Blaming the blogosphere for Democratic Failures
So. In response to a Politico piece in which the authors and White House whine about the left wing blogosphere not being happy with all of Obama's "wins" and not caring about potential losses in 2010, Kevin Drum writes:
Here's the good news: this record of progressive accomplishment officially makes Obama the most successful domestic Democratic president of the last 40 years. And here's the bad news: this shoddy collection of centrist, watered down, corporatist sellout legislation was all it took to make Obama the most successful domestic Democratic president of the last 40 years. Take your pick.
Here's the thing. What matters is whether policy works. It does not matter if what Obama did was more left wing than anything that's been done in a while (though in absolute terms I would argue it mostly wasn't left wing, the health care plan, for example, was essentially a Republican plan from the 90s), what matters is if it was left wing enough (big enough stimulus, smart enough health care plan) to improve people's lives enough that they noticed.
It wasn't, and that's all that matters. Policies such as the stimulus were not done well enough, and everyone from Nobel prize winners with good predictive records like Stiglitz and and Krugman, down to nobodies like me, predicted it at the time. The President hired the wrong people to give him advice, didn't even do as much as many of them wanted, and now we all pay the price.
Sometimes half doesn't work. Half-assed rarely does. All Obama's half assed "left wing" policies have done is discredit the left for another generation. Combined with the ability of the media, Republicans and hysterical Tea Baggers unable to use a dictionary to define him as a "socialist" this means that Obama's policies are seen as left wing, and left wing policies are seen to have failed.
I don't want Obama doing anything I agree with, because he will screw it up and discredit it. In this respect he is like Bush. He is poison because he is incompetent at policy.
As for the original Politico post, the hysterical ranting at the peanut gallery the authors clearly don't even read, says more about them and the White House than it does about the left wing blogosphere they try to blame for Democrats own failures.
We wanted and needed another FDR now (or close to it) and we got Bill Clinton (again) instead.
I wouldn't mind if we got another Bill Clinton.
The Clinton Administration wasn't shy about pushing Environmental policies, and creating new industries that created jobs. Even their failed health care reform was more Progressive (they just sold it badly, setting us back two decades).
So far, we haven't even got THAT much.
* There are two types of Republicans: millionaires and suckers.
"Mugsy's Rap Sheet": Recording history for those who seek to rewrite it.
the repeal of Glass Stegeall Act, the Telecom Act, DADT, Yah, we want him back.. That has all worked well for the American people!
President Obama has done in 18 months what none other has been able to get through---and the whinner teenagers want perfect...Guess what he did not write the legislation but damn if is not better than leaving it to the the holdouts for perfect---in other words doing squat nothing!
Stop the whining --grow up --look what he had to work with--half a congress and a corporate owned press--pushing his failure..Geezzz
NAFTA.
Even now Bill admits that the Telecom Act was a bad idea.
"When are we going to stop trying to tell elected officials what to do. Our job is to spend the taxpayers' money the best way we can." -- Tommy Watkins, Justice of the Peace, Crawford County, Arkansas
..and he was forced by a right-wing congress and phil gramm to repeal Glass-Steagall. In regard to that last point, the Dems ought to be touting that as the last Ironic Act of the Clinton administration. Repeal of Glass-Steagall made it possible for banks to become the "too big to fail" behemoths they became and look how that turned out. For all of our complaints about the Dems, I think the biggest one is their inability to MARKET themselves as true fiscal disciplinarians with a sober vision of how to improve America. Maybe this could be a leg up for true Progressives. Just my 2 cents this morning.
Mickey: "It was an epiphany. Do you know what an epipany is?"
Keoni: "NOT NOW MICKEY!"
they snuck it by him. He didn't have anybody read the damn bill.
Obama is so much less than he could have been. What has he done?? Health Care is a freaking joke compared to the rest of the Western World. On finance the vultures are still free to do their wicked deeds. On the BP thing he did nothing for weeks and weeks. He is fighting two stupid wars. His stimulous lacks vision and adequate muscle and he allowed the wall street vultures to loot the treasury. The last straw for me was the move, underway as we speak, to stop Elizebeth Warren from getting oversite authority. He is just a hollow speechifier with no soul or direction. Thats not
whining; thats facts.
Could it be that our prez is just another over educated shit head? Another one trick pony (legal expertise and zero common sense) that can't get out of his own head that's afflicted with pathological need to be liked by the school bully. There is no shortage of complete morons with an advanced degree.
Generally speaking I don't trust anyone making over 150K a year.
This rambling is indicative of our problem - assuming you're not a "troll".
So because I am left of, and no fan of Obama you assume I'm a troll. The man is politically clueless. Please tell me what is particularly rambling about my comment. I feel it is pretty much succinct and to the point I was making.
Generally speaking I don't trust anyone making over 150K a year.
Unfortunately, given the realities of US politics, which ranges from extreme right to center right, no one who wanted to could implent left-wing progressive policies such as single payer health care. For example, consider Dennis Kucinich. Although he advocates reasonable, intelligent and effective left wing policies which many Americans will agree with, he is politically beyond the pale and would never win his parties nomination as presidential candidate.
Given the choice in the last election between an insane and unstable Republican ticket and a moderate Democratic ticket, the decision was a no-brainer.
No, it's a narrow presentation of facts, wrapped in a thick envelope of whining....
When you say "could have been"...that's the problem in itself since it requires analysis of what was probable, but not acquired, and what was not, for various reasons.
And we also gave the Ds everything the Netroots asked for, and everything the Obama Fan Base said they needed:
1. The House
2. A veto-proof majority in the Senate
3. The Presidency
And now we're in the worst depression since the 1930s, and Barack Hoover Obama's administration hasn't done squat. Except shovel billions to the banksters, of course. Meanwhile, both legacy parties are making 10% nominal (20% real) unemployment the new normal and millions are losing their homes. What part of this does the Obama Fan Base fail to understand?
I seem to recall him caving to Big Timber, and his "no-fly zones" were a clear Big Oil concession. What environmental policies did he "push"?
The key word is indeed "failed"...it wasn't a case of selling it badly as much as it was the reality of what happens in a Senate that
isn't 100% behind it (meaning your party), and when you have the
massed opposition from every conceivable player in the game.
