• Menu
  • Skip to primary navigation
  • Skip to main content
  • Skip to primary sidebar

Before Header

  • About Us
  • Lexicon
  • Contact Us
  • Our Store
  • ↑
  • ↓
  • ←
  • →

Balloon Juice

Come for the politics, stay for the snark.

Dear media: perhaps we ought to let Donald Trump speak for himself!

Take hopelessness and turn it into resilience.

The fundamental promise of conservatism all over the world is a return to an idealized past that never existed.

Disappointing to see gov. newsom with his finger to the wind.

A snarling mass of vitriolic jackals

Good lord, these people are nuts.

It may be funny to you motherfucker, but it’s not funny to me.

Jesus, Mary, & Joseph how is that election even close?

There is no right way to do the wrong thing.

I might just take the rest of the day off and do even more nothing than usual.

Sadly, there is no cure for stupid.

We can show the world that autocracy can be defeated.

Teach a man to fish, and he’ll sit in a boat all day drinking beer.

If you cannot answer whether trump lost the 2020 election, you are unfit for office.

These are not very smart people, and things got out of hand.

We’re watching the self-immolation of the leading world power on a level unprecedented in human history.

I’d like to think you all would remain faithful to me if i ever tried to have some of you killed.

A democracy can’t function when people can’t distinguish facts from lies.

the 10% who apparently lack object permanence

When we show up, we win.

… pundit janitors mopping up after the gop

We cannot abandon the truth and remain a free nation.

The most dangerous place for a black man in America is in a white man’s imagination.

There are some who say that there are too many strawmen arguments on this blog.

Mobile Menu

  • Seattle Meet-up Post
  • 2025 Activism
  • Targeted Political Fundraising
  • Donate with Venmo, Zelle & PayPal
  • Site Feedback
  • War in Ukraine
  • Submit Photos to On the Road
  • Politics
  • On The Road
  • Open Threads
  • Topics
  • COVID-19
  • Authors
  • About Us
  • Contact Us
  • Lexicon
  • Our Store
  • Politics
  • Open Threads
  • 2025 Activism
  • Garden Chats
  • On The Road
  • Targeted Fundraising!
You are here: Home / Open Threads / Give Us What We Want, Or the Country Gets It

Give Us What We Want, Or the Country Gets It

by John Cole|  February 10, 201011:06 am| 261 Comments

This post is in: Open Threads

FacebookTweetEmail

Love this from MoveOn:

ransom_note_final

Also, this:

I honestly have never seen such a weak display as what I have seen from the Democrats. Just pathetic. No wonder all the “soft on terror” and “soft on security” stuff sticks. They are soft on everything- except when it comes to infighting. Then they come out with guns a blazin’.

Just a hopeless party. I’m about ready to just bend over and let the GOP take over. At least they understand how to use power. We operate in a political environment in which our media not only excuses and shamelessness and hypocrisy, but openly encourages it so as to advance a story line. And, it appears, politically, that is rewarded as well.

FacebookTweetEmail
Previous Post: « Just Let the Media Establishment Burn
Next Post: What’s the downside? »

Reader Interactions

261Comments

  1. 1.

    Comrade Jake

    February 10, 2010 at 11:08 am

    We are really fucking screwed.

  2. 2.

    Waynski

    February 10, 2010 at 11:12 am

    Amazingly, they can use power even when they don’t have any, because the Dems let them. Quite a trick.

  3. 3.

    Zifnab

    February 10, 2010 at 11:13 am

    Just a hopeless party. I’m about ready to just bend over and let the GOP take over.

    As goes John Cole, so goes the nation.

  4. 4.

    Dan B

    February 10, 2010 at 11:15 am

    Brad over at Sadly seems to be experiencing similar thoughts this morning, albeit for different reasons:

    http://www.sadlyno.com/archives/28320.html

  5. 5.

    demkat620

    February 10, 2010 at 11:15 am

    I don’t get it either. Can you imagine what Karl Rove would do with material like this?

  6. 6.

    demo woman

    February 10, 2010 at 11:16 am

    Under “also this” is a blank slate. Is that indicative of the parties brain? Anyone else having that problem?

    Never mind it just appeared. Great video.

  7. 7.

