorate’s mood given the numerous disruptions to American society – many for the good of the nation and others tearing at that fabric (e.g.: Vietnam)?

  227. 227
    Danny says:

    @TK421:

    When approval of Gore went down, approval of Nader did not go up, and vice versa.

    If you’re talking about approve/dissaprove polling I dont see why there need to be a correlation in order for us to believe that Gore lost votes to Nader? E.g presumably I can start out liking both Nader and Gore and then stop liking Gore?

    People who think Gore lost because of Nader have nothing more than “it just feels true”, but of course feelings carry no weigh in matters like this.

    It’s pretty hard to conclusively prove that any single factor lost a candidate an election. That’s because:

    a) Polling is an imprecise discipline and we dont preemptively poll stuff that we may be interested in at some point in the future.

    b) No single factor loses an election.

    Nader ran on a platform that mostly appealed to people on the left. It is reasonable to assume that such a campaign attracts voters that would mostly otherwise have gone to the democratic candidate (or stayed home).

    Polls show that most people who voted for Nader would have stayed home if he hadn’t run. So there’s no costing

    Which polls? All his voters would have stayed home? That doesnt pass the smell test.

    In any case, my proposition was that the tendency within the progressive movement to shed off factions who then spend their time attacking democratic candidates, calling them traitors, sell-outs, etc – e.g. contemporary prominent Emobaggers – depresses dem base turnout and makes us lose votes. If those votes then go to Nader or stay home on election day is immaterial.

    I saw a link posted a couple of months ago – maybe it was here, maybe at FDL. It was a recording of a progressive Talk Radio show which Bill Clinton called into making a GOTV pitch for Gore in October 2000. He was ambushed by the “progressive” radio hosts who confronted him with a long laundry list of petty complaints of different things where his administration hadn’t been kosher enough in the view of the hosts. It wasn’t big things like “the era of Big Government is over” or welfare reform mind you, it was esoteric bullshit stuff that no-one remembers today. I certainly didnt.

    In the end Clinton got pretty annoyed and tried to remind the hosts what he was doing and what was at stake. But they didnt seem to care much. Did that little incident lose Gore the election? Probably not. Did it lose him some votes? Almost certainly. Did Nader lose Gore the election? Who can tell. Did it lose Gore a lot of votes having Nader tell progressive voters that Gore wasnt a real progressive and both parties were pretty much the same and vote for me instead? Almost certainly.

  228. 228
    Observer says:

    @Samara Morgan: You confuse results with effort. It was Obama who started the analogy about driving the economy into a ditch.

    Writing, as you did, that he can’t get the other politicians he interacts with to do what he wants them to do is just another way of saying he’s not up to the job. I mean, you realize, that is the essence of “politics” right? to get others to vote for stuff you want them to vote for and not to vote for stuff you don’t want them to vote for.

  229. 229
    harokin says:

    TBogg is awesome and we def need to underground railroad him from FDL! And get TNC and Fallows from the Pathlantic! We’re here for you TBogger, just give the word!

  230. 230
    OzoneR says:

    @TK421:

    Suppose GM puts up a lot of money to update some roads in order to get people to buy more cars; how much of that money will they recoup? And will those new roads boost their sales more than Ford, Honda, etc?

    That’s not the way it works though. GM isn’t building roads and railroads, construction companies are, steel, lumber and cement makers are.

  231. 231
    OzoneR says:

    @Observer:

    when you’re doing a shitty job and someone hands you the right tool to do the job…don’t whine about the guy who just gave it you, just go and do your fucking job.

    what tool did Krugman give him?

  232. 232
    OzoneR says:

    @Observer:

    Writing, as you did, that he can’t get the other politicians he interacts with to do what he wants them to do is just another way of saying he’s not up to the job.

    so you’re saying he has to somehow get Republicans, whom we’ve long established are crazy and just want him to lose, to agree with his ideas, or he’s “not up to the job?”

    This is why you hippies get punched, first you want him to fight Republicans, beat them up, and then you want him to do the unprecedented thing of getting them to support these ideas he just blasted them for not supporting, otherwise he sucks.

    Wow, if that hurdle was any higher, it would be touching Neptune.

  233. 233
    William Hurley says:

    @Samara Morgan: How many Presidents have succeeded in being re-elected when the unemployment rate over their term went up or was over 7.2%?

    Here’s a hint: by the Labor dpt’s own statistics, there are more than 26 million working-age Americans who are un- or under-employed. The deals that the President has himself made with the TeaOP have effectively foreclosed on improving the state of the economy and, with it, the state of employment. Economists as varied as Krugman, DeLong, Orzsag, Bartlett and many others have variously opined that the economic malaise we have is the malaise we’ll continue to have for 2 or 3 more years – sans some other calamity such as Spain and/or Italy defaulting or China increasing its currency-based trade war.

    Unless the President can push policies and programs that lead to ~350,000 new jobs per month (every month until Nov 2012) being generated, unemployment will remain above 9%.

    So, I refer you to my initial question.

    I’m curious to understand why and how you arrive at your conclusions.

    PS – I’ve volunteered for every Democratic Presidential candidate in the generals since Mondale and have worked for state Democratic Party operations in 2 different states – on a year-round basis not solely campaign season driven – in my adult life. Never once has my had touched a “red” lever.

  234. 234
    OzoneR says:

    @William Hurley:

    So, you’re arguing that H-3’s fractional deficit in the popular vote and his losses in 3 different, demographically distinct states were all the singular result of wide-spread discontent with the Democratic Party’s nominee?

    it was definitely a huge mitigating factor, yes.

  235. 235
    OzoneR says:

    @William Hurley:

    Unless the President can push policies and programs that lead to ~350,000 new jobs per month (every month until Nov 2012) being generated, unemployment will remain above 9%.

    and how does he do this if he doesn’t have the votes in Congress? How does he get John Boehner to bring this to the floor and get 218 votes for it?

    He couldn’t even get St. Nancy Pelosi to put his tax cut bill to the floor in September 2010.

    Now you’ve made yourself look completely unreasonable. In your world, Obama is a horrible president because he can’t get racist, radical tea baggers who want to see him lose to vote for policies that would help him win.

  236. 236
    ricky says:

    I’m sorry. Did I miss something important the president did in the last 24 hours to hurt the country.

    Is that why some in the left wing blogosphere are so upset?

    Oh, a campaign leader in a minor state linked a blog posting with mildly critical remarks about St. Dr. Krugman and made reference to Jane Hamsher’s own self title? Two weeks ago? More than two weeks ago? And they are just now getting their knickers in a twist?

    Fucking retarded if you ask me. But nobody ever does. They never even acknowledged my presence after I slept with them under the bleachers.

  237. 237
    Danny says:

    @William Hurley:

    This post makes no sense. First you protest me saying your argument rejects a reality where a multitude of factors contributes to making or breaking a presidential candidate.

    Then you go right ahead and make the following argument:

    1) All things being equal had Gore won his home state he would have won the election.
    2) A proper recount would have given Gore Florida, and thus the election.
    3) Given 1 & 2 Nader was irrelevant.

    But 3) is false, because there isn’t room for exactly two factors that made Bush the President elect. There’s room for many, many more. E.g. had Gore gotten more votes in Florida SCOTUS wouldn’t matter. Had Gore gotten more votes in Tennessee he would have won it. Gore lost votes because of many factors, including factionalism and Nader.

    IOW, your argument doesnt hold water, exactly because you’re a repeat offender at pretending that one (or two) contributing factor(s) makes all other contributing factors irrelevant. But that’s false.

    W/r/t to HH: OzoneR already responded to your assertion about the EC being out of reach in #198. If HH had won an extra 1,5% in the popular vote – would he still have lost EC? Is it your proposition that he would have?

    Note though that I didnt make a claim at any point that requires factionalism to have made or broken the candidacies of either AG, HH or JC. (I do think a fair case can be made that that was the case for at least HH and AH though).

    But the claim I made was that factionalism lowers dem base turnout and loses us votes, thereby making us more likely to lose the elections.

    I propose that the fact that losing votes makes you more likely to lose an election – all other things being equal – is prima facie true. You can object if you want to, just let me know.

    But if you don’t, then what you’re not agreeing to is that factionalism lowers dem base turnout and loses votes – nothing more, nothing less.

    Everything you’ve appealed to so far doesn’t inform us on whether that proposition is reasonable or not. It’s all been completely irrelevant.

  238. 238
    Mnemosyne says:

    Suppose GM puts up a lot of money to update some roads in order to get people to buy more cars; how much of that money will they recoup? And will those new roads boost their sales more than Ford, Honda, etc?

    In other words, you have no idea how the infrastructure bank works since you seem to think it relies on donations from private companies and not private companies getting government contracts to build infrastructure.

  239. 239
    kuvasz says:

    Mr. Cole, regardless of your torturous journey to the center, and our shared love for dogs, you remain a reactionary prig.

    Either you have never had life grind your face in the dirt or you simply lack the human empathy to appreciate the affect on those who have, regardless, you ought to shut the fuck up and think twice before you show such ignorance in public.

  240. 240
    boss bitch says:

    @ricky:

    They never even acknowledged my presence after I slept with them under the bleachers.

    LOL!! Indeed.

  241. 241
    William Hurley says:

    @Samara Morgan: You seem to be unaware that when the House was run by Speaker Pelosi, she was able to muster her caucus to pass over 500 bills – many of which went on to die in the Senate. The remarkable feat of legislative command that Pelosi delivered stands-out for the many sophisticated, socially “divisive” and long-overdue legislative acts she stewarded through the House. Even more remarkable is that she won every single battle for every single bill she brought to the House floor for a vote.

    The truth is that without Speaker Pelosi, the President would have few successes to put on is campaign CV.

    Yet, even with such ferocious genius doing the hard work for him, the President still managed to push for a stimulus package that was roundly considered to be too small by econ and business types – and by the Speaker and many in her caucus too. But, the President stood fast, neglecting the wisdom of Madame Speaker’s experience and chose the lesser, uninspiring route.

    So to with health care. The President chose, all by his lonesome, to secretly meet with insurance industry execs, hospital and provider execs, drugs and device makers execs and others – and in each case making deals that he then demand Congress abide by. Some of those Presidential, back-room deals included taking “single-payer” options off the table, taking an expansion of Medicare off the table, capping insurance liabilities, guaranteeing payment levels and price controls remain in the hands of insurers and more.

    All of these constraints were created by the President – period. All of these constraints were agreed to in secret – until various Senators, Representatives and press members caught wind of the industry’s windfall of gifts from the White House and went public.