So, that said, Obama didn't "fail". We got what he deemed possible.
I don't know if it's enough to change the dynamic over the next couple of decades or not. Gotta wait and see.
It's also more and more probable that economic and demographic realities will result in a more tightly controlled/regulated health care system here. Making much of the right-wing fear mongering totally moot.
which TOTALLY prevented the public option becoming the reasonable compromise it SHOULD have been.
And he was against very reasonable portions of the financial bill, which made it seem that he was looking out for Wall Street instead of Main Street.
He's VERY much disappointed me. He spoke like a progressive on the campaign trail and now that he won he is NOTHING like that.
And that bothers me - he's proven himself to be a phony and a politician.
He not only took single payer off the table, the White House actuallt censored the "little single payer advocates."
was politically astute. Obama most surely is not. Obama could have done things that were both good policy and good politics. He rarely does either.
Clinton was a governor for what, four terms? That's had to be helpful. I tended to agree with the GOP line that he was inexperienced, but not in the way the GOP played it with the half-governor.
problems. Blogoshphere commenters prove point by debating and attacking administration gone for a decade and pining for a President dead more than half a century.
TFR
Certainly nothing more, and sometimes a great deal less. NAFTA was a piece of shit. Letting the Gramm speculative "Wild West" investment ideas get through was a piece of shit. The way that they tried to do health care reform was a steaming, 6' tall pile of shit.
Politically astute? Obama has more done in under 2 years than Clinton did in any 4.
Nothing spells politically astute like risking his entire Presidency on a blowjob.
Politically astute?
A failure to get health care reform thru flipped the Congress.
With that said, he did some good things. All involved compromise. All involved giving up far more of his agenda than Obama has thus far. And yet, Obama is the failure. Got it.
So we're not just covered in Cheetos and Hershey Bar crumbs, when we enter our opinionated opinions when not on porn sites trying to download nude photos of Margaret Dumont?
Diabolus est Deus Inversus
Margaret Dumont? Really?
.. http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=RbyzTI0M8eo&fe...
Mickey: "It was an epiphany. Do you know what an epipany is?"
Keoni: "NOT NOW MICKEY!"
"All Obama's half assed "left wing" policies have done is discredit the left for another generation."
Who discredited the left in the previous generation?
TFR
Again.
Hasa Diga Eebowai
.
TFR
What do you mean "your people"?
"When are we going to stop trying to tell elected officials what to do. Our job is to spend the taxpayers' money the best way we can." -- Tommy Watkins, Justice of the Peace, Crawford County, Arkansas
too polite to reap the rewards of the real tea party.
TFR
Probably wasn't the incessant Gay marriage thing, was it.
oh wait, their president got more popular!
it didn't with the more progressive churchy types.
Huge voting bloc
While we're on the subject of political achievements by this White House, should we add to that list: attacking your base?
* There are two types of Republicans: millionaires and suckers.
"Mugsy's Rap Sheet": Recording history for those who seek to rewrite it.
He might as well attack his own base. He's been selling us out ever since we successfully fought to get him into office. He's cast his lot with the centrist voters who never vote and trying to appease the right wing who hate him anyway.
What, are we going to be demoralized more?
no blue state stuff he ran on and just heard the part where he promised to mount the unicorn and lead our cavalry out of the middle east on day after inauguration.
TFR
My advice to progressives.
On election day...enjoy life...go shopping...take the kids to Disney.
"Anyone that makes less than $150K in this country, has no business voting Republican."
followed by brown shirts
I increasingly have come to believe that most of the posters on politico and elsewhere have been salaried employees their whole lives..Have never run a business with a corporate Board---have no idea what it takes to move a large body, Board, for progress in business or govrnment...This is not a 'cowboy' enterprise---where all decisions can be kneejerked into existance.. That is a pipe dream...
We have 'writers' , the very height of arrogance, that speculate and opine on something they have neither the skill or ability to accomplish in real life--! Try running a business that impacts hundreds---then imagine when it impacts 300 million, and people around the World..
The pukes think it is.
Now that is one big kneejerk operation.
We have people in positions of power over millions of working people who have never BEEN salaried employees... who have never had to try to run a home and raise a family on a bare bones budget... who live in walled enclaves with all the noise and squalor of the real world blocked from view and hearing... who have no idea what it means to try to live from dwindling paycheck to disappearing one.
To paraphrase one such elitist... or at least a supporter of the status quo, which I'm sure nobody could deny favors the elitists who make up America's aristocracy...
We have 'writers' , the very height of arrogance, that speculate and opine on something they've never been called upon to accomplish in real life--! Try working your ass off for 50-60 hours a week for decades only to have your job sent to some third world boiler room or two bit slave labor sweatshop in some jungle somewhere--Then imagine BEING one of the 299 million BEING directly impacted by decisions made by most of the people your telling us have the only qualifications necessary to run the country based solely on their performance in bringing those millions of people to their financial knees.
It takes an inordinate amount of greed coupled with a sore shortage of ethical standards, societal responsibility and scruples to be a "winner in today's corporate environment... those are not "qualities" the people being governed... remember, "of the people, for the people and BY the people... necessarily need from leaders whose actual sole qualification for office is that they have enough money to buy it or know lots of people who do.
Who are we to deny the will of the country.
I will no longer "sign off" on policies I don't believe in, in the interest of party unity. That IS simply being a brown shirt.
If you wish to continue to play along in this little Democratic Party circle jerk...knock your socks off.
Look at the very title of this thread. Basically we're the mangy old dog who all of sudden doesn't want to perform their usual tricks, so to get our attention we get kicked...and we're supposed to like it.
"Anyone that makes less than $150K in this country, has no business voting Republican."
by God!
..and the Dems will suffer for it as will the country in the long term. And I'll go back to what I said earlier, the country got what it voted for by putting a right wing majority in the House and Senate under Clinton leading to the repeal of Glass-Steagall and banks too big to fail. And look what they got with w, well, he was appointed the first time, which I believe is how Obama or anyone not a 'bush' or a republican't, got elected in 2008. It was Obama's administration to lead and to make changes for the better and it was going to be a long row to hoe no matter what. I think, and I go back and forth on this, we need a strong primary challenge to Obama in 2012 because I think the country is going to swing back to the right and it ain't gonna' be pretty. Those that forget the past are condemned to repeat it.