    Punchy

    February 10, 2010 at 11:17 am

    Cole seems concerned.

  8. 8.

    El Cid

    February 10, 2010 at 11:18 am

    Again — is it weakness, or is it that the leadership has fundamental conflicts of what it is they want? Look, it’s not “weakness” for a Ben Nelson to join Republicans on an ideological war against labor and unions to join a Republican filibuster, it’s not “weakness” for Max Baucus to vanish into a cellar with 3 hand picked Republicans and 2 other Democrats drawn from what otherwise would have been a Democrat-dominated Finance Committee all the while raking in increasing contributions from insurers and pharma, and I don’t see any evidence that Harry Reid is “weak” but that he pursues the things he supports and doesn’t do the things he doesn’t want to do.

    The kinds of things they’re divided on — i.e., the kinds of things that motivate 1/10th of the Democratic Senate to more or less fundamentally oppose the agenda of the rest of the Senate Democrats, usually by using indirect and process excuses — are major, major issues of society and how they want the nation to run and where are allocated our economic resources and who will most profit from those choices.

    It’s pathetic, but it isn’t because of ‘confusion’ or ‘weakness’ or ‘stupidity’ or ‘spinelessness’.

    The Republicans really all do fundamentally agree with each other on the basic issues of how to run the country for whose benefit and how they want the average person to think about things and with what terms. Democrats do not.

    And it isn’t a lack of willpower or over-presence of shrill bloggers that make that be the case.

  9. 9.

    Hiram Taine

    February 10, 2010 at 11:18 am

    Two quick points..

    First; the note is not credible, it’s entirely too grammatical and the spelling too good.

    Second; I’m convinced this is at least partially Kabuki on the part of the Dems, *nobody* that gets to national level office is that consistently inept at politics. That the clearly insane Repubs are political Stephen Hawkings and the Dems are Dumb and Dumber is not credible either.

    At one time I thought the Dems were just gutless wonders, now I’m convinced they are playing to lose, or at least a substantial portion of them are.

  10. 10.

    Sir Nose'D

    February 10, 2010 at 11:19 am

    When it comes to political gamesmanship, the GOP is the Harlem Globetrotters. The democrats are the Washington Generals.

  11. 11.

    eemom

    February 10, 2010 at 11:20 am

    I think this second massive snow dump on Washington (and it is really brutal here, ladies and gentlemen) is a modern day Noah’s flood. The stench of rot and bullshit from this city has reached to the high Heavens, and God can’t take it anymore.

    Now, how do I get an arc to float on snow….?

  12. 12.

    Notorious P.A.T.

    February 10, 2010 at 11:20 am

    This would be a good time to have a charismatic, well-liked leader of our party to go around combating this crap instead of holding [another] pointless bipartisan health care summit.

  13. 13.

    Max

    February 10, 2010 at 11:22 am

    @Notorious P.A.T.: Please explain why Obama has to be solely responsible for everything. Shouldn’t there be another dem that can play point guard once in a while?

  14. 14.

    Notorious P.A.T.

    February 10, 2010 at 11:22 am

    @Dan B:

    President Obama said he doesn’t “begrudge” the $17 million bonus awarded to JPMorgan Chase & Co. Chief Executive Officer Jamie Dimon or the $9 million issued to Goldman Sachs Group Inc. CEO Lloyd Blankfein, noting that some athletes take home more pay.

    Uh, Congress’s fault?

  15. 15.

    FlipYrWhig

    February 10, 2010 at 11:22 am

    John, what prompted this? Something new this morning? Or just what Gary Larson, in his cartoon about the janitor at the zoo snake-house, called “a cumulative attack of the willies”?

  16. 16.

    t jasper parnell

    February 10, 2010 at 11:23 am

    @El Cid: I think this is correct and I think that fact that Maddow is reporting the stuff she is reporting and no, or nearly no, one else is is evidence that the Dems are trying but not getting the word out.

  17. 17.

    John Quixote

    February 10, 2010 at 11:23 am

    The Big Dog said it best – “People will always go for strong and wrong, rather than weak and right (paraphrase, don’t remember actual quote off the top of me noggin)

  18. 18.