    So too with the multitude of intelligence and enhanced Executive powers decisions the President has made. The growth of Executive powers – powers to act and powers to keep secret – have brought cries of foul from left and right. The fact that Obama can be truthfully called “Bush/Cheney on steroids” when it comes to track record on Executive authority and secretiveness should, IMO, cause any person calling her/himself “liberal” or left-wing to reconsider Obama’s standing.

    In the end, “Congress” has been doing its job. When will Obama do the job that he himself promised. The promise that the stimulus package he sought would deliver 8% unemployment is far from fulfilled. The promises of HAMP have proved to be a cruel joke to millions of families who believed him and in the program only to find out that after months of participation that banks still stole their homes from them – in accordance with the President’s HAMP policy framework. Then there’s GITMO….

  242. 242
    Another Bob says:

    Apparently using the term “firebagger” and mentioning Jane Hamsher allows one to dismiss any and all criticism of Obama as being naive/misinformed or in bad faith. It’s kind of like how wing nuts dismiss Obama’s right-of-center policies as “marxist” as they knowingly explain how he hates white people or all of America.

    Believe me, there are lots of middle-of-the-road liberals who voted for Obama, who don’t read FDL or even Daily Kos, who are sorely disappointed when they see the candidate they voted for constantly mouthing conservative talking points. At this stage of the game, it seems legitimate to not just conclude that Obama is a lousy negotiator, not just that the Republicans are getting too much from him, but that he’s actually been the driving force behind these ever-more-conservative policies. The fact that the wing nuts are still calling him a marxist just adds an element of absurdity that’s the icing on the cake.

    In any case, there’s plenty of legitimate room to criticize his lackluster performance so far, and I figure having contributed to his campaign and voted for him gives some of us a perfect right to do so. It’s absurd to dismiss such criticism as though it could only be coming from a “firebagger,” Naderite, Hamsherite, or whatever. As a reflection of the way things are rather than the way some people want them to be, maybe it means that Obama’s performance hasn’t actually been all that great so far.

  243. 243
    OzoneR says:

    @William Hurley: All of these constraints were created by the President – period. the left wing blogsphere to try to convince itself it’s unrealistic ideas were possible if not for one man.

    Seriously, how the hell did he take single payer off the table when he never said he would consider it in the first place?

    In the end, “Congress” has been doing its job.

    and yet a few inches above, you say this

    she was able to muster her caucus to pass over 500 bills – many of which went on to die in the Senate.

    Congress is doing it’s job even though hundreds of bill died in it, yeah ok.

  244. 244
    AlphaLiberal says:

    @ricky:

    Is that why some in the left wing blogosphere are so upset?

    No.

    It’s the fucking unemployment crisis and a President who turns away from that to obsess on the deficit. Cut! Cut! More sacrifice from workers!

    Of course, there are other things. People have not been shy about typing them here and elsewhere. You could read those comments and then say something useful. But, no.

    Here’s one: Why has no-one been charged with anything from Wall Street? Do they need to physically loot the country and carry TVs on their heads to get arrested? Obama will not hold the elites accountable under the law.

    Hey, how about the foreclosure crisis? There’s the HAMP program the President controls. Oh, he’s going easy on he banks. That will be comforting to people living in their cars. Let’s hope for a warm winter.

  245. 245
    OzoneR says:

    @AlphaLiberal:

    Why has no-one been charged with anything from Wall Street?

    cause nothing they did was illegal

    There’s the HAMP program the President controls. Oh, he’s going easy on he banks.

    There was also his cramdown plan which got slaughtered on the Senate floor…oh, that’s right, he never really wanted that to pass anyway, or something.

  246. 246
    boss bitch says:

    More of THIS: http://www.youtube.com/watch?f.....twIrxPnR2E And less bitching please.

  247. 247
    AlphaLiberal says:

    Ezra Klein does a good job:
    Score one for the professional left

    Paul Krugman is one op-ed columnist. Firedog Lake is one Web site. They have readers. But they are not the state of Ohio.

    And a good question,
    Does Obama camp see upside in pissing off the left?

    The problem is that some on the Obama team don’t reckon with what it is lefty critics are actually saying.

    And, guess what? Krugman has an excellent track record. He called the housing bubble, today’s unemployment rate, the stimulus being too small.

    So, of course, the Obamites attack him.

  248. 248
    Danny says:

    @Another Bob:

    Apparently using the term “firebagger” and mentioning Jane Hamsher allows one to dismiss any and all criticism of Obama as being naive/misinformed or in bad faith.

    Speaking strictly for me, my M.O. is that people who consistently assume bad faith from the President and establishment Democrats and are consistently being naive and/or misinformed, those people I refer to as “firebaggers” or “emobaggers”.

  249. 249
    William Hurley says:

    @Danny: I must day, you either read too quickly, not at all or cherry-pick from your own assumptions of what’s in black & white to populate your replies.

    Again, if you had read my initial reply on this subject, thoroughly, you could not have come to the conclusion that I am of the view that Presidential level electoral politics are anything other than multi-factorial. yet, somehow you came to that exact, and exactly wrong, conclusion.

    Compounding your string of errors, you now suggest that in rebutting your main and supporting premises regarding one aspect of electoral politics – one singular factor you yourself chose to make a case of – that I have contradicted myself by virtue of being thorough. Again, you err.

    Demonstrating that your assumptions fail on multiple vectors required a variety of like and differentiated evidence and contextual references be employed. In following such a method, I not only neutered the singular topic you chose to comment on from among the dozen or so found in my initial post, I also demonstrated in fact and method that that – contrary to your misguided assertion – multiple-factors do indeed weigh on any and every Presidential candidates’ prospects for success.

    May I refer you back – again – to that posting and the list of questions, each posing an explicit and distinct “factor” or element effecting the viability of this President’s re-election prospects. We can, I hope, agree to disagree about the effect, or actual lack thereof, of Nader on Gore and Kennedy on Carter and the nation on the Democratic Party’s 1968 nominee. You can, of course, chose to dig further, but in doing so you’re on your own in a hole of your own making.

    As for subject the inspiring this response thread and the litany of factors I identify in my initial post to this thread, I’m curious to understand your reason(s) for concluding that the President isn’t a Carter remake or ever a Herbert Hoover who’s best cut short before more damage is done.

    Please feel free to refer to the list of questions I posed or to the points I made in the body of my comment to assist in guiding your response.

    But, understand this, I will not be goaded into chasing you down a rabbit hole of your own making.

  250. 250
    Danny says:

    @AlphaLiberal:

    It’s the fucking unemployment crisis and a President who turns away from that to obsess on the deficit. Cut! Cut! More sacrifice from workers!

    The debt is a real long term problem; the republicans ran on deficit reduction in 2010 and won big and then they held first the budget and then the debt ceiling hostage to force the issue onto the front burner.

    Polling shows that while americans consistently rates jobs as more important than the deficit a majority thinks that deficit reduction is important, a plurality thinks it is very important and more people believe that cutting the deficits create jobs than those who believe stimulus creates jobs.

    IOW, when the republicans had been given the power to hold the economy hostage and force the deficit issue, the president and democrats ignored it at their own peril.

    You can disagree with that call, but if you give dems the bigger part of the blame for putting deficit reduction on the front burner, then you’re delusional. The biggest factor behind that was republicans cleaning house in ’10.

  251. 251
    BlizzardOfOz says:

    It’s also worth remembering that “true progressives” have had it in for this administration before the first year was up.

    Hey, who’s the moron who supported George W Bush for 6 solid years, again? No surprise you didn’t notice that in his first year Obama fellated Wall Street constantly and traded Americans’ life expectancy for health insurance vultures’ profits.

  252. 252
    William Hurley says:

    @Danny: I’m curious as to how you define “bad faith” and what you consider to be examples, wrongly chosen, by “…baggers” that reveal their predisposition to misunderstanding intentions as bad faith.

  253. 253
    BlizzardOfOz says:

    @Danny:

    people who consistently assume bad faith from the President and establishment Democrats

    Whoa!! Where would anyone get the idea that Democrats — our team — would act in bad faith? They must be overly emotional, and therefore not have noticed that Obama speaks in complete sentences. Go Team D!!

  254. 254
    William Hurley says:

    @AlphaLiberal: In addition, Dr K is fearless in surfacing and discussing the various “inside baseball” tactics of the White House – that as you highlight lead to outcomes that diverge wildly from the President’s own stated objectives or highly spun interpretation of “every deal’s a win”.

    I’m sure that the Lawrence Lindsey’s of the world – of they (he) had the balls – could tell tales about his insider debates with Bushbots over the cost of then soon to be launched Iraq war. As a reminder, Lindsey projected war costs as being several hundreds of billions – publicly contradicting the “official” estimates of under $50 billion (and done and home in 6 weeks tops!). Of course, Lindsey was wrong, way wrong, but he was far less wrong than the guy who fired him for daring to differ in a – too short – effort to tell the truth.

    How many times would Obama have fired Krugman? Probably as many as the number of times he’s begged Timmeh! to stay on.

  255. 255
    RadioOne says:

    there is a serious lack of discussion about the possibility of Paul Ryan or Chris Christie running for President later this year in this thread.

  256. 256
    Danny says:

    @William Hurley:

    Let me summarize your reply as such: you didn’t challenge a single point I made on the merits. Instead you went for a world record in pompous sophistry and number of different ways of proclaiming that you have rebutted my argument without actually once trying to rebut anything at all.

    Then you sign off by loudly preemptively proclaiming victory and that you wont participate any more (on account of your self-proclaimed victory).

    Let me then just re-iterate what you failed to respond to (in any way whatsoever):

    This was your argument (as summarized by me):

    1) All things being equal had Gore won his home state he would have won the election.
    2) A proper recount would have given Gore Florida, and thus the election.
    3) Given 1 & 2 Nader was irrelevant.

    3) is false. It’s false because many things contributed to whether Gore lost or won and the fact that he could have won through 1) and 2) does not in any way rule out the possibility of other circumstances changing and making him win as well.

    You have to adress that before you can pompously proclaim your point proven. You haven’t done that. What you wrote in your first post is immaterial as well, because your argument was still what I outlined above and it still doesnt hold water.

    Furthermore, my original claim was that factionalism lowers dem base turnout and loses us votes, thereby making us more likely to lose the elections. You havent even adressed that yet.

    Apparently you have now opted to run off, but if you by chance should find your b-lls you need to either adress those or concede the argument and withdraw. Sh-tposting is just a waste of your time and mine.