Mickey: "It was an epiphany. Do you know what an epipany is?"
Keoni: "NOT NOW MICKEY!"
are condemned to forget Reagan or repeat him?
TFR
It swings waaaaaaaaaaaayyy to the right, then swings back a little and stops somewhere near the middle then swings waaaaaaaaaaaaaay back to the right then swings back a little, not quite to the center this time, then waaaaaaaayyy back over to the right, then back to the right-middle and so forth. And the reason for this is that every time a Kucinich or a Grayson speaks the truth, so-called progressives accuse them of "purity" or non-viablity or whatever, but they fail to acknowledge that everything Kuchinich predicted as mayor of Cleveland came true, only worse.
They want their ego stoked.
Quis custodiet ipsos custodes? - Juvenal
.
You didn't get everything you want, right when you want it, because this country got knocked into the shitter by the Republicans. We can either work to pull it out, from where we actually are, or we can hand it back to the assholes that put it in the shitter, while you folks do chalk outlines on the roadside of what your unicorns should have been shaped like...... the ones that you aren't going to get, now, that the nation is in the shitter.
BUT, unless you have some magic fairy dust in your pocket, THIS IS THE SITUATION AS IT CURRENTLY EXISTS, YOU CAN'T MAGICALLY GET THAT OTHER SITUATION, IT'S GONE.
I therefore suggest that we dust ourselves off, PULL TOGETHER, and we will make the advancements that we can make, and work on all others as we can.
... by years of neo-liberal "Washington Consensus" "free market" dominance that began in the mid-1970s, an ideology that both legacy parties shared. Incomes under the Clinton administration brand of neo-liberalism increased, so normal, working Americans had a temporary increase in concrete material benefits. This stopped with Bush, and reversed course Obama, with 10% nominal (20% actual) unemployment as far as the eye can see.
Future historians will note the continuities between the Bush and Obama administrations, not their differences, with the key points being the continued dominance of banksters and rentiers, with the resulting upward transfer of wealth, as well as the normalization of Bush's expansion of executive power (torture, assassination of US citizens, impunity for elite lawbreaking, and so forth).
to progressives would be ignore Liberal AND Proud's advise and go out and vote for the relatively progressive Dems.
If the Repubs take back control of the House, then not even half-measures will get done, and that will put them in position in 2012 to finish the job they started in 2000.
though, I will say this. Sometimes, something is better than nothing. There is much room for improvement but, don't let the wingnuts and people who assed out this economy make you feel like you havent' done anything of value. They're trying to tell you that success on anything isn't success even if it's simply baby steps. Black is white, up is down. They're blithering idiots!
.
Barry came into the job expecting to tear down fences and work with both the left and the right. It was a fine idea, but the right wanted no part of it. At that point the fences needed to be mended – and the right put back on their side. Barry wanted no part of that.
Yes, he hired a bunch of bad advisers, and it looks like Barry doesn’t want to switch horses mid-stream. But the horse has drowned, and Barry is treading water. Still he thinks he can work with both sides, as the right is piling on heavier loads.
Couldn't agree more. Wasn't it Jonathan Alter who accused liberals last summer of having a "fetish" for the public option - as if we were just being arbitrarily stubborn about some pet project of ours, instead of trying to make the case that the public option was actually essential to keeping costs down?
Now when premiums skyrocket and there has been nothing put in place to help prevent that, middle-of-the-roaders like Alter will become all outraged and claim health care reform didn't work because it wasn't done right. And, who knows, they may even pretend that they were for the PO all along (much as Chris Matthews now claims to have always been against the Iraq war). But, by then, it will be too late.
The public option was an ever-changing bait and switch operation.
The "public option" that was originally proposed by policy entrepreneur Jacob Hacker would have had enough clout to affect pricing. The "public option" that emerged in legislation would have had 9 or 10 million enrollees, which would not have been enough clout at all.
Yet "progressives" kept shilling for it anyhow, as if nothing had changed.
of discrediting itself without any help from Obama. If the number of shallow uninformed kneejerk posts made here is any indication Obama is the least of the left's problems.
Hasa Diga Eebowai
And how have we discredited ourselves? By being true to our principles? By expecting OUR party to actually pay attention to us?
Don't pull shit out of your ass. I'm not in the mood.
"Anyone that makes less than $150K in this country, has no business voting Republican."
Back in the dirty 30's, when progressives approached FDR about social security, FDR replied "That's a great idea. Now go out and make me do it!"
In this administration, all the noise has been generated by the right wing tea-partiers. Noise from the left has been practically non-existent, and when it has occured, as it did with the Bankers' Convention in Chicago, it has received almost no coverage in the media.
by starting in-fighting because you're not getting everything you want, in the most difficult political situation we've probably ever had. Grow up.
"Not in the mood." See my index finger sawing across my thumb? That's the world's smallest violin, playing "Hearts and Flowers" for you. Enjoy.
So let's not kid ourselves - Republicans ARE awful, but many Democrats ARE just as awful.
It's not unreasonable of us to expect Democrats to not act like Republicans.
Bills could have been a LOT stronger if it weren't for WEAK, BOUGHT OFF Democrats.
give me a physical break.
if anyone close to left was in power, we would have single payer.
we would be in court right now suing BP's ass for all their future profits.
we would have price stabilization boards for commodities, instead of wild speculation.
to call the democrats the "left" is truly insulting to those of us who are.
the resident Canadian corporate shill diagnosing the American left's problems
Democracy is too important to be entrusted to politicians.
Rise Up!
Protest!
diagnosing America's policies and politics.
Can't we all get along. Let's try!
http://video.canadiancontent.net/1996658-sout...
TFR
.
.
TFR
... God, I hate smartasses, especially when they aren't smart at all. Just no antennas.
I've seen quite a few "shallow uninformed kneejerk posts" from you defending the centrist, nuclear-power-is-A-OK-consult-Wall Street-at-every-turn position. The times we're in require change, which is why that was the key phrase of Obama's campaign. Why, then, is he offering "same" instead? If the centrist position is so swell, he would've campaigned as a centrist. He knew that wouldn't work, so he campaigned as a liberal, got elected, then reverted to centrism. Exacerbating matters is the fact that today's centrism is yesterday's conservatism. Eisenhower would be considered a liberal today.