    Woodbuster

    February 10, 2010 at 11:23 am

    What it boils down to is that the American public at large is willfully ignorant. The vast majority of our citizens are too stupid to come in out of a shitstorm, and so we will get the “government” we so richly deserve. The Republicans just happen to understand this fact on a much deeper level than others, and are willing to take full advantage of it.

    It may be true that the majority of them woke up just long enough to get Obama elected, but the stupid has apparently kicked back in.

  19. 19.

    danimal

    February 10, 2010 at 11:24 am

    The progressive left is right about the need for Dems to stand up and fight the GOP. They’re usually wrong at the tactical level (Dean’s 50 state strategy being the exception that proves the rule), but the need for a strong progressive party that turns the GOP reps into WATB is a correct diagnosis of the problem.

  20. 20.

    Max

    February 10, 2010 at 11:24 am

    @Dan B: Too bad he is reacting to a chopped up quote.

    Seriously, if I were Obama, I’d fucking quit. This country is too stupid to lead.

  21. 21.

    John Cole

    February 10, 2010 at 11:25 am

    @FlipYrWhig: I turned the tv on and surfed the MSM websites.

  22. 22.

    Notorious P.A.T.

    February 10, 2010 at 11:26 am

    Shouldn’t there be another dem that can play point guard once in a while?

    Well technically, when you’re the point guard it isn’t your job to look around for someone else to pass the ball.

  23. 23.

    Brien Jackson

    February 10, 2010 at 11:26 am

    A bit more specific of a complaint would help, but ok.

  24. 24.

    Notorious P.A.T.

    February 10, 2010 at 11:28 am

    @Max:

    Too bad he is reacting to a chopped up quote.

    Then show us the real quote.

  25. 25.

    John Quixote

    February 10, 2010 at 11:28 am

    @Notorious P.A.T.: By the way, that it complete horseshit.

    Via GOS

    Q Let’s talk bonuses for a minute: Lloyd Blankfein, $9 million; Jamie Dimon, $17 million. Now, granted, those were in stock and less than what some had expected. But are those numbers okay?

    THE PRESIDENT: Well, look, first of all, I know both those guys. They’re very savvy businessmen. And I, like most of the American people, don’t begrudge people success or wealth. That’s part of the free market system. I do think that the compensation packages that we’ve seen over the last decade at least have not matched up always to performance. I think that shareholders oftentimes have not had any significant say in the pay structures for CEOs.

    Q Seventeen million dollars is a lot for Main Street to stomach.

    THE PRESIDENT: Listen, $17 million is an extraordinary amount of money. Of course, there are some baseball players who are making more than that who don’t get to the World Series either. So I’m shocked by that as well. I guess the main principle we want to promote is a simple principle of “say on pay,” that shareholders have a chance to actually scrutinize what CEOs are getting paid. And I think that serves as a restraint and helps align performance with pay. The other thing we do think is the more that pay comes in the form of stock that requires proven performance over a certain period of time as opposed to quarterly earnings is a fairer way of measuring CEOs’ success and ultimately will make the performance of American businesses better.

    Stop reading PUMA Central, I mean HuffPo.

    Edit – Block quote fail.

  26. 26.

    Max

    February 10, 2010 at 11:29 am

    @Notorious P.A.T.: A point guard creates opportunities to put points on the board.

    We need that in the Dem party.

    Obama is the star player, but he’s can’t do it alone if the team standing with him is the Clippers.

  27. 27.

    Rick Taylor

    February 10, 2010 at 11:29 am

    I honestly have never seen such a weak display as what I have seen from the Democrats. Just pathetic.

    __
    What exactly are you referring to here?

  28. 28.

    Max

    February 10, 2010 at 11:32 am

    @Notorious P.A.T.:

    As requested.

    Q Let’s talk bonuses for a minute: Lloyd Blankfein, $9 million; Jamie Dimon, $17 million. Now, granted, those were in stock and less than what some had expected. But are those numbers okay? THE PRESIDENT: Well, look, first of all, I know both those guys. They’re very savvy businessmen. And I, like most of the American people, don’t begrudge people success or wealth. That’s part of the free market system. I do think that the compensation packages that we’ve seen over the last decade at least have not matched up always to performance. I think that shareholders oftentimes have not had any significant say in the pay structures for CEOs.