  257. 257
    William Hurley says:

    @Danny: Long term debt is not a problem. Period.

    The “problem” near and long term is national economic vitality meaning how to overcome 3+ decades of shit political-economy and right-wing social engineering. The only reason debt looks like a problem is that all indicators suggest that, course unchanged or changed moderately, the nation’s economic growth will drop proportionally faster than population growth resulting in an economic environment that’s essentially that of today – writ broadly – in perpetuity. Witness Japan as a manifestation of distinctive economic and social “stuckness”. Under these conditions, outstanding debt grows faster than interest rates compound even if not another dollar (or yen) is borrowed because growth and deflation lead to an organic up-valuing of debt. Of course, flat growth (>2%/annly) necessitates some borrowing – which for the US and for the past 15 years in Japan has been unproblematic because of our respective cultural and political stability as well as the shear size of the economies.

    Of course, more jobs and more growth(<2.5%/annly) would automatically render the outstanding debt total smaller by virtue of economic vitality and inflation.

    Focusing on debt or allowing a nation's policy objectives to be wholly curtailed by irrational fears of debt are paradoxically self-fulfilling as a debt-centric focus limits a growth-centric focus. It's kinda' like the psychology student's suggestive gag "don't think of a pink elephant!". You can't help but think of a pink elephant. That elephant is the debt – the things you're not thinking about are the important things which then go undone.

  258. 258
    FlipYrWhig says:

    @William Hurley:

    In addition, Dr K is fearless in surfacing and discussing the various “inside baseball” tactics of the White House

    You make Krugman sound like an investigative reporter or a whistleblower here. I don’t recall ever reading him do anything of the kind. I don’t think he’s anywhere near insider-dom… and that’s by choice. Got a citation in mind?

  259. 259
    William Hurley says:

    @Danny: You are mistaken. I did address your complaints. And no, your complaints have no merits.

    Those are 2 distinct and congruent replies to your whining.

    I can see by your demonstration that you’ve chosen to stay in the hole and to keep digging.

    Enjoy.

    Adieu!

    Ping me when you’re struck by a bout of seriousness.

  260. 260
    Danny says:

    Hurley & Blizzard:

    I’m referring to people with a consistent M.O. of assuming bad faith from the President and establishment Democrats – meaning e.g. that they consistently doubt that the president holds the positions that he says he holds, consistently assumes ulterior motives that are consistently believed to aim towards e.g. “selling out progressives”, “betraying us” and stuff like that. IOW run of the mill DFH/Emobagger mentality.

  261. 261
    William Hurley says:

    @FlipYrWhig: You’ve read well beyond the boundaries of my comments on Krugman.

    Krugman did pick up on reports of the President’s then secret meetings with various health care industry stake-holders – reports from his paper and others including Salon’s Greenwald.

    Krugman has also addressed “insider” politicking in the Bush and Obama Adminstrations. Sometimes he bases his analysis on public domain info, other times he relies on the informal network of peers and the like for the seeds that he then dissects.

    I’d provide you with links, but the Times’ paywall blocks archived articles. Google may provide you with some if not a lot of the evidence you seem to be seeking.

  262. 262
    Danny says:

    @William Hurley:

    Your apparent anxiousness to sod off speaks louder than words. But let’s be generous and assume your wife is calling you to bed. You’re free to mosey on back tomorrow morning and elaborate on exactly what your argument was again, if you should feel inclined. Your choice.

  263. 263
    William Hurley says:

    @Danny: Examples????

    Would, for example, you construe “bad faith” from one who suggested that despite the President saying that he found the notion of a mandate requiring all citizens to buy health insurance odious that the President was actually engaged – secretly – in private negotiations with health care industry representatives in which he willingly gave away all options for broad health insurance access (e.g.: single-payer, Medicare expansion,…) for a mandate to purchase as the law of the land?

    Or would you see “bad faith” in one who compared the President’s repeated promises to close GITMO with the thinly excused reversal of this once unwavering commitment?

    How about the “faith” of those who recount the President’s statements and promises regarding mortgage and foreclosure reform before discussing the President’s refusal to act to repair the destructive HAMP program or when discussing the tectonic pressure the White House has applied to states’ AGs urging them to settle with fraudulent banks and mortgage lenders giving those lenders unlimited liability protection and enacting a cap on aggrieved parties damages?

    Just a few examples to show you what I’m asking about.

  264. 264

    I find the people who pretend to be Obama supporters, from way back, who are now exasperated with him, and who are reluctantly jumping onto the “primary Obama” bandwagon to be, well, stupid.

    they are either:

    1) Oblivious to his record, and stated positions, before he was President, and slapped their own dreams onto him, and are now “disappointed” that he didn’t meet the expectations he never set out to meet at all

    or

    2) Liars, who never supported him at all, and keep making up new reasons to oppose him.

  265. 265
    Danny says:

    @William Hurley:

    Long term debt is not a problem. Period.

    We pay interest on debt each and every year, that money are taken from the federal budget. If interest rates doubles, then our debt service expenses double.

    What happens to interest rates in the future is unknown, we can only make good and not so good guestimates. With interest rates at 15% then Debt at 100% of GDP suddenly becomes a big problem.

    A common rule of thumb mandates that holding the debt below 100% of GDP is advisable in order to be able to handle future fluctuations in interest rates. We’re currently at about 100%, and while e.g. Japan is way above 200% and still afloat (in an era of low interest rates), there’s good reason for us to keep our fiscal house in reasonable order.

    The progressive case for doing that is this: debt service comes out of the federal budget, and money that doesnt go to debt service is available for reforms and helping people.

    The other reason why long term deficit reduction is good policy is the fact that with current projections medicare costs and medicaid costs are rising much faster than GDP. We can of course pretend that we could somehow grow GDP by 8% a year while keeping HC inflation at it’s current trajectory, but that’s a specious proposition. That means that Medicare and Medicaid are gonna consume an ever greater part of the federal budget, without benificiaries actually getting more benefits.

    Spending more and more money on the same benefits is not a progressive policy objective, but rather a threat to progressive policy objectives. Bending the Medicaid and Medicare cost curve while preserving benefits is an imperative if or else we’ll have to choose between running ever bigger deficits down the road, raising taxes at the rate of HC inflation, or cutting other stuff that government does.

  266. 266
    William Hurley says:

    @Comrade Kevin: Nice platitudes, nice and hermetically circular that is.

    Any chance you’ll provide a few examples to add validity to the bumper-sticker whines you offer?

  267. 267
    Danny says:

    @William Hurley:

    Yes, exactly, the first two of those. The HAMP stuff I know to little about but definitely the conspiracy mongering re ACA on flimsy or non-existing evidence (as in claimed anonymously by two HC industry lobbyists in one NYT piece) and Gitmo (disregarding that he signed an executive order to close GITMO and then the repubs filled the airwaves with alarmist fear mongering about Al Qaeda doing jailbreaks and ending up in some kids bedrooms, it polled terribly and then congress voted nearly anonymously to deny him funding).

    Those are good examples, but it also applies when that M.O. is used on anything or most things the President says and does. Doesnt matter what he says, he’s out to f-ck us in the -ss, to betray us, to sell us out.

    Such people I usually consider members of the Emobagger crowd. Doesnt mean you can’t qualify by other means, e.g. by believing in magical bully pulpits etc.

  268. 268
    Binky the perspicacious bear says:

    We only hate them because they are right too soon, like the Abraham Lincoln Brigade. Premature anti-fascism.
    Yes we can continue Bush policies in war, surveillance state tactics, torture, the fourth amendment, the economy.
    Yes we can be to the right of Ted Olson, Richard Nixon, George H.W. Bush, Ronald Reagan, and Gerald Ford.
    Yes we can settle for less and learn to like it.
    Yes we can make a series of small, incremental, hedged steps forward and declare it unconditional victory.
    Yes we can make mediocrity the shining city on the hill.

  269. 269
    William Hurley says:

    @Danny: You got the essential elements wrong.

    How can I take you seriously when you can’t even proffer accurate and coherent statements in support of your “arguments”?

    Let’s talk empirical reality, first.

    Yields on US Treasuries are now at historic lows. In fact, yields have been on a downward slope – meaning less expensive to the debtor – for several years. So-called inflationistas, a.k.a. Randites, have been hysterically wailing about the immanent explosion of inflation and Treasury yields (known as the coming of the bond vigilantes) for years and years – yet no such reversal of the downward trend has emerged.

    Now, let’s talk bonds, notes and the future.

    The entity that purchases the largest amount of debt issued by the Treasury is the Federal Reserve. The next largest buyers are Social Security Administration then – in aggregate – states’ and Federal pension funds. Together, these buyers hold nearly 50% of outstanding debt. One interesting fact, or benefit of the Fed’s holdings and those of SocSec is that, in the Fed’s case all of the interest the Fed receives as a holder is returned to the Treasury – penny for penny. In essence, the Fed’s holdings actually create value for the national accounts since the strike price of the issues erodes with inflation over time since there’s no interest over-hang to prop-up that value. Similarly, SocSec holdings return a variable portion of interest accrued that above regulated inflation+ targets – and therefore like the Fed the sale of Treasuries to SocSec is even lower in final cost than purchase-point yield’s suggest.

    That leads to my second point. That is that yields remain fixed – that’s why bonds and bills are called called “fixed assets”. Once the transaction is executed, the effective yield is that in-place at the moment of purchase – and remains fixed. If yields go up, then only new debt issues are effected by new rates. Conversely, if yields drop, as they have been for while now, repurchasing and reissue is a means to lower nominal long term debt costs now by paying off Treasuries early and issuing new, lower fixed yield issues. That’s one of the ways businesses have been managing their balance sheets. They, like the Federal government, have been retiring older, more expensive debt for newer, cheaper debt.

    You’re welcome.

  270. 270
    William Hurley says:

    @Danny: So, you readily admit to having, at best, a too thin grasp of the facts yet this deficiency doesn’t slow you down when deciding to castigate someone for a position or point of view.

    Sounds very NRO to me.

    PS – are you familiar with google?

  271. 271
    William Hurley says:

    @Danny: My argument is straight forward. My subsequent posts amplifying the salient points of those posts make understanding easier.

    It seems to me that you’re the proverbial horse standing at the river’s edge refusing to drink.

    Oh well.

  272. 272
    NR says:

    @Comrade Kevin:

    Oblivious to his record, and stated positions, before he was President,

    You mean like his stated position that he supported a public option and opposed an individual mandate?