What is the prob?
I see Peter G and ricky doing snarky attacks on everyone all the time.
[Read the commenting policy--Site Monitor]
I overused the word idi0t. Sorry. Hard to resist.
The biggest source of frustration for me is this... Why, when we hold both the White House and sizable majorities in Congress, are our choices on legislation limited to right-wing or centrist solutions? And don't tell me about the need for "filibuster proof majorities." The republicans haven't had one in my lifetime but don't seem to have any trouble getting their agenda passed even when they only hold a 51-49 majority in the Senate.
That's why those are the solutions on offer.
The Ds and the Rs form a single entity (and the fact that some Rs hate some Ds doesn't affect that at all).
See under The Ratchet Effect.
we really have no idea yet whether democratic policies will work, but yet the true believer obamatrons are jumping for joy.
the health care "reform" has not kicked in but yet it is counted as an achievement, when all it will probably do is mandate profits for the insurco monopoly.
the stimulus package has driven us deeper in debt, so yeah, there may be some jobs (with interest), but when the moneys gone, so are the jobs.
as far as the war goes, yeah, our peace prize president has done what he said he would do, doesn't make it right.
the shrub, plus 30 years of supply side bullshit has devastated this country, it is going to take more than tinkering with the system to fix it. it is going to take the bully pulpit, plus deep, deep, reforms of the system to pull the USA out of the quicksand; not the halfassed "reforms" we have seen so far, the financial "reform" bill being the latest example.
even if true reform were to not pass congress, it needs to be articulated, so that the public at least has a clue, obama is not cutting it. the president , and the dems will lose at the polls because they are not presenting a viable alternative to business as usual.
Let's impeach the SOB for all of his
compromises! (How dare he get anything
done)
Heck, all we have to do to impeach him
is don't show up to vote. That will work
wonders and we can return the coutry to
the effective leadership offered by the GOP.
Sure - THAT's the ticket!
"I know that there are people who do not love their fellow
man, and I hate people like that! " ~ Tom Lehrer (1928 - )
If Obama and his crew of neocons, neoliberals, corporatists, plutophiles, conservatives, ad nauseaum hadn't made such a single-minded effort to so utterly betray the trust of the middle/progressive/liberal Democrats (which, by the way, is probably greater than 50% of those who voted for him), a group whom Obama and his personal Rasputin®, Rahm Emanuel have minimized and dismissed as the "left wing" (how convenient), they wouldn't be in the spot they are in.
Mr Obama and Crew, you whining friggin' biatches: You've made your bed, now sleep on it. You are a lying POS who falsely represented himself. You've accomplished exactly shit, nothing but half-assed measures that only make things worse and assure that some poor schmuck in the future is going to have to clean up the messes that you made possible. You have consistantly chosen to abandon even minimum standards of principle to which you give lip service in order to perenially pursue some transient expedient of athe moment that benefitted everybody (if a corporation can be an everybody)except those you were elected to serve. Then, you've always rationalized your poor and corrupt choices by calling yourself a "pragmatist". You aren't part of the solutions as so many of us had dared to hope, you're just part of the problems, G.W.Bush, Mk II.
You want the "left wing's" support"? Why don't you try earning it, numbnuts. If you aren't willing to do that, then STFU.
Oh...and Rahm Emanuel: Fuck you.
I'm in awe and will worship from this day forward!
Welsh: Do the democratic party a favor.
Please.
Take R.E.'s heart-felt advice, and just STFU.
And then ask yourself: "After I STFU, what then would Rahm Emanuel have me do"?
The answer being: take counsel of your fears.
After all, you are a charter member of the lesser-of-two-evils club.
It always does come down to STFU with you guys, doesn't it?
Why is that, I wonder? Can't cut it on policy?
Anyone here ever post where there are right wingers? Maturity and emotional control can hardly be used to describe their posts. And the same thing can be said about the t party and their antics.
We get a President for four years, maybe 8, and Senators for 6. If we lack patience, maybe it's because once we realize these people will not do what they said they would do while campaiging, we have to wait years to do anything about it. Before you know it our children are grown and things have worsened.
Assholes like Politico should wake up, because our immaturity and impetuousness could turn into something much more serious than a few democrats losing elections. Because that's not the problem. The problem is the two-party system is a sham. An illusion of democracy is not a democracy, and it can't be hidden any more. And maybe this is what the financial elites in this country fear the most.
The health care bill WAS the bill he campaigned upon. Reaching out to the other side WAS what he campaigned upon. Virtually everything he campaigned upon is what we've got. If you are having buyers remorse it's because you weren't paying attention to what he was selling. It's NOT because he didn't deliver it.
So, I guess Guantanamo has been closed, we are out of Iraq, we don't torture anymore, and Don't ask don't tell has been repealed?
The health care bill he campaigned on had a public option and no mandates. The one we got has mandates, but no public option.
He reached out to the other side and they shunned him. He should say, "I tried," and moved on.
We're not out of Iraq. He hasn't closed Gitmo. We still torture. He hasn't restored Habeas Corpus. We don't yet have the green jobs he promised. And his administration is riddled with corporate insiders.
To be fair, too much of this discussion if focusing on Obama. We should also be focusing on the bluedogs in Congress, especially the Senate. After all, the title refers to "Democratic failures," not Obama failures. But then again, he did nominate bluedogs to his administration. I mean, what Tim Geithner is doing there is beyond me. And Rahm Emanuel has worn out his welcome, as far as I'm concerned.
I never bought into what the Obama Fans were telling me, and I left the party because it doesn't represent my values and interests.
Since the legacy party system is not electorally responsive (see 200, FL; 2004 OH; 2008 D primaries, caucus theft) it needs to be destroyed. It will be destroyed when one of the legacy parties crumbles, because they prop each other up. I don't care which one goes first, but it looks like The Big O has brought the Ds closer to the brink, so good for him.
yes
I think the president's biggest problem was over esitmating the country's desire to work together and improve things for everyone. He didn't realize there was more desire for a divided country than there was to work together for the betterment of everyone.
Say what you mean. Mean what you say. But don't say it mean.
agent who brought about that change he and many of us hoped could happen.