    PUMA!

  29. 29.

    Gwangung

    February 10, 2010 at 11:35 am

    @Notorious P.A.T.: Um, dude, that’s PRECISELY the point guard’s job. He HAS to be able to pass and work to others to get his job done.

  30. 30.

    Violet

    February 10, 2010 at 11:35 am

    So true. About the only encouraging sign this time is that a lot of people seem to be calling the Dems on their cowardice. I don’t recall that happening before. Maybe it’ll wake them up. Not holding my breath, mind you.

    @Max:

    Seriously, if I were Obama, I’d fucking quit. This country is too stupid to lead.

    Yeah. And his own party is ridiculously stupid. They’ve got a goldmine out material out there to work with and yet…nothing. Total fail.

  31. 31.

    Chad S

    February 10, 2010 at 11:38 am

    The GOP is able to vote in unison because they threaten their members, the Dems won’t(at least to the level the GOP will). The GOP approval ratings are still low(and staying there), and Obama’s are staying in the 50-52% range(and barely moving), so I don’t see how the GOP is winning this national argument if you look outside of the beltway. The Village loves this narrative since its all about conflict, and the GOP is feeding that meme so that they hear about how great they’re doing in DC cocktail parties.

  32. 32.

    Notorious P.A.T.

    February 10, 2010 at 11:38 am

    I’m still waiting for someone to prove me wrong.

    “They are savvy businessmen”. Oh, is that why they bet our country’s future on housing prices always rising?

    “They are working in the free market system” It’s free market to be bailed out by the government when you run your business into the ground?

    “Shareholders should get a bigger say in how much CEOs are paid”. Aww, how sweet. He’s concerned about the poor shareholders. Not the taxpayers who footed the bill for that pay, of course. But who needs them when you have the shareholder vote locked up?

    It’s almost funny: the questioner tries to bail him out by bringing up Main Street, but he just steers the talk back to those poor shareholders.

  33. 33.

    SenyorDave

    February 10, 2010 at 11:39 am

    I’ve been waiting for ads from Dem/liberal/progressive groups attacking the GOP for not having any ideas, for lying, for attacking Mullen, Brennan, for ANYTHING, for God’s sakes.

    No, they are too busy going after Rahm and attcking any Dem who supports the HCR bill.

    Well, fuck FDL, fuck Kucinich, fuck Ed Schultz. These assholes deserve what they get, they fucking deserve a Romney/Huckabee/Gingrich presidency.

    Obama’s not perfect, but I genuinely believe he gets it, the system is broken, and he wants to start to fix it.

    The Democrats better re-invent themselves. Agood start would be a Statement of Principles. Go on the attck for once in their goddamn lives.

    Another good start would be to kick Harry Reid’s miserable ass out. And tell Nelson, Lincoln and some of the other blue dogs, start acting like a Democrat or GTFO.

  34. 34.

    Notorious P.A.T.

    February 10, 2010 at 11:39 am

    Um, dude, that’s PRECISELY the point guard’s job. He HAS to be able to pass and work to others to get his job done.

    Right. He has to make plays and make decisions. He’s not there to sit on the ball and say “When is Congress our center going to show some leadership?”

  35. 35.

    J. Michael Neal

    February 10, 2010 at 11:39 am

    @John Quixote: Note also that, for better or for worse, these are pretty large pay *cuts* for Dimon and Blankfein. Two years ago, Blankfein was getting about $68 million, and Dimon about $28 million. Dimon collected $1 million last year. Yes, that’s a lot of money. Yes, we need to change the system such that there isn’t that much floating around for them to grab. Looking at the one year totals in isolation, though, gives an inaccurate picture.

  36. 36.

    KCinDC

    February 10, 2010 at 11:40 am

    Seriously, has HuffPo completely turned into Drudge now? Look at that photo and headlines.

  37. 37.

    Notorious P.A.T.

    February 10, 2010 at 11:41 am

    Stop reading PUMA Central, I mean HuffPo.

    Strong: attacking the messenger. That’s valid. Welcome back to the Middle Ages.

    And I read what has been released so far at Baseline Scenario.