    Yeah, I guess we all just imagined that. How silly!

  273. 273
    Jenny says:

    If ACA is so bad, why did Krugman say it was a “very good” legislation?

  274. 274
    Jenny says:

    If the public option is so important, why didn’t bloggers talk about it during the 2008 campaign?

    Between June 1, 2007 to October 31, 2008 over 150,000 diaries and front page pieces were posted on Daily Kos. That’s an impressive amount.

    Of those 150,000 posts, only 27 contained the phrase “public option”. And not a single post contained the phrase “public option” in the title. Not one. Of the 27 that contained “public option” in the body of the post, they discussed the public option as one of many points about health care, not as a singular focus of the posts.

    Now get this. During 2009 (from 1/1/09 thur 1/1/10) the phrase appears in 9,401 posts. 1,488 posts contained the phrase in the title.

    So I’ll finish by asking this again, if the public option is so important, why didn’t bloggers (rank and file as well as the big shots elite administrators) talk about it during the campaign?

  275. 275
    Danny says:

    @William Hurley:

    I never made any predictions about future interest rates. No one can. If you could you’d be rich or richer.

    Arguing that interest rates are likely to stay low in the short to medium term as Krugman and you do, I find it persuasive. Krugman is a Nobel Laureate and IANAE. But when Krugman sort of implies by omission that he knows this to be the case, then that’s not quite so persuasive.

    We don’t know; we can’t know.

    As to these two issues:

    – At what percentage of GDP should we peg the “danger level” where having that amount of federal debt becomes “too risky” given the impossibility to predict future interest rates with certainty?

    – Should that number cap intragovernmental debt as well as publicly held debt?

    Well both those are as far as I understand it – conceding that IANAE – disputed, with e.g. Krugman being a general danger level sceptic, and the “progressive” (and as far as I’m concerned, reasonable) position on what debt should be considered is extragovernmental debt.

    So I’ll concede that determining whether aiming to stay below 100% (aggregate federal) debt/GDP is the right rule of thumb is above my paygrade.

    As to your second point: Sure. But what you’re saying is that if interest rates go up debt service costs will still rise – only not as fast as interest rates. And debt that we have to issue or reissue when interest rates are high we have to fix at those higher interest rates or bet on interest rates dropping rather than rising further – right? And is it really true that the Federal Government gets to repurchase without reimbursing the debt holder for future yields in any way whatsoever? Sounds like a good deal for the Government and a bad deal for the debt holder, but IANAE so I’m ready to be educated.

    Leaving aside exactly what benchmarks are appropriate for the GDP/Debt ratio (only noting that it’s disputed) we’re still facing the issue that projected health care spending on medicaid and medicare is projected to rise at a much faster rate than GDP causing future deficits and growing debt. It’s still hard for me to see how that is a good thing, or how not trying to manage that in any way is something to aim for from a progressive perspective.

    I think the core issue here is whether spending federal money on stuff that doesnt actually help people or make their lives better – e.g. higher debt service costs and ballooning medicare costs for the same set of benefits – is a good thing? Imho it trivially is not.

    I think it’s a mistake if we can’t separate those issues and both make the case why short term stimulus and deficits are warranted but long term deficits caused by e.g. HC inflation is an issue to be dealt with, and that we do want future debt service costs to be fairly low rather than high, all other things equal.

  276. 276
    Keith G says:

    I think this whole line of discourse has passed it’s “sell by date”. Some Democrats feel that there is reason and utility in being critical about Obama and some do not.
    I do wonder what all the fluff is about, e.g.:
    @Danny:

    So all we can say really is that the actions of the Emobagger crowd makes him more likely to lose.

    Really?

    So the the actions of the “Emobagger” crowd makes him more likely to lose? Is there any polimetric data to support this? I have not seen any.

    What is the largest number of voters who have read Jane H’s stuff? How many more know who GG is? What percentage potential voters read Digby? Who cares?

    I know that the press will occasionally run a “decent among the liberals” story and while it may give me heartburn, I see no documented evidence of impact on voter behavior – zippo. Show me I am wrong. This is a group of insiders (and make believe insiders) arguing over how many angels can dance on the head of a pin.

    As things now stand, our President’s fate hangs on his ability to inspire and convince 70 million voters that he has the plan and the goods.

    Let’s return to being the reality-based community.

  277. 277
    Danny says:

    @William Hurley:

    Obviously no. You’re the guy with the conspiracy theory that most people havent even heard of and that only the mostest truest progressives of the FDL variety subscribe to, so it seems reasonable for you to provide us with something to support your theory rather than proclaiming the rest of the world uninformed simpletons.

    From my POV you’re the guy saying “Oh! You don’t agree there was a third shooter? You don’t know much about the Kennedy assassination.”

  278. 278
    Keith G says:

    @Keith G: Yikes! It’s dissent not decent. Need coffee.

  279. 279
    Danny says:

    @William Hurley:

    Well you refuse to adress the fact that whether it’s true that Gore could have won by winning Tennessee or SCOTUS could have allowed the recount to continue, that still doesn’t mean that he couldn’t ALSO have won by getting Nader votes.

    Proving the latter impossible by appealing to former is Non sequitur.

    You opting not to adress that at all tells me you’re bailing. No? You sticking around to deny that you’re bailing seems silly. You could just adress the point.

  280. 280
    Danny says:

    @Keith G:

    So the the actions of the “Emobagger” crowd makes him more likely to lose? Is there any polimetric data to support this? I have not seen any.

    If you accept the proposition that the actions of Emobaggers with a platform (JH and others) will drive down dem base turnout, then yes. You’re free to disagree, or to agree but argue that the impact will be minimal.

    Me, I look at ’68, ’80 and ’00 and see a pattern where that same M.O. of which JH is one of many modern day examples cost us more than a few hundred or a few thousand votes. Did it loose us any of those elections? As I’ve argued elsewhere I think that’s close to unprovable, given the spotty polling record and many factors contributing to a loosing candidacy.

  281. 281

    i can’t wait until there are more important things to do than fire at each other. all this in-fighting makes you think 2010 didn’t knock the fat and happies off of people like you think it would have.

    we have to win in 2012, we have to maintain in 14 and win again in 16.

    if the firebaggers are that small, talking about them only feeds them.

  282. 282
    Danny says:

    @Fucen Pneumatic Fuck Wrench Tarmal:

    That’s very Christian of you. Me, I’m more of an Old Testament guy: if I see someone starting up the old librul circular firing squad I’m gonna keep aiming for that guy until he holds his f-cking fire.

  283. 283
    Keith G says:

    @Danny: That point of view makes sense in theory, I just am not sure if data backs it up in all the cases you cite. Humphrey was a great man and I wanted him to win. I do think that his position would have been better had his loyalty to LBJ not allowed Nixon to out flank him (deceptively) as a war ender. Nixon’s appeal to the white backlash was the ultimate winning hand, though. I am not sure that HH could have ever gotten any more votes than he did, given that. ’68 is a better story for the media to tell America if you include Democratic division and exclude racism.

    Carter was lost the moment RR convinced America that he was not a nut job, but a kindly old man who loved the USA. The Kennedy insurgency does not explain the Reagan Democrats who were the key to the election.

  284. 284
    Odie Hugh Manatee says:

    @Fucen Pneumatic Fuck Wrench Tarmal:

    They may be small but they are a problem, just like the teahadists.

    I caught this thread earlier but I had more fun things to do (like un-UPSing a used DL580 G3 server with a hammer and dolly, then getting it fired up) but I predicted to myself that it would land at about 300 hits. I got my $98.00 server up and running (and straightened out), so I decided to drop in and see how it went.

    Pretty damned close estimate…lol!

    I look at the firebaggers like one of George Carlin’s jokes:

    Seventy-one people suffered numerous gunshot wounds in the feet today as two armed midgets ran amok in a downtown bar. Patrons of the tavern claim that the two entered riding horsey-back and the trouble started when the one on the bottom began to get drunk. In addition to the foot wounds, extensive damage to the baseboards and electrical outlets was also reported.

    Except that midgets are cool. :)

    The manic progressives are allowing themselves to be ratfucked and IMO there is no doubt about it. Shitholes like Daily Kos Anti-Obama and Calamity Jane’s Endless Moneymaking Scheme are little more than a melding of manic progressives, PUMAs and ratfuckers who feed off of each other in their dissatisfaction/anger/hatred of everything Obama.

    The whining over at the GOS about the OFA guy is ridiculous in that they are claiming that Obama himself said what this idiot said. One diary there points out that Obama/ the OFA are distancing themselves from this guy and that he was speaking for himself rather than stating a position of OFA. Of course the manic progressives are in full couch-fainting mode so they can’t be interrupted with facts. Those worthless fucks won’t be happy until the Republicans/Teahadists have regained control of everything.

    Then they will REALLY be able to complain and fund raise!

  285. 285
    kay says:

    The People’s View is a good site. He puts a lot of work into the posts, and they have content and links I haven’t seen anywhere else.
    He’s unequivocally pro-Obama, but God knows there’s enough internet content that is unequivocally anti-Obama out there. Nothing wrong with some push-back. It was bound to happen. If there’s an anti, and there absolutely is, there’s going to be a pro.
    Good for him. He’s thrilled he got all this traffic, per his last post, although he’s getting nasty emails :)
    I saw (over there) there’s now a site called the “Pro-President Obama Blog” which is hysterical. Truth in advertising!
    I love that Ariana Huffington, fake-populist grifter, inadvertently promoted his site while drumming up another fake controversy. She’ll probably bill him.

  286. 286
    Barney says:

    Use of ‘firebagger’ on Daily Kos 3 days before that FDL comment (and one that looks as if it could be the original):

    Meh, corporate lobbyists and Teagressives. by second gen on Mon Dec 21, 2009 at 09:18:09 AM PST
    FireBaggers? n/t by TooFolkGR, Mon Dec 21, 2009 at 09:20:25 AM PST
    HAHAHAHA! I LIKE that. nt by second gen, Mon Dec 21, 2009 at 09:27:16 AM PST

    Yeah, the FDL commenter adopted it as a badge of pride. But it looks more like it originated as a criticism.

    The image it brings up in my mind is a child leaving a flaming bag of shit on a doorstep so the adult comes out and stamps it out …

  287. 287
    boss bitch says:

    @AlphaLiberal:

    Except Ezra Klein clearly didn’t read the original article and neither did Greg Sargeant. The e-mail was sent by a member of OFA NOT the administration. The administration brushed if off and said see ya got more important things to do.