TFR
his experts came up with a catchy slogan, and there was no alternative, the only thing worse than what is happening now would be gramps and barbie; still doesn't help us out of the mess we are in.
Yes indeed. He thought the country was in such a mess that everyone would come together, especially in DC, to get us back on track. As soon as he took the office he heard the republicans declare, We want failure!
Say what you mean. Mean what you say. But don't say it mean.
It wasn't a bad strategy initially. It was worth a try. He gave working with the minority party a very good try. When it didn't work, he needed to change strategies. That has yet to happen.
If the White House wants to whine about lack of support, they should start by bitching to and then punishing the slackers in their own party...the Harry Reids, Nancy Pelosis and Bart Stupaks of the world who work to undercut their own Party's President.
"Anyone that makes less than $150K in this country, has no business voting Republican."
Unfortunately, I don’t think Barry has it in him. That ability to force legislation a la FDR or even Johnson requires a confrontational spirit which is lacking in this Administration. The “can’t we all just get along” meme has proven ineffective and detrimental. The will/ability to change course isn’t there.
Both had far bigger Congressional majorities and personal mandates. FDR had two years of depression before his election and another half year of worsening conditions before inauguration. LBJ had the Kennedy assassination as a rallying symbol. Obama took office with the worst of the economic collapse just appearing. And a Republican congressional caucus built around the Gingrich model of obstruction.
TFR
Be that as it may, both used very strong-arm tactics to force their legislation through Congress. FDR's were border-line unConstitutional (as evidenced by the SCOTUS rulings), but he got it done.
to solve the Depression took years to pay off.
LBJ enjoyed bigger majorities, had bipartisan support for two of his big three legislative accomplishments and the open bigotry of the South acting on behalf of an immoral cause as a foil.
TFR
I can’t disagree with any of your historical facts; and I know we’re talking about three different eras. What LBJ and FDR had in common was a confrontational approach to Congress and a heavy-handed control of their own party. In non-crisis times, this would scare the hell out of me. At this time, after years of BushCo not even needing any effort to pass their agendas, I would like to see at least a semblance of this approach by this Administration. What I see instead is bad negotiations and a desire to appease. It’s the wrong time and a very bad political climate for that.
With 80 and 70 Democrats in the Senate both men could AFFORD to be "in your face". Barack can't. The netroots should be trying to get those kind of majorities instead of doing all it can to depress the base.
nicely done! please continue!
The President's problem is the tremendous pressure he gets every day from corporations and their ass sucking proxies in the Congress and in his own Administration (do you hear me Rahm Emanuel).
I won't go into my usual diabribe about the DLC and how that whole change in strategy has wrought all of the problems we now see in the Democratic Party.
"Anyone that makes less than $150K in this country, has no business voting Republican."
We should find out, and straighten out their thinking.
A corporate shill
He never "underestimated the country's desire to work together."
He's used "bipartisanship" as cover for his corporate agenda.
Democracy is too important to be entrusted to politicians.
Rise Up!
Protest!
are for not recognizing that agenda even under its candy coated cover.
TFR
So, we really got a red M&M that was dyed blue?
"Anyone that makes less than $150K in this country, has no business voting Republican."
And the kid who sold it to us kept kicking us in the backside while we walked away desperately trying to peel open the wrapper.
We should have shopped at old Uncle Ralph's corner store instead.
TFR
Crazy uncle Ralph...
1. conservative dems are not dems, they are republicans. period. they just have a D by their name for election purposes, but they will never be progressive. there are about 5-8 of them in the Senate, and they are single-handedly responsible for watering down every bit of progressive legislation that has been passed by the House. please give up this illusion of a super majority. it never existed, particularly with regards to the big issues
2. while Obama has been far from perfect, he has been the most progressive president since Johnson was forced to be. had bill clinton actually passed this HCR legislation 17 yrs ago, we might acutally have at least a public option by now. Obama is slowly starting to clean up decades of fuckups but it won't happen all at once because of this jacked up system of gov't that we have
3. where is the progressive movement? we can't stick the blogosphere and expect the change that we want. tea partiers took to the streets to stop a public option, where were we? at our computers? if we wanted more stimulus, why didn't we demand it. why didn't we demonstrate more on behalf of financial reform? what happened to the anti-war movement? i thought it was "we the people", not "you, the gov't"...
Agreed.
Disagree. Jimmy Carter had more progressive ideas in his pinkie than LBJ had in his entire body.
Re: #3, this is a good point but I suspect the demoralization of asking for things (public option, scaled back Patriot Act, out if Iraq, etc., etc., etc.) and not even getting a listen has taken its toll. Add a shrieking MSM that is unable to discern fact from fiction, and an adminstration that clearly does not give a shit about what the "left" wants, and it's a fairly predictible outcome.
If things get much worse, I fear we might actually take to the streets, and that ain't going to be pretty.
the minor point of criticism the Politico aims at the left blogoshphere is correct. More mature blogs have taken the Politico piece for what it was, a critique of Obama's failure to keep the support which elected him despite his record.
This piece instead focuses as if the Politico piece blamed the blogosphere
for Democratic failures. First the piece is about Obama, not Democrats. Second it lists the blogopshere last in importance in the problems it identifies Obama as having.
"here are a half-dozen reasons why Obama is perceived as failing to win over the public, even though by most conventional measures he is clearly succeeding:" The blogosphere isn't mentioned until page 4 of a four page piece. The largest problem they identify is failure of Obama to keep independents happy.
The Politico piece says the blogosphere is immature. That is too broad a brush. But those in the blogosphere who distort any criticism of their media field into a major attack display the self centeredness often associated with immaturity. This piece not only distorts the importance of the criticism in the Politico piece, it never addresses it's substance.
This post is a major attack on the substantive policies of Obama. It's author concludes with "I don't want Obama doing anything I agree with, because he will screw it up and discredit it." That is insightful and mature beyond words.
TFR
I like Politico better when it does what it does best. Promoting the GOP agenda without trying to look like they are centrists.
We already have Daily Kos for that.
"Anyone that makes less than $150K in this country, has no business voting Republican."
Yes now carefully go and reread the Politico article, all four pages, and tell me if the title reflects the article to which it responds.
I wrote this in response to an earlier comment, obviously. As to your most recent suggestion, I would concur in part. I ignore Politico for the most part. The reason I read this Politico piece is because the author of this post took such umbrage at even being labeled a minor source of Obama's difficulties.