  38. 38.

    ericblair

    February 10, 2010 at 11:42 am

    The goopers are united and strong and the dems are divided and weak because it’s far easier for lawmakers to be goopers than dems.

    Look at what the goopers have to do: protect the rich and powerful at the expense of the poor and use built-in lizard-brain tribalism to sell it. All of this benefits them personally, so there’s no personal conflict. Then use the mechanisms of the rich press (who are motivated the same way) and the wingnut welfare organizations run by billionaires (ditto) to get your message across and protect your rich and powerful ass until you get your final tax cut.

    If you’re a dem, you’re actually supposed to be building things that benefit people. This is always going to piss of at least some of the affected people, and likely these are going to be the rich and powerful who have been cashing in for eternity on old, broken systems. A lot of what you do will not benefit you personally and will likely make you slightly worse off. You’re supposed to be fighting against the tribal lizard brain, so you’re going to have to make intelligent, complex arguments to advance your cause. It’s always an uphill struggle.

  39. 39.

    Ailuridae

    February 10, 2010 at 11:42 am

    @Notorious P.A.T.:

    Its awesome that someone so consistently dim about politics and policy also doesn’t understand basketball.

  40. 40.

    Brien Jackson

    February 10, 2010 at 11:44 am

    @Notorious P.A.T.:

    Given that you’re talking about two seperate branches, that’s a really bad analogy.

  41. 41.

    Mnemosyne

    February 10, 2010 at 11:45 am

    @Notorious P.A.T.:

    Not the taxpayers who footed the bill for that pay, of course.

    So you missed the part where the “pay” is in stock options, not cash? I’m not entirely sure how the taxpayers footed the bill for stock options, unless it’s because the stock isn’t being used as toilet paper thanks to the bailout.

  42. 42.

    Sarcastro

    February 10, 2010 at 11:46 am

    They’re usually wrong at the tactical level (Dean’s 50 state strategy being the exception that proves the rule) …

    Yes, progressives are usually wrong on the tactical level… if you ignore the progressive tactics that have actually been implemented.

    Centrists… oi.

  43. 43.

    Mnemosyne

    February 10, 2010 at 11:47 am

    @Notorious P.A.T.:

    Strong: attacking the messenger. That’s valid. Welcome back to the Middle Ages.

    We’re not allowed to attack a messenger that deliberately conveyed a misleading message in order to stir shit up?

  44. 44.

    t jasper parnell

    February 10, 2010 at 11:48 am

    Okay, here’s one Dem response Mcaskill to Republicans in her home state whingeing about the stimulus:

    You are about to use almost a billion dollars in stimulus dollars in your current budgeting process. Please advise me as soon as possible what cuts you would recommend to your committees and the rest of the legislature to make up for these funds if we decided to rescind the unspent stimulus funds..

    Nearly all the references to it I find on google news are from Mo news outlets. Why is that? And do you think it is related to the perception that Dems are weak sisters?

  45. 45.

    Kirk Spencer

    February 10, 2010 at 11:49 am

    It’s not ideas the Democrats are lacking.

    The country ran into the ground under the Republicans. Democrats were selected because of this, with the expectation that they’d turn things around.

    The Dems have lots of good ideas that could and should turn things around, but they’ve only managed to turn an uncontrolled crash into a controlled one – and that was started under the previous administration.

    They need to demonstrate they know they’re in charge, not the majority of 41. Whether it’s HCR or Jobs or DADT or any of the other major issues, they need to PTDB. If all they can offer is advanced gridlock, why pay them? The only alternative is to make it PLAIN that it’s the Republicans – and with 59 votes that’s a very hard sell.

    2010 will probably not see a Republican takeover in either house. It will, however, see the margins get much smaller unless something significant happens to break the current perception of the “do wrong” and the “can’t do” parties (aka party of No and party of “oh, my”.)

  46. 46.

    Tractarian

    February 10, 2010 at 11:50 am

    @Rick Taylor: This.

    Seriously, how about some love for those of us without YouTube access? What is the Democrats’ political clusterf*ck du jour?

  47. 47.

    Ailuridae

    February 10, 2010 at 11:52 am

    @t jasper parnell:

    When Senator McCaskill speaks truth she doesn’t get invites on Morning Joe. When she gets weak knee-ed about the pace or scope of HCR she’s on every day. This is not a coincidence.