    And if Krugman and FDL are just one man and one thread THEN MAYBE THE MSM CAN STOP TELLING THE REST OF THIS COUNTRY THAT THEY FUCKING REPRESENT THE BASE OR REPRESENT LIBERALS WHEN THEY DO NOT.

    And for the last motherfucking time. Krugman may get it right on policy but on politics he is a fucking retard.

  288. 288
    boss bitch says:

    @Alpha Liberal: If you want to talk about getting under someone’s skin or their heads there seems to be an explosion of visits from firebaggers on pro-Obama sites. And the latest freakout is proof that our push back is getting to you all. Its fucking hilarious. We welcome your bitterness and butt hurt.

  289. 289
    Danny says:

    @Keith G:

    There is no data that can prove anything either way unless you can dig up some polling on how many people sat ’68 out because HH was The Man, A fucking war pig or The Establishment; or how many people defected to the dixiecrats or republicans or sat it out on account of Chicago being a circus, DFHs wanting to elect a pig, etc, etc. (Or how many defected to the dixiecrats over Civil Rights or stayed home because they were simply pissed at the war for that matter.)

    Multiple factors lose an election, and we can’t poll peoples opinions and motivations as they play out with brain scanners attached to peoples heads.

    But you’re committing the exact same fallacy as Hurley, wanting to elect one or two contributing factors (the dixiecrat defection, vietnam) as the only factors that influenced the outcome. And sure, those two issues had huge impact on ’68 and arguably the biggest impact. But in a .7% election more than two things could have changed that would have changed the end result – all other things equal. Proving what and how is impossible.

    Saying that the data doesn’t back up Humphrey winning in 68 had the chaos in Chicago not happened and had Humphrey not been smeared as an establishment stooge is incorrect because the “data” cant tell us that – there isnt sufficient “data” to tell us anything about that. There’s only history as it’s been written by different observers. And many point to the fractured democratic party – establishment, new left and dixiecrats – and the chaos surrounding the convention as some of several contributing factors to HHs narrow loss.

    W/r/t ’80, Reagan only convinced america that he wasnt a nutjob in the second debate, one week before the election, before that it was still to close to call with Carter ahead. That was long after the Teddy primary challenge. Ruling the primary challenge out as one of many factors weakening Carter – and losing him votes – because Reagan in the end won in a landslide is a non-sequitur. Same fallacy.

  290. 290
    kay says:

    I’ve never understood the objection to the phrase “Professional Left”. There’s absolutely a Professional Right, and each and every liberal site talks about the members of that group constantly. I can see the objection to the tone Gibbs used, but I always thought he was obnoxious, and everyone disagreed with me (at the time) and told me how “tough” he was. I never thought he was any good at that job.
    Are we denying there are people making a living at this? Are we pretending all of these people are volunteers? What a silly thing to do. What’s the objection? Getting paid? Why would that be something to deny? Is it somehow verboten for liberals to get paid? 90% of the Right gets paid.
    It’s an accurate statement.

  291. 291
    Keith G says:

    @boss bitch:

    And if Krugman and FDL are just one man and one thread THEN MAYBE THE MSM CAN STOP TELLING THE REST OF THIS COUNTRY THAT THEY FUCKING REPRESENT THE BASE OR REPRESENT LIBERALS WHEN THEY DO NOT.

    Not to be nit picky, but when was country told that? Most voters I interact with have no idea what FDL is (a band?) and some vaguely know something about a Krugman.

    Try it yourself. Go out during your day and engage people about politics and ask a few question.

    eg What are Prs Obama’s biggest challenges?

    I love doing that, but I am a political nerd. The answers are fascinating. I have yet to hear ‘liberal attacks’ as an early answer.

    And….no need for all caps

  292. 292
    Danny says:

    @kay:

    He’s unequivocally pro-Obama, but God knows there’s enough internet content that is unequivocally anti-Obama out there.

    I think that right there says a lot about the difference between the republican base and the democratic base. In 2004 – long after Bush had done many of the things that conservatives now claim were examples of him selling out his base (e.g. Medicare Part D, NCLB) – pretty much every single blog (those that were around), magazine, Talk Radio host, pundit on TV, and conservative grassroot were unequivocally pro-Bush. Pretty much every single one.

    And, as it happens, Bush won his second term in a closely fought election that came down to base turnout. Funny that, huh?

  293. 293
    kay says:

    @Keith G:

    I agree with you that none of the people I talk to read these sites on the internet, but they absolutely see and hear the site owners on cable tv. They tell me about it. If they’re political junkies they watch Maddow and Ed Schultz and the rest, and that’s where they see them.
    I don’t think we can crow about Maddow et al being popular (I like her, generally, so I’m glad she’s here to stay) and pretend that no one sees or hears her guests. Of course they do. The more viewers liberal editorial content on cable has the more exposure liberal bloggers get. One goes with the other.

  294. 294
    kay says:

    @Danny:

    It’s a good site. The policy stuff is meaty.

    I saw the “controversy” made the WaPo so I was hoping they’d link him, but they didn’t. They linked Huffington. Jerks. Why not link to the actual source? Particularly because he’s a newer voice. Haven’t we heard enough from Huffington? Good Lord. She never shuts up.

  295. 295
    Keith G says:

    @Danny: So you are saying that there is no way to tell, only imprecise human speculation.

    And for this we are calling each other names? (Not you specifically)

    My bias: I do not like the name calling, the mindless rush to attack, the mindless rush to defend, purity tests, and the like. That is what the other side does and 40 years ago, I chose not to be one of them.

    And I certainly do not have a beef with you as you seem to be an honorable and intelligent debater (we have agreed in the past).

    I will say though, that % of pop vote is a slippery stat. You should buttress your view by a state by state survey. How many key states were won or lost by that paper thin margin and would those numbers have made a difference in the 301 to 191 electoral vote defeat?

    That is the data that would give weight to your hypothesis.

  296. 296
    Keith G says:

    @kay: Good points. Sometimes I feel that many here forget our rarefied bubble and it becomes all about some incidental thing said by some marginal person.

    And yes, memes form the net make their way out to the real world, where:

    1) The data consumers find a context and deal with it, and

    2) The rest soon move on to the next Charlie Sheen story or to finding food for their next meal.

  297. 297
    Danny says:

    @Keith G:

    Proving long after the fact that some factors were instrumental in losing an election and others weren’t is impossible. Arguing that Chicago lost votes; that smearing HH as an establishment stooge lost him votes; that passing civil rights lost votes; that being in Vietnam lost votes, that’s perfectly doable. Whether one can support the latter with data is a matter of what polling is available.

    That’s why I’ve never claimed that Emobaggers of 68′, 80′ and 00′ provably lost those elections, only that I thing they lowered base turnout, and doing that ipso facto made it more likely that we would lose those elections.

    Would we have won any of those sans Emobagger/New Left shennanigans? Who knows. Personally I believe that there’s a fair shot that we could have won 68′ and 00′ had people assumed good faith from HH w/r/t vietnam and given him cred as the stellar progressive todays Emobaggers would consider him (and apparently LBJ as well, judging by how he is promoted as a Real Progressive in contrast to Obama by some); and at least as big a chance that we would have won 00′ had the Professional Left been unequivocal in supporting Gore and warning about wasting your vote on Nader. But that’s impossible to prove, so I’ll state it as my unscientific opinion and leave it at that.

    Check out my first post in this exchange. My proposition has been the same from the start: nothing more, nothing less.

    But this complaint about Emobaggers is only one of the reasons we’re “calling each-other names”. The main reason why I feel justified in calling discontents of the Emobagger variety Emobaggers is that Jane Hamsher et al started this pissing inside the tent match, and you non-professional Emobaggers keep it going. From the very start you’ve been trying to claim the labels “Progressive”, “Liberal” and “The Left” for yourself, but you are neither the “Progressives”, the “Liberals” or “The Left” – you are a vocal minority of us. I consider myself a Progressive, a Liberal and part of the Left Wing of the Democratic party. I aint giving those words up for you to fill them with your confusion and misguided ideas. If you want a new name, make up an appropriate one. I suggested “confrontationists” elsewhere, because that is what defines you as a group: you want more confrontation.

  298. 298
    kay says:

    @Keith G:

    I think Maddow is genuinely wonderful, although I don’t watch often. I was a little bothered the last time I checked in because she did a piece on “Perry’s preachers” that almost harkened back to Rev. Wright.
    Clips of them saying horrible things, clearly pulled out of context. I’m opposed to them, as a group, the whole uber-fake-religious Right, but I’m not sure clips of preachers is the way to go, given what was done to Rev Wright. I just think a person can do anything with video editing. It was Fox-esque. Graphic images, fast-moving, a barrage of angry words. That stuff is riveting tv, but I don’t know that it’s at all reliable.

    I hope she doesn’t turn into a Left wing version of Fox News.

  299. 299
    Danny says:

    @Keith G:

    I will say though, that % of pop vote is a slippery stat. You should buttress your view by a state by state survey. How many key states were won or lost by that paper thin margin and would those numbers have made a difference in the 301 to 191 electoral vote defeat?

    Already been there in this thread. Check out OzoneR starting here. But once again, I’m not trying to prove that one single factor lost 68 or 00, that’s unprovable and a deceptive way to look at history, imho.

    Also, thanks for the kind words and courtesy, I read a bit sloppily so that’s why I didnt respond in kind, but I appreciate your posts as well. So I hope you don’t feel I’ve been hitting you to unfairly with sweeping statements about Emobaggers, and such. :) Let me know if that’s the case!

  300. 300
    Keith G says:

    @Danny:

    From the very start you’ve been trying to claim the labels “Progressive”, “Liberal” and “The Left” for yourself, but you are neither the “Progressives”, the “Liberals” or “The Left” – you are a vocal minority of us.

    Please stop that.

    I do not fit the above characterizations that you are asserting. Never have, never will. That is one of the dangers of name calling. It is imprecise and can lead to sloppiness as that block quote excellently exemplifies.

    When I have been critical of the choices made by the President that I support, I have done so respectfully, in good faith, with specific context and never claiming to represent some broader affiliation. The fact that you imply otherwise is troubling indeed and not a source of support to the other claims you make.

    Edit: Danny, I just read the above. I get you. Cool.

  301. 301
    Danny says:

    I was a bit to slow in posting my second response to your post. So: please accept my earnest apology that I lumped you in with the people with the M.O. described in #297. That was unfair.

    Edit: read your edit :) I’ll be more careful with the broad brush in the future.