TFR
Umbrage! Great word!
"Anyone that makes less than $150K in this country, has no business voting Republican."
It is a prerequisite to satisfactory mental waste evacuation.
TFR
The article was incredibly shallow.
Obama has a "likability" problem? Because his west wing staff drop "F bombs"? And the media feels unloved?
Even Tweety thinks that this a little too "inside baseball".
satisfied is to get everything you want in life exactly as you want it then life must suck for you cause nobody gets what they want every time. What I wanted was simple, I wanted the GOP to understand that there is another America that wasn't happy with all of the sick shit they do. And I wanted them to know that we also vote. But it looks like they think what happen was ACORN's fault and since ACORN is gone they can get back to being worst assholes than before. And some of us are going to help them out because we aren't 100% satisfied. Don't be stupid, if you want more progessive people in government then you have to get them elected by campaigning and voting for them. The more successful you are at doing that then the more progressive the government will be.
Wow... taking it a bit personal aren't we? The petulant childlike anger displayed by the post and so many comments is unfortunately a sign why the left can never move as a cohesive body to gain enough staying power to have the ability to maintain a voting majority to effect needed change.
Whaahhh!!! Obama didn't do everything I him told to!!! So what he doesn't have the votes!!! Whahhhh!!!!
Seriously. The sign of maturity is to be able to understand you can't always get what you want as soon as you want it. And considering the hand Obama was dealt when he entered office, this misplaced outrage is not only foolish, it is self-desructive as well. I am amazed that instead of going into the mid-terms with the goal of gaining more progressive seats, or at the very least maintaining the fragile majority we currently have, the left seems to have thrown in the towel accepting defeat because it didn't all go the way their unattainable fantasies dreamed it would. Deifying Obama as the great hope who would fix all with a wave of his hand, which way too many bought into, was not healthy in the bigger picture known as political reality.
The idea of where we are now seemed almost impossible a few years ago... remember Bush/Cheney? Treating Obama as if he was W is just plain stupid. Do I agree with everything? Of course not. I would have preferred a different team of economic advisors who weren't tainted by Goldman Sachs. I wanted a public option... in fact I want single payer but it isn't attainable at this point in time. Once people accept the modest healthcare that passed we can take it to the next level, but with so much of the country running around screaming "Socialism!!!" coupled with rampant racism because a Black Man is in the White House, we can only push so far at this point in time. That is a reality and none of the self-important it's all about me whining is going to change it.
Mike Finnigan of Mike's Blog Roundup posted this link today:
Is It Time to Give Obama A Break?
http://www.democracyarsenal.org/2010/07/is-it...
"... so many of these criticisms seem deeply misplaced and divorced from the very real constraints on Obama's ability to follow through on his agenda."
Please read it before you turn the circular firing squad on me. I can take it... but I don't know how much longer the country can.
.
TFR
Sure... but it won't make any difference.
Good comment, mayhempix. Very helpful to the right to act as if Obama was supposed to be superman especially with the cretins they have as spokespeople, the hideous tea party and the destruction of Main Street by the Bushies. Pretty stupid of the left to buy into that meme. Remember every time they yell socialist they are also saying I am a fascist. They are proving it in Arizona and Utah right now.
this is what i have been saying for over a year. Obama seems to be more out to discredit the left than about instituting meaningful reform. And the "reforms" have done nothing but solidify an unstoppable corporatist agenda. I think the prime example of that is the Bart Stupid abortion hissy fit. Did any single progressive member of Congress have a hissy over the public option? NO!!! Yet this guy flips out over a non-issue (maybe it was but who cares) and everyone bows down to pat is bottom and give him everything he wants. And he represents a couple hundred thousand uneducated rednecks in Northern Michigan! And had any of you "liberal" bloggers flipped out, he would have sicked Rahmbo on your a**es and he would have put you in your place. Oh, wait, he did.
I want to know why. Why appoint someone to the Supreme Court who just lost a major argument over corporate power? She was fighting for the gov't against corporate power and lost. Now she gets rewarded with a seat at the decision table.
I have really been pondering a couple things recently. First, the 14th amendment. It seems to me that was passed more to reward corporations with untouchable power than it was about giving common people equal rights. Second, those founding fathers. Were they really interested in helping everyone be equal and NOT live under the power of a king and gov't? Or were they just jealous and trying to set up their own kingdoms over here? And what they did was paint it as this great wonderful idea of democracy and the American Dream, where u too can have your own little kingdom yet the deck is stacked against you as it always has been. But this idea of the American Dream sure motivates people to work themselves to death and give up any rights that they have as human beings.
Logic and political reality... ur doing it wrong.
isn't that he isn't as liberal as I would like. My beef with him is that, like his health care legislation, he went from tolerable to shitty in the blink of an eye. Just voting for him was compromise enough, we then had to compromise again a few months later when he announced his energy policy, and when he bailed on the prescription meds plan, and when he bailed on the public option, and when he announced troop escalations, extended the Patriot Act, prolonged G.W. Douche's Habeas Corpus policy and so forth. I started 2009 going, (heavy sigh) "Yeah, well, at least he's not as bad as Grampa Maverick and Caribou Barbie." But I'm no longer convinced. Which thing would McCain/Palin have done differently?
Are we to believe Emanuel & Axelrod were unable to anticipate the counterattack that Freedomworks generated? Couldn't they have engineered their own attack campaign? How about this:
"Are you afraid of quitting your job for fear of losing your health coverage, which won't be there for you anyway when you really need it? Then support our new Health Care initiative."
See? That's not so hard, is it? They were never after health care reform, they were after the appearance of heath care reform. Ever seen "Wag the Dog?"
Believe in conspiracies much?
Just the true ones. Like the one that got us in Iraq. And the one that Freedomworks generated. Or the one wherein the media covers the 500 protesting teabaggers but ignores the 250,000 immigration reform demonstrators. And so forth.