  48. 48.

    cat48

    February 10, 2010 at 11:55 am

    I wrote this at the wrong place last time, but I can’t freaken take it anymore with the Congress. They don’t even try to get a simple message. They act like freaken Independents. They all have their very own personal INEFFECTIVE message. I never know when their on what they might say. Usually something like, “The deficit is really, really huge; I don’t know what Obama is going to do about it; I didn’t agree with Obama on that one; I don’t think Obama should be so political; he needs to govern; you know, he is inexperienced, yea, the Prez has never told us what he really wants in health care; the Prez needs to lead;” It just goes on and on and on. A circus everyday from them.

    THEY ARE ALL JIMMY CARTER!!!! Need liquor…………

  49. 49.

    liberal

    February 10, 2010 at 11:55 am

    @Notorious P.A.T.:
    Well, in re savvy, you have to admit it’s pretty savvy given that it was a “heads I win, tails you lose” bet, where “you” is the taxpayer.

    But yeah, you’re right.

  50. 50.

    t jasper parnell

    February 10, 2010 at 11:57 am

    @Ailuridae: Exactly. It is difficult to know how hard the Dems are hitting back because it is not being reported. It is also the case, it seems to me, that every time Obama or some such says anything that might be made to make him seem ridiculous out it goes only later to be retracted and then too late; for example the AP article about middle class tax hikes.

  51. 51.

    Notorious P.A.T.

    February 10, 2010 at 11:58 am

    We’re not allowed to attack a messenger that deliberately conveyed a misleading message in order to stir shit up?

    Well for starters, it would be smart to rag on someone for getting a story from Huffington only if they actually got it from Huffington.

    So you missed the part where the “pay” is in stock options, not cash? I’m not entirely sure how the taxpayers footed the bill for stock options

    What the hell would those options be worth if taxpayers hadn’t bailed out those companies?

    Given that you’re talking about two seperate branches, that’s a really bad analogy.

    Wasn’t that Obama’s strategy: stand by and let our wonderful Congress fix everything?

    Its awesome that someone so consistently dim about politics and policy also doesn’t understand basketball.

    Fuck you. What makes you so smart? Read Krugman about this. Or Baseline Scenario. Or just keep defending Obama for bragging about how business-friendly his administration is, and how much corporate influence are in his policies.

  52. 52.

    liberal

    February 10, 2010 at 11:59 am

    @SenyorDave:

    Obama’s not perfect, but I genuinely believe he gets it, the system is broken, and he wants to start to fix it.

    Re HCR, that might be true, but it hardly seems the case re Wall St. Not that most of the Dems in Congress are any better.

  53. 53.

    Notorious P.A.T.

    February 10, 2010 at 12:00 pm

    Well, in re savvy, you have to admit it’s pretty savvy given that it was a “heads I win, tails you lose” bet, where “you” is the taxpayer.

    That’s clever of them, alright. But it has nothing to do with business, and it’s foolish for Obama to say otherwise.

  54. 54.

    liberal

    February 10, 2010 at 12:01 pm

    @J. Michael Neal:

    Looking at the one year totals in isolation, though, gives an inaccurate picture.

    LOL! That surely goes double for their ostensible dip in income this year.

  55. 55.

    penpen

    February 10, 2010 at 12:02 pm

    @ericblair: on the money, eric; I mean maybe no one mentions it because it just seems like a background principle of American political life, but that doesn’t make it any less true

  56. 56.

    liberal

    February 10, 2010 at 12:03 pm

    @Notorious P.A.T.:

    But it has nothing to do with business, and it’s foolish for Obama to say otherwise.

    I agree, insofar as the meaning of “businessman” Obama probably had in mind. But given other meanings of “businessman” which are more relevant to Wall Street (viz, parasitic, rent-collecting scum), it’s pretty accurate.

  57. 57.

    former_friend

    February 10, 2010 at 12:03 pm

    Before everyone just bends over per Cole’s suggestion, sanity might allow for admitting the possibility that the Dems are actually BOUGHT, and that they have no interest in “succeeding,” and are probably up for a bonus if they manage to destroy the People’s Party altogether.