  302. 302
    Samara Morgan says:

    @William Hurley: i find it extraordinarily tedious that people like you want Obama to be a dem cheerleader.
    He is the president of all the americans.
    You seem to think the left is Obama’s “constitutency”, that he “owes” them.
    Congress has constituents.
    Congress is supposed to represent the desires of constituents and work to make them into law.
    Not the President.
    So Pelosi is just doing her job.
    This is how the founders and framers set it up.
    The system is self-correcting….but it is very, very slow.
    And like Washington said, the senate is the saucer that cools the hot tea of the house.
    And remember, America is an experiment in representative government.
    It can fail.
    It may fail.

  303. 303
    Samara Morgan says:

    @Binky the perspicacious bear: until we are clear of Iraq and A-stan and have our soldiers out of harm’s way, dont look for ANY major change in any FP/military policy.
    Obama also takes his job as CinC seriously.

  304. 304
    Samara Morgan says:

    For example.
    I think the drone program is strategically stupid. Every hostile killed with a drone strike creates at least two more because of SNT–negative influence propagates along both social and consanguineous connections.
    Both the droning in Pak forced the Zardari government to give up OBL’s geo-loc.
    so that was a tactical victory.
    and tactical victories are all America can achieve in the War on Terror Islam.
    Strategically we are screwed anyway you slice it.

  305. 305
    Keith G says:

    @Samara Morgan: It would do to remember the Gov class that you took in 12th gr. (If you did indeed take that class – some have not)

    http://www2.scholastic.com/bro.....sp?id=4683

    See Item 6.

    Off to work. My supervisor thinks Perry is a god. This always leads to a fun day and makes the folks here seem downright rational.

    Cheers!

  306. 306

    @Odie Hugh Manatee:

    it hit home for me, when a couple of friends of mine, conservatives and independent of each other afaik, asked me in short interval, what i thought would be happening if hillary was president.

    obviously they are getting the divide and conquer meme from somewhere, and that somewhere is paying attention to the circular firing squad.

    congrats on the server.

  307. 307
    Lawnguylander says:

    @TK421:

    Polls show that most people who voted for Nader would have stayed home if he hadn’t run. So there’s no costing votes for Gore.

    So “polls show” Nader voters in 2000 are the kind of people who will only vote for a candidate has no chance of winning? And this is a statement in defense of them?

  308. 308
    Samara Morgan says:

    @Keith G: So? Obama does that. He campaigns for party members.
    Let us try a game theoretic approach. What is the payoff for neoliberals and emoprogs in firebagging/primarying/concerntrolling Obama?

  309. 309
    TK421 says:

    @OzoneR:

    That’s not the way it works though. GM isn’t building roads and railroads, construction companies are, steel, lumber and cement makers are.

    Why would a private construction company pony up its own money to repair a road? Even if it was paid back?

    Anyway, I’m done talking about this subject in this thread.

  310. 310
    TK421 says:

    @Danny:

    If you’re talking about approve/dissaprove polling I dont see why there need to be a correlation in order for us to believe that Gore lost votes to Nader? E.g presumably I can start out liking both Nader and Gore and then stop liking Gore?

    Is there any evidence that large numbers of people did that?

    Which polls? All his voters would have stayed home? That doesnt pass the smell test.

    Okay, now “Gore lost because of Nader” people have two tools at their disposal: the “it feels true” and the “smell test”.

    In any case, my proposition was that the tendency within the progressive movement to shed off factions who then spend their time attacking democratic candidates, calling them traitors, sell-outs, etc – e.g. contemporary prominent Emobaggers – depresses dem base turnout and makes us lose votes. If those votes then go to Nader or stay home on election day is immaterial.

    I see: it’s wrong for a Democrat to criticize a Democrat when I do it, but it’s okay when other people do it to me.

  311. 311
    Danny says:

    @kay:

    I bookmarked People’s View and will henceforth give him/her a few hits a day. Still a long way from Alexa rank 31,701 in the US to HuffPo:s 22, but it’s gotta start somewhere…

  312. 312
    TK421 says:

    @Danny:

    I saw a link posted a couple of months ago – maybe it was here, maybe at FDL. It was a recording

    I hope it’s obvious why a poll which surveys thousands of voters carries more weight than your half-remembered, unsourced anecdote about the behaviour of two disc jockeys.

  313. 313
    Danny says:

    @TK421:

    Is there any evidence that large numbers of people did that?

    I don’t think I have to show that; I think you have to show that covarience between Gore and Nader’s approval ratings is a necessary condition for Nader to have stolen votes from Gore.

    Okay, now “Gore lost because of Nader” people

    I don’t think I claimed that Gore provably lost “because of Nader”. I think that I’ve claimed that he lost votes because of Nader – and Naderists within the progressive movement – and that made him Ipso Facto more likely to loose.

    I think I stated my personal opinion that he may well have lost because of Nader, but that I think that’s pretty much impossible to prove, since

    1) Many factors contribute to a candidate losing an election, and

    2) Polling is an imprecise discipline and the record is necessarily spotty since we don’t poll everything at all times that we’d like to know at some later point in time

    [Those people] have two tools at their disposal: the “it feels true” and the “smell test”.

    You claimed that “Polls show that most people who voted for Nader would have stayed home if he hadn’t run. So there’s no costing”. There’s “no” costing requires that all Nader voters would have stayed home (or at least of 50% of those who wouldnt voting Bush). Every single Nader voter sitting 00 out sans Nader doesnt pass the smell test. So your argument is neither serious nor honest unless you say something about how many would have stayed home and how many of the one’s that wouldn’t had gone for Gore.

  314. 314
    Danny says:

    @Danny:

    I think I stated my personal opinion that he may well have lost because of Nader won sans Nader, or Naderists within the progressive movement

    Fixed.

  315. 315
    Berto says:

    Cole 2003-2005: Clap louder for our war in Iraq.
    Cole 2009-present: Clap louder for the President.

    Same shit, different years.

  316. 316
    metricpenny says:

    @cleek:

    Loves it! And, I’m stealing it.

  317. 317
    MBunge says:

    @William Hurley: Krugman did pick up on reports of the President’s then secret meetings with various health care industry stake-holders – reports from his paper and others including Salon’s Greenwald.

    And does it ever occur to people that doing those sorts of things was the reason Obama got health care reform passed when political genius Bill Clinton couldn’t even get a Democrat-controlled House and Senate to vote on the issue?

    Mike

  318. 318
    Samara Morgan says:

    @MBunge: nope.

    the emprogs gotta get their pumped up kicks somehow.

    Again, Hurley, TK, Keith…wass your game goal?
    rehashing history and armchair quarterbacking Obama….what is the endgame in this?

  319. 319
    Samara Morgan says:

    @Berto: hey, CJ and i got spoofed too. at least we have the substrate to get empirical reality at this point.
    don’t you believe in redemption?

    I lurve Obama. we should be hella grateful hes the preznit now.
    hes got my junk of the heart.
    if that makes me an “obot”, well fuck off and DIAF.
    :)

  320. 320
    Corner Stone says:

    @Keith G:

    And I certainly do not have a beef with you [Danny] as you seem to be an honorable and intelligent debater

    I have absolutely no idea how you have reached this conclusion.

  321. 321
    Danny says:

    @Corner Stone:

    I love you too! Fwiw, I usually try to adjust my level of courteousness to what seems warranted by the situation.

  322. 322
    Duckest Fuckingway: Ask not for whom the Duck Fucks. . . says:

    Cornerstone: I had thought he was just another sock, but only with, say, 60% confidence.

  323. 323
    Corner Stone says:

    @Duckest Fuckingway: Ask not for whom the Duck Fucks. . .:

    I had thought he was just another sock, but only with, say, 60% confidence.

    Nah. He started a while back, timidly at first, after endlessly practicing by reading his lectures to himself while looking into the mirror.
    Over the last month or so he’s found his groove and really owned the “Dedicated Defender, this line in the sand is MINE!” type action.
    He’s quickly rising through the ranks, and bound to be a celebrity in his own right, one day.

  324. 324
  325. 325
    Danny says:

    @Corner Stone:

    I care about policy – and specifically progressive policy – enough to post about it on a blog on teh internet. Why are you here – online friends and jolly snark?

  326. 326
    Samara Morgan says:

    /yawn

    c’mon all you emoprogs. what is the payoff? what do you hope to gain in the gamespace by critting Obama and rehashing the past? Do you think your firebagging will influence Obama?
    And the past is dust. who gives a flying fuck about Gores margins?
    better to be like Kay and find relevant ways to WORK for goals in this frame of spacetime.
    you are all acting like conservative first culture intellectuals.

    Indeed, the traditional American intellectuals are, in a sense, increasingly reactionary, and quite often proudly (and perversely) ignorant of many of the truly significant intellectual accomplishments of our time. Their culture, which dismisses science, is often nonempirical. It uses its own jargon and washes its own laundry. It is chiefly characterized by comment on comments, the swelling spiral of commentary eventually reaching the point where the real world gets lost.

  327. 327
    Samara Morgan says:

    @Danny: how do you hope to influence progressive policy? by commenting on the interwebz?

  328. 328
    Samara Morgan says:

    @William Hurley:

    I’m curious to understand why and how you arrive at your conclusions.

    Simplesauce. there is no opposition candidate than can be elected outside of Distributed Jesusland™.
    next question?

  329. 329
    Samara Morgan says:

    @William Hurley: and ITS TEH MAFFS, stupid.
    do you think unemployment stats are going to convince the black and brown voters to vote GOP?

    i dont….but mebbe you can explain how the GOP gets more than 65% of the white vote? Are you emoprogs going to vote for Perry?

  330. 330
    Danny says:

    @Samara Morgan:

    No. I’m here to read about politics, hear other peoples views on politics and discuss politics because I enjoy it. I’m a progressive so I frequent progressive blogs. I’m just not into the whole sniping/snarking/trolling thing, that’s not why I came hear in the first place.

  331. 331
    Samara Morgan says:

    @Danny: but things people are discussing on this thread have no point. its just pointless pissing and moaning.
    if i can understand what Obama is trying to do….if STUCK FFS can understand why cant the emoprogs?

    ask me, and ill give my interpretation of any specific action.
    Obama has three unifying principles as i see it.
    1. he sees himself as the president of all americans.
    2. he tries to do his job, whether its CinC or POTUS.
    3. he is a machiavellian pragmatist with liberal tendancy, and never makes the perfect the enemy of the better.