The Iraq "conspiracy" was a small group that withheld evidence before the vote to give W the power to go to war. It was not a monolithic conspiracy and has been revealed. I wouldn't call Freedomworks a conspiracy as much as it is disgusting corporate PR. Rachel Maddow did a good job exposing them as well as show that they didn't shy away from proudly claiming responsibility for their lies. The press... well it's all about eyeballs and soundbites. That's not a conspiracy, just plain old fashioned American greed. And you and I knew about about the immigration protests so they weren't exactly hidden from view. Of course Fox News is a different story altogether...
But healthcare was an Obama administration conspiracy? Sorry but like it or not, it all boils down to getting votes. Everything you wrote including "Are you afraid of quitting your job for fear of losing your health coverage, which won't be there for you anyway when you really need it? Then support our new Health Care initiative." was out there and very visible. As you can see Tea Bagger paranoia and fear stalled the momentum. The right are masters at pushing the shock the monkey button.
"Compromise" requires give and take. Obama bailed on the public option without getting anything in return. For instance, he could have required Freedomworks or other business interests to publicly support the legislation in exchange for removing the public option. Instead, he caved, because the public option had already served its purpose, which was to mobilize the so-called "left" behind his candidacy. Same with getting out of Iraq and closing Gitmo, neither of which he actually intended to do.
And regarding the media, why is it more profitable to cover the teabaggers and not the immigration demonstrators? If your thesis that they only want viewers and/or hits on the website, it therefore stands to reason that they should cover the immigration rally, if only to rile up the teabaggers. But I was using that as only one of many, many, many examples. The Downing Street Memo, for instance, or the US Attorney firings, both of which were completely ignored by the networks and mainstream newspapers, at least until they were exposed on the blogosphere. And speaking of the blogosphere, that is the only reason "you and I knew about the immigration protests." If not for bloggers, "you and I" would never have heard "about the immigration protests."
And now for another "conspiracy" for you: The impending death of net neutrality is a direct response to the above blogger exposés.
Wrong... he got votes.
"Why is it more profitable to cover the teabaggers and not the immigration demonstrators?"
Because the majority don't really give crap about immigrants and only react when they see immigrants carrying mexican flags in rallies. Teabaggers are colorful, insanely ignorant, provide astounding soundbites and carry nice big racist signs.
You seem to think I don't think the blogosphere has been effective in revealing info that the MSM comes to too late or not at all. I wouldn't be here if that was the case.
Please explain who you think is part of the big conspiracy to end Net Neutrality? FTR I have been a vocal supporter of Net Neutrality for years.
to end Net Neutrality?
AT&T, Comcast, Bell Canada, Verizon, former Clintion press secretary, Mike McCurry, Dick Armey, etc.
"We are already seeing ISPs controlling speech with which they disagree. For example, Time Warner's AOL blocked all e-mails that mentioned "www.dearaol.com", an advocacy campaign opposing the company's pay-to-send e-mail scheme. BellSouth recently blocked its customers' access to MySpace.com in Tennessee and Florida. Net discrimination is real, it is occurring now, and is only going to get worse."
That's not a conspiracy... it is business as usual.
it's business as usual. When AT&T censors Eddy Vedder's lyrics during a live webcast of Lollapalooza, it's censorship.
Pearl Jam's recent cybercast of Sunday's Lollapalooza concert was censored by AT&T to cut out certain lyrics that were seen as Anti-Bush. The news has caused fans of Pearl Jam and free speech to grow quite pissed off as they look for answers.
While the band was performing "Daughter," they drifted into part of Pink Floyd's "Another Brick in the Wall," at which time Eddie Vedder sang, "George Bush, leave this world alone" and "George Bush, find yourself another home." Those lyrics were mysteriously missing from the broadcast.
Dude, that is old news and you are preaching to the converted. But a conspiracy it isn't. They do it because they can.
two or more people cooperate in committing (or attempting to commit) a crime. For the purposes of this discussion, we are broadening the definition to include "deceiving the public," even though doing so isn't necessary illegal. If you see me sitting in my car and ask me for a ride without divulging to me that you just robbed a liquor store, that's not a conspiracy, even though I helped you get away. If, on the other hand, we plan the getaway in advance, then it is a conspiracy.
Likewise, if AT&T decides to censor a rock star, it isn't a conspiracy. If AT&T, Verizon, AOL, Sprint, Comcast and a bunch of politicians attempt to enact legislation that will make such censorship commonplace while simultaneously misleading the electorate about the true purpose of said legislation, then it is a conspiracy. But, unfortunately, you are right about one thing: It's also business as usual.
Conspiracies happen. The Gulf of Tonkin incident was a conspiracy. Operation Ajax was a conspiracy. Operation Mockingbird was a conspiracy. This tendency among the Left to tar all conspiracies with the "alien autopsy" brush is a major barrier to clear and honest thinking regarding the mechanics of what we refer to as politics.
".. we are broadening the definition to include "deceiving the public"
No, you are broadening the definition.
It is the public who "tar all conspiracies with the "alien autopsy" brush ." That is why the term is ineffective. It turns people away before they take the time to read or hear the content. 911 Trufers and New World Order freaks have made the term unusable turning it into "a major barrier to clear and honest thinking regarding the mechanics of what we refer to as politics."
whatever term you want to use for "unelected interests clandestinely influencing public policy" is okay with me. My point -- and, once again, I think you understand this, but just want to avoid admitting it -- is that most of what we refer to as "politics" is a stage presentation designed to give the people the impression that they are controlling things.
But that's meaningless, isn't it? Simply getting votes is easy. Republicans got votes for the Help America Vote Act, which actually makes it more difficult to vote.
If getting votes was easy, we would have the Public Option. But then everyone on the all or nothing left would be bitching because it wasn't Single Payer (which is the best solution).
You have illuminated the point I have been making all along... it is about getting the votes. Sorry. I know it is frustrating and sucks and usually doesn't get all, if any, of what we want, but that is how it is. All the breast beating and kvetching and childish outrage (that isn't directed at you personally but to the left in general) isn't going to change anything and in fact serves to prevent us from moving as a whole based on common goals. The right has this figured out. They are kissing Tea Party ass for that very reason. They love it that we self-destruct in internecine wars. That is how they win.
getting votes for legislation that actually disrupts the status quo is very, very difficult. But if you gut the status quo-disrupting elements from the legislation, getting votes becomes easy. Simply calling something, say, The Clean Water Act isn't enough. It has to actually clean the water in order to be meaningful. That was what I was referring to with the Help America Vote Act. Who wants to be known as the guy who voted against helping America vote? No one. So they vote for shitty legislation that actually makes it more difficult for America to vote. What you refer to as "breast beating and kvetching and childish outrage" can also be referred to as keeping our elected officials honest.