    I wonder if the Dem base are willing to let this nation go to ruin rather than admit Ralph Nader was right. Some will, but will the majority?

  58. 58.

    Bill E Pilgrim

    February 10, 2010 at 12:03 pm

    I entirely agree. What’s puzzling is why you completely exclude the Democrats in the White House from this criticism, just because they’re in the White House.

    http://krugman.blogs.nytimes.com/2010/02/10/clueless/

    If I had to guess how many Republicans there were in the country solely from how the President and the White House act, I’d guess 75% of voters, a vast majority who must be pandered to at all costs, rather than the 20% or whatever it is they actually comprise.

    Ir’s utterly baffling.

  59. 59.

    Nick

    February 10, 2010 at 12:04 pm

    @Notorious P.A.T.: Yes, he has been, or have you not been paying attention for the lat couple of weeks?

  60. 60.

    Notorious P.A.T.

    February 10, 2010 at 12:04 pm

    Its awesome that someone so consistently dim about politics and policy also doesn’t understand basketball.

    You are right. Standing up for Wall Street CEOs is great politics! I’m sure this strategy will pay off for Democrats big time! “Obama: he doesn’t begrudge” is a slogan that Democrats will proudly wave this October! That and “Obama’s policies are friendly to Wall Street” and “Goldman Sachs are savvy businessmen”! Victory here we come! I’m learning so much.

  61. 61.

    Nick

    February 10, 2010 at 12:07 pm

    @Bill E Pilgrim: I would guess that 75% figure is actually about right. We live in an obviously right-wing country.

    That said, that Krugman post is overreacting to a quote in an article taken completely out of context.

  62. 62.

    arguingwithsignposts

    February 10, 2010 at 12:08 pm

    @Max:

    Obama is the star player, but he’s can’t do it alone if the team standing with him is the Clippers.

    This. Very well put.

  63. 63.

    Nick

    February 10, 2010 at 12:09 pm

    @Notorious P.A.T.: Alright, for all you knee-jerky nuts. Here’s what Obama actually said;

    Q Let’s talk bonuses for a minute: Lloyd Blankfein, $9 million; Jamie Dimon, $17 million. Now, granted, those were in stock and less than what some had expected. But are those numbers okay?

    THE PRESIDENT: Well, look, first of all, I know both those guys. They’re very savvy businessmen. And I, like most of the American people, don’t begrudge people success or wealth. That’s part of the free market system. I do think that the compensation packages that we’ve seen over the last decade at least have not matched up always to performance. I think that shareholders oftentimes have not had any significant say in the pay structures for CEOs.

    Q Seventeen million dollars is a lot for Main Street to stomach.

    THE PRESIDENT: Listen, $17 million is an extraordinary amount of money. Of course, there are some baseball players who are making more than that who don’t get to the World Series either. So I’m shocked by that as well. I guess the main principle we want to promote is a simple principle of “say on pay,” that shareholders have a chance to actually scrutinize what CEOs are getting paid. And I think that serves as a restraint and helps align performance with pay. The other thing we do think is the more that pay comes in the form of stock that requires proven performance over a certain period of time as opposed to quarterly earnings is a fairer way of measuring CEOs’ success and ultimately will make the performance of American businesses better.

    So, what he said was he doesn’t “begruged” wall street bonuses, but thinks there needs to be more regulation and specific reason for them.

    Feel better now?

  64. 64.

    Brien Jackson

    February 10, 2010 at 12:10 pm

    @Notorious P.A.T.:

    Wasn’t that Obama’s strategy: stand by and let our wonderful Congress fix everything?

    As opposed to what? Did the President get the authority to legislate unilaterally when I wasn’t looking or something? I remember Cheney being more interested in the authority to torture people by proxy.

  65. 65.

    liberal

    February 10, 2010 at 12:10 pm

    @Notorious P.A.T.:

    Read Krugman about this.

    He has a post up about this very issue.

  66. 66.

    Rick Taylor

    February 10, 2010 at 12:11 pm

    Seriously, how about some love for those of us without YouTube access? What is the Democrats’ political clusterf*ck du jour?

    __
    The video wasn’t about the Democrats, but rather a wonderful summation of how obstructive and hypocritical