  332. 332
    Danny says:

    @Samara Morgan:

    Well, to expand, I go online and bloviate about politics because when I have an opinion or idea about something I want see hear what other people think about it. The main benefit of doing that online is that if I go around bothering friends, family and new acquaintances with my opinionated political views I risk pissing those people off or hurting their feelings and coming across as a big jerk. Online I can just speak my mind under the cover of anonymity and if someone doesnt like what I’m saying or me, they can tell me to fuck off. So from my POV, Balloon Juice or Washington Monthly or Political Wire or Kevin drum are places where I can just subject my opinions and ideas to a reality check by having other people tell me where I got stuff wrong…

    That’s why I’m not that interested in the community aspect of B-J or some other place – I’d just worry about how I came across in the eyes of my online friends instead of just speaking my mind and not care about what anyone thinks about me, my views or how I present them.

    but things people are discussing on this thread have no point.if i can understand what Obama is trying to do….if STUCK FFS can understand why cant the emoprogs?

    One of the opinions I had before coming here was that the Emo-/Firebagger crowd in general and FDL and Jane Hamsher in particular are wrong – and uninformed – on policy and politics, and many of them are not that interested in getting more informed.

    That’s why I started following Balloon-Juice in the first place, because Balloon-Juice frontpagers wrote about the – at the time – budding Emobagger phenomenon, and about Jane Hamsher and her fellow travellers. When I post here and bitch at the resident Baggers I expect to hear them explain why I’m wrong or point out something that I didn’t consider that maybe makes their POV on a particular issue understandable, or at least tells me something about what makes them tick.

    ask me, and ill give my interpretation of any specific action.
    Obama has three unifying principles as i see it.
    1. he sees himself as the president of all americans.
    2. he tries to do his job, whether its CinC or POTUS.
    3. he is a machiavellian pragmatist with liberal tendancy, and never makes the perfect the enemy of the better.

    Pretty much agreed.

    But I get the feeling that some emoprogs strongly believe that he’s machiavellian in the sense that he’s “cunning, scheming, and unscrupulous” and, furthermore, not a liberal at all but rather a conservative pretending to be a liberal – while others strongly fear that his defining traits are that he’s a pussy and a pushover.

    It’s unclear to me how they plan to act on those beliefs though – what their endgame is, as you put it. What is the long term strategy for dealing with DINOs and pussies? Overton windows, bully pulpits, the President ruling by decree, etc etc – magical thinking all around.

  333. 333
    Danny says:

    @Samara Morgan:

    Well, to expand, I go online and bloviate about politics because when I have an opinion or idea about something I want hear what other people think about it. The main benefit of doing that online is that if I go around bothering friends, family and new acquaintances with my opinionated political views I risk pissing those people off or hurting their feelings and coming across as a big jerk. Online I can just speak my mind under the cover of anonymity and if someone doesnt like what I’m saying or me, they can tell me to fuck off. So from my POV, Balloon Juice or Washington Monthly or Political Wire or Kevin drum are places where I can just subject my opinions and ideas to a reality check by having other people tell me where I got stuff wrong…

    That’s why I’m not that interested in the community aspect of B-J or some other place – I’d just worry about how I came across in the eyes of my online friends instead of just speaking my mind and not care about what anyone thinks about me, my views or how I present them.

    but things people are discussing on this thread have no point.if i can understand what Obama is trying to do….if STUCK FFS can understand why cant the emoprogs?

    One of the opinions I had before coming here was that the Emo-/Firebagger crowd in general and FDL and Jane Hamsher in particular are wrong – and uninformed – on policy and politics, and many of them are not that interested in getting more informed.

    That’s why I started following Balloon-Juice in the first place, because Balloon-Juice frontpagers wrote about the – at the time – budding Emobagger phenomenon, and about Jane Hamsher and her fellow travellers. When I post here and bitch at the resident Baggers I expect to hear them explain why I’m wrong or point out something that I didn’t consider that maybe makes their POV on a particular issue understandable, or at least tells me something about what makes them tick.

    ask me, and ill give my interpretation of any specific action.
    Obama has three unifying principles as i see it.
    1. he sees himself as the president of all americans.
    2. he tries to do his job, whether its CinC or POTUS.
    3. he is a machiavellian pragmatist with liberal tendancy, and never makes the perfect the enemy of the better.

    Pretty much agreed.

    But I get the feeling that some emoprogs strongly believe that he’s machiavellian in the sense that he’s “cunning, scheming, and unscrupulous” and, furthermore, not a liberal at all but rather a conservative pretending to be a liberal – while others strongly fear that his defining traits are that he’s a p-ssy and a pushover.

    It’s unclear to me how they plan to act on those beliefs though – what their endgame is, as you put it. What is the long term strategy for dealing with DINOs and p-ssies? Overton windows, bully pulpits, the President ruling by decree, etc etc – magical thinking all around.

  334. 334
    ObamaBot2012 says:

    I find it telling how a lot of these emobaggers claim to be “reasonable progressives” but use a lot of far right smears to attack President Obama with: Compromiser in Chief, Obomber, Nobama, Caver in Chief, and of course calling those of us who have his back Obamabots, all while they have their heads up Jane Hamsher/Glenn Greenwald/Adam Green/Ed Shultz/Keith Olbermann/Rachel Maddow/Bill Mahar/Arianna Huffington/Markos ass.

    These folks NEVER supported President Obama. They either supported John Edwards, Hillary Clinton, or the loser who ALWAYS runs for the Democratic nomination and loses, Dennis Kucinich… so for them to say they represent “Obama’s base” is a lie. Most of them held their nose and voted for Obama, and only a few actually knocked on doors and have fallen for the emobagger lies and propaganda about him being a far right Republican DLC Wall Street corporatist.

    I find it funny that they accuse President Obama of being a corporatist, yet they support corporatist bloggers like Hamsher, Greenwald, Hamsher, and Kos who do more to keep corporate America alive and well than they accuse President Obama of doing. How did Arianna Huffington selling her blog to corporate AOL help the poor that she and these other corporatist ratfuckers supposedly care about? They can fuck off, and so can their stupid sheep emobagger supporters.

  335. 335
    Samara Morgan says:

    @Danny: why does Niccolo always get such a bad rap?
    he was noble.
    he held to his principles even under torture.

    ok, emobaggers it is.
    someone should make a lexicon entry for that.

  336. 336
    Samara Morgan says:

    @Danny:

    Online I can just speak my mind under the cover of anonymity and if someone doesnt like what I’m saying or me, they can tell me to fuck off.

    lol, heh indeed.
    and you cant get fired or have your dissertation rejected for being crazy either.
    :)

  337. 337
    Samara Morgan says:

    @Danny:

    That’s why I’m not that interested in the community aspect of B-J or some other place – I’d just worry about how I came across in the eyes of my online friends instead of just speaking my mind and not care about what anyone thinks about me, my views or how I present them.

    now that is interesting….i agree with Assange, and this is a SNT/SBH tautology.

    Our initial idea — which never got implemented — our initial idea was that, look at all those people editing Wikipedia. Look at all the junk that they’re working on. Surely, if you give them a fresh classified document about the human rights atrocities in Falluja, that the rest of the world has not seen before, that, you know, that’s a secret document, surely all those people that are busy working on articles about history and mathematics and so on, and all those bloggers that are busy pontificating about the abuses in Iraq and Afghanistan and other countries and other human rights disasters, who are complaining that they can only respond to the NY Times, because they don’t have sources of their own, surely those people will step forward, given fresh source material and do something.
    __
    No. It’s all bullshit. It’s ALL bullshit. In fact, people write about things, in general (if it’s not part of their career) because they want to display their values to their peers, who are already in the same group. Actually, they don’t give a fuck about the material. That’s the reality.

    a lot of what goes on in the BJ commentariat is just community peer reinforcement. they simply do not give a fuck about the material. still, Cole remains semi-sane in an increasingly insane blogverse.
    i read this blog for him, although its really hard to respect him when he keeps gettin’ rolled by embryo douthats farming pageclicks here on their way to a paying gig somewheres else.
    :)

  338. 338
    Danny says:

    @ObamaBot2012:

    Slightly related; this is what an Emobagger posted w/r/t the payroll tax holiday on another site today:

    The problem with extending the payroll tax holiday is that it depletes the SS trust fund and delivers ammunition for conservatives claiming that SS is a ponzi scheme. It might well be a trap for democrats to extend it!

    How the payroll tax holiday is actually financed is by the Treasury owing SS the money. IOW, it’s added to the debt. To the intragovernmental debt. As it happens, one of our resident Emobaggers William Hurley explain at length all the virtues of that very same arrangement above.

    So what is brilliant fiscal policy to one Emobagger is a nefarious machiavellian trap that Obama hopes unsuspecting liberals will walk into so gets a pretext to help Republicans end SS.

    Well, I guess maybe that tells us that Hurley has a clue when it comes to the Federal Government owing SS money, and that other guy hasnt. Or something.

    What both have in common is their firm belief that Obama is out to hurt progressive objectives. E.g. he’s secretly a “traitor” and a “sellout”, pretending to be a liberal. As it happens, Emobaggers and their predecessors (the New Left) has leveled that same charge against every Democratic incumbent president starting with LBJ when the New Left started gaining clout within the movement.

  339. 339
    Samara Morgan says:

    If its any consolation, Cole, the atheoskeptic community is just as bad if not worse.

    so it cant just be IQ.
    i think it must be social capital payola, or rubberbanding.
    :)

  340. 340
    Danny says:

    @Samara Morgan:

    Who knows where JC is gonna sell my IP-adress for some quick booze money? :)

  341. 341
    Keith G says:

    @Samara Morgan:

    What is the payoff for neoliberals and emoprogs in firebagging/primarying/concerntrolling Obama?

    I guess if you really wanted to know you would go about asking folks who fit that description. That would not be me.

    Still, I encourage you to sincerely seek out such folk as you describe and speak with them with an honest and open heart. There has been too much disdainful yapping lately. Barak Obama appropriated Gandhi’s quote, “Be the change you want to see in the world” to great effect. Follow his charge and be a source of good and not of petty name calling. Communicate with others and with honest up-beat passion learn their frame of reference and then work to reform their opinion.

  342. 342
    Danny says:

    @Samara Morgan:

    Yeah, sure, I agree to a point :) Insofar as any context where you have a public persona to maintain and relationships to tend to that you are afraid of losing or damaging, that is supposed to constrain you in what you can say or do. Not necessarily saying that I’m all that house broken IRL either, only that not having to care about that stuff online is liberating when discussing politics.