Look at it this way: If you want to sell your boat for $5,000, but someone offers $2,500, simply accepting their offer isn't an achievement. Negotiating for something in exchange for dropping your price so that you actually get something out of the deal is an achievement.
With that in mind, if Obama were negotiating in good faith on behalf of those who elected him, he would've started with single payer, then forced WellPoint et al to talk him down to the public option. In other words, start at "Good" and settle for "tolerable." As it is, he started at "tolerable" and settled for "shitty." Was this because he and his advisers are shitty negotiators, or was it because they never intended real reform to begin with?
"What you refer to as "breast beating and kvetching and childish outrage" can also be referred to as keeping our elected officials honest."
Oh yeah, that strategy seems to be working so well... lmfao.
Look, I would have loved it if they had started with Single Payer but they made a political calculation that it would shut things down before it ever got off the ground. Were they wrong? Maybe... but I believe they were negotiating in good faith and no matter how you look at it they got something through that will have a real effect on the lives of people who really need it.
It's been fun and it's been real but I must return to the physical world. Have fun whacking those balls into the water...
;^ )
Bill Clinton had Republicans in charge of both the House and the Senate. Anything they passed held because whatever Clinton vetoed THEY overrode the veto. That is how almost all the Rethuglican agenda got passed. Bill Clinton did pass NAFTA, the worst mistake he could have done. NAFTA was a Bush I agenda and Clinton should have nipped it in the bud. But having passed NAFTA, it COULD HAVE DONE A LOT OF GOOD if the Rethuglicans had not made it way too much more favorable to the other countries benefit than to Americas.
The Rethuglicans spent 6 entire YEARS passing their destruction of America agenda and tens of millions of dollars "investigating" Clinton.
Republithugs, and way too many Democrats as well, hated Clinton before he even won the election and were INCENSED that he had the audacity to beat out their Bushie. He was not born with a silver spoon in his mouth and they and the Blue rabies coalition resented a person of his "underclass" being their "boss".
It was a Democrat who said, on the floor of Congress, that "I can't guarantee his safety if he goes to my state.", a veiled threat if I ever heard one.
Bill Clinton made the tremendous mistake that Obama is repeating in watering down every necessary and VITAL piece of legislation to appease the enemy on the other side rather than just do what's right. When Bush 2 comes along with his evil twin, Cheney, and they commit REAL crimes, even atrocities, the left is scared to enforce the law of the Constitution and IMPEACH THEM because they might get mad and accuse the left of "getting even".
Even Napolitano, as right as they come, says they SHOULD HAVE BEEN IMPEACHED AND PROSECUTED.
Republithugs are the ENEMIES OF THE PEOPLE, but they have one talent of note. They are able to convince the same people who are most harmed by THEM that it is really the OTHER SIDE that is doing the harm. And they prey on the selfishness of the fanatics in their ranks and make everything necessary to the livelihoods of the 98 percent of Americans who don't have millions or billions in tax shelters into an attack against REAL Americans, you know, the millionaires and billionaires who DO write those checks.
These are the people who have made COLD BLOODED MURDER legal if you own a corporation, especially if it is an INSURANCE corporation ripping off their customers and sentencing people to early death if they have the audacity to get sick with something more costly than the sniffles.
Where are the voices of all you "Constitutionalists" when the right ignores the part of the Constitution that FORBIDS invasion of sovereign countries, and, like it or NOT, Iraq, Iran, Pakistan, Afghanistan, and all the rest ARE sovereign countries, to gain control of that countries natural resources? Natural resources, for those righties who don't know, includes OIL.
Stop repeating the lies of the right and start researching the truth and then WAKE UP. If the THUGS get back in control they will FINISH the job of destroying this country and force all of you and your kids and grandkids to live in a dictatorship where ONE religion is the law of the land. WAKE UP!
The "ENEMIES OF THE PEOPLE" are Republcans with (D) after their name, like Evan Bayh, Mary Landrieu, Blanche Lincoln...and Rahm Emanuel & Barack Obama.
But the fact there are Thugs with a (D) after their name does NOT change the fact of the G-NO-BP Republicans being the ENEMIES OF THE PEOPLE too.
I also KNOW Republicans who are decent and intelligent and loving people. However, none of them are IN CONGRESS at this time.
Obama accepted shitloads of BP money as a senator.
The best of the Democratic candidates were weeded out by the media before the election because the media wanted to run with the "black" candidate vs. the "female" candidate.
Hillary got more votes than Obama but Obama got the "super delegates".
But Obama is a heck of a lot better than a Chuckleberry or a Romney or "God Forbid" a Ron Paul, though he is right about ending the war.
Not to mention John McSenile who got LOST on stage in the second debate and who stated on the record that he "cooperated" with the Viet Cong for "extra cigarettes and coffee", who would have spent 20 years locked up in a stockade somewhere if his daddy, the Admiral, hadn't wisked him off the ship after he dropped his bombs on deck and caused the deaths of 162 of his shipmates even before he got shot down in Vietnam.
Brian Springer (not to be confused with Jerry) lays it out in his excellent documentary, "Spin."
your claim about Obama and BP is horseshit.
TFR
http://www.reuters.com/article/idUSTRE64420A2...
Obama biggest recipient of BP cash
"During his time in the Senate and while running for president, Obama received a total of $77,051 from the oil giant and is the top recipient of BP PAC and individual money over the past 20 years, according to financial disclosure records."
And he put it all in his pocket while pursuing policy that will cost him millions in small contributions...
logic... ur doing it wrong.
weslen1 used the term, "G-NO-BP," to which I replied, "It's worth remembering that Obama accepted shitloads of BP money as a senator." to which Ricky replied, "your claim about Obama and BP is horseshit," after which, I proved Ricky wrong using a reputable citation. Now you are employing misplaced sarcasm combined with some bizarre rationalization in desperate attempt to maintain the carefully constructed myth that Obama really is different and that unelected interests aren't manipulating the electorate to work against its own best interests.
Comments are closed on this entry