  343. 343
    ObamaBot2012 says:

    @Danny:
    I wouldn’t even begin with LBJ. Even the emobaggers during FDR’s time said he was a sellout turncoat, yet the emobbaggers of the modern day hold up FDR as a standard that Obama should emulate.

    I predict a decade or so from now, with another Democratic President, the emobaggers will be whining and moaning “Why isn’t President X acting exactly like President Obama?” and act like they supported Obama all along, forgetting all the time they wasted assisting the Teabaggers in trashing his Presidency.

    And these are the folks who scream to the rooftops that they know more than President Obama. They know more than the man who graduated Harvard top of his class, and defeated two senior ranking Senators to become President, uh-huh.

  344. 344
    Danny says:

    @ObamaBot2012:

    Sure. And on the other side of the fence, the Birchers just knew that Ike was a secret commie. But Bill Buckley was willing to take a stand and help kick the birchers out of Movement Conservatism. Because even though him and Ike were far apart on what the Republican party should stand for, he knew that the birchers and the kind of factionalism and civil war they were effecting would hurt his endgame too.

  345. 345
    Samara Morgan says:

    @Danny: it just occurred to me that cleek’s pie filter is a tool for community shunning.
    like you, i dont want to be part of an online political community.
    im an aspie.
    i dont think it would ever work.

    I’m all that house broken IRL either

    and in RL i have to be careful about my domain i have pretty radical thought forms there too……academe is way more bitchy than BJ.
    @Keith G: like i just said, im an aspie.
    im think im constitutionally (heh) incapable of empathy for the people you describe.
    i just think they should be smarter.
    :)

  346. 346
    Danny says:

    @Samara Morgan:

    Knock yourself out, happy shunning

  347. 347
    William Hurley says:

    @Samara Morgan: I’m going to guess that you:

    A) are unfamiliar with the levels of unemployment, as measured by the Labor Dpt, among working age “brown people” – as you put it. The African-American community is saddled with an unemployment rate that’s over 17%. That’s the “top-line” number. I can only imagine what the broader, U6 measure says about that community’s employment situation. Maybe you missed Rep Maxine Waters who, yesterday, lambasted the President for his indifference to the state of unemployment at-large and, more infuriating to her, the dire state of work opportunities for the African-American community. I’ll not summarize her here, as in doing so the raw emotions and pointedness of her complaints directed to the President cannot adequately be captured. Here’s a link to an LA Times story on this event which, I believes includes embedded video as well.

    B) are unfamiliar with the deep state of discontent within the Latino and Hispanic communities and the causes for that discontent with the President. Employment conditions are only one item on their list of grievances. The President’s failure to take any action on his loudly made, oft repeated campaign promise regarding immigration reform is another. But, the biggest sore spot, as I understand it, is the unprecedented use of ICE to detain and deport “brown people”. Thus far, the President’s administration has summarily detained and deported over 1,000,000 “brown people”. Again, the inter-tubes are thick with information and advocacy groups’ perspectives on these distinct short-comings.

    C) are unfamiliar with the composition and vitality of unions in America today. With the death of the nation’s manufacturing-base, unions’ focus and membership efforts have been aimed – with great success, though not enough success – at establishing service trades employees as organized, union backed workers. The result of these efforts have lifted service employees unions to be the second fastest growing group of unions trailing only public sector unions in membership growth. A majority of workers in these unions are, as you put it, “brown people”.

    However, the important take-away from this primer is that unions have expressed their deep dissatisfaction with the President by ending political donations, denying the President’s campaign and his “location” staff union members to both organize and expedite local logistics of a Presidential visit as well as to turn-down offers to stand-in as political props behind or around the President when he delivers “stump” speeches – such as those he gave in Iowa over the weekend. Lastly, a large and still growing number of unions have decided to opt-out of participation in the Convention next August. Unions will not be there, nor will their organizing/recruiting teams, nor their money – in the form of donations and in the form of workers’ pay-checks being spent in support of the Party and the President at the venue and across Charlotte. Those union members who will not appear nor provide “moral” support of demonstrations of enthusiasm are the “brown people” who constitute the majority of unionized workers in America.

    D) are not familiar with the gross – meaning both extraordinary large and disgusting – wage and salary gap growth that’s accelerated and widened between “brown people” and non-“brown people” in America. Rep Waters has spoken about this criminal shortfall as well – blaming the President’s indifference in equal portion to the racially motivated parsimony of far too many employers in America.

    E) are not familiar with the wide-spread and coordinated efforts in states now wholly controlled by GOP pols or those having a GOP Governor and a pliant legislature where a raft of new laws have been enacted solely to obstruct minority, young, urban, poor and newly naturalized Americans from accessing the voting booth. Again, the President’s inaction in the face of these blatant attacks on hard won – lives’ sacrificed levels of hard – voting rights has not gone unnoticed by both non-“brown” and “brown” people’s communities. Again, the inter-tubes can provide you with volumes of information seeking to register complaint, organize and ultimately force the President to act – e.g: putting AG Holder to work defending voting rights and prosecuting overt racial bias.

    The end result of these and other cauldrons of discontent will likely be a return to patterns of apathy among the disaffected leading to their staying home – which is another way of saying large portions of these communities will simply not vote at all.

    To get a glimpse of low-voter turnout, particularly the multitude of voter categories you referred to as “brown”, see the results of the 2010 elections. The link following points to election turnout analysis (62ppg PDF) produced by the Clerk of the House of Representatives.

    The doubly terrifying reality of internal and general disaffection for the President and his policies – particularly but not solely economic – is that a nationwide decline in enthusiasm may well translate to low turnout. AS we witnessed nearly 1 year ago, at the ballot box, and have seen nearly every day since at all levels of political action, low turnout leads to very, very bad outcomes for local Democrats in addition to the bruising defeats handed House, Senate and “national” candidates.

  348. 348
    William Hurley says:

    @Samara Morgan: Interesting.

    Did you miss, hide from or otherwise not notice the repeated election of a candidate whose ethos and policies have become the model for today’s Distributed Jesusland™ political opportunists? Did you not notice the 2010 outcomes?

    When Obama loses, will you take the time to breath deeply and objectively assess the dynamics behind his defeat?

    Losing is a very bad option, a truly short-sighted choice when there are alternatives and when the preponderance of evidence is nearing “blindingly obvious” levels.

    Will you willingly sacrifice the Presidency and the House and Senate too on blind loyalty and grave misunderstanding of ideological purity?

  349. 349
    William Hurley says:

    @EnoughIsEnough: I was unaware that liberal ideals were subject to the politically motivated influence of any given politician during his/her temporary meanderings across the national political stage – positive, negative or otherwise.

    Ideals are, by definition, inherently good in the minds of those who choose to accept and adhere to them. Conversely, those who reject or refuse to adhere to a defined set of ideals find those “ideals” to be flawed – which is another way of saying they find them to be negative.

    Are you suggesting that the President continue to compromise the ideals he purports to hold in service of some form of political Messianism in the hope of winning over more rejectionists than he’d lose from his flock of adherents?

    Here’s Merriam-Webster on “ideals“.

    http://www.merriam-webster.com/dictionary/ideals

  350. 350
    ObamaBot2012 says:

    @William Hurley:

    You are truly a fool if you believe that the 2010 midterms symbolizes anything other than the fact that you emoprogs sat out and allowed the opposition to win.

    The TeaPugs got their asses off and voted last fall for their TeaPug Reps and Governors, where the hell were you emoprogs to support your progressive heroes Feingold and Grayson, both of whom got soundly defeated?

    You’re right losing is a bad option, but you emoprogs seem to relish in losing, it gives you more reason to continue bitching on the sidelines as opposed to actually getting out there and making an effort to get something done.

    You’re actually saying that you would relish a President Perry, a President Bachmann, or a President Romney? And you have the nerve to say that you are speaking for a “progressive” agenda?

    Yeah, let President Perry, President Bachmann, or President Romney repeal ObamaCares, bring back DADT, get us involved in a bazillion wars overseas… then you will REALLY have something to bitch about.

  351. 351
    Samara Morgan says:

    @William Hurley: LOL
    he wont lose.
    or Huck would run.
    I repeat, the GOP has no candidate that can beat Obama.

    Did you not notice the 2010 outcomes?

    sure did. and i know what turned the Red Wave to beach break in colorado (were i live), also.
    the GOP can only win in Distributed Jesusland™ anymore.
    I think they can never win another general election, because urban centers will simply not vote GOP.
    you didnt read my link she said reproachfully.
    How does the GOP get 65% of the non-hispanic cauc (white) vote?

    First, there is no chance that white voters will ever again comprise 74 percent of the electorate. Most projections for 2012 suggest that self-identified whites will comprise 70 percent or, at most, 72 percent of those who cast presidential ballots.
    __
    Second, it would be hard for any Republican to improve significantly on McCain’s hefty 12-point margin among whites, which means that without an improved showing among Hispanics, blacks and Asians, GOP contenders will lose every time.
    The math here is brutal and eye-opening. If Obama in 2012 wins the same percentage of the combined black, Asian and Hispanic vote that he won in 2008 (82 percent), then in order to beat him the GOP candidate would need to win an unimaginable 65 percent of all white voters — whose numbers include such stalwart Democratic constituencies as gays, atheists, Jews and union members.
    __
    The 65 percent threshold represents a far higher percentage than Ronald Reagan won in his landslide against Jimmy Carter in 1980, or even his history-making 49-state re-election-sweep against Walter Mondale in ’84.

    its immaterial what unemployment is. Hispanics and blacks are still not going to vote GOP.
    show me a trend line where minorities are switching to GOP.
    and every year the white vote shrinks as a proportion of the electorate.
    In 2020 the kids from the 2008 event event start to age into the electorate.
    By 2030 NHC cauc is a minority in the electorate.

    non-presidential elections always have lower turnout. that is a documented statistic.
    But any one of the christofascist jesushumping panty-sniffers the GOP is being forced to nom will bring Obama voters down on the polls like a swarm of MQ9 Reapers on an Afghan wedding party.

  352. 352
    Samara Morgan says:

    @William Hurley: i dig Obama. we are sympatico…i see what he did there.
    you don’t big whup.
    so stay home or vote Perry.
    idc which, its a free country….
    but AMG quit your fucking emocutting pissy poutrage whining.

  353. 353
    Samara Morgan says:

    @Danny:

    happy shunning

    i kinda dig it.
    it means im getting under peoples skin.
    :)

Comments are closed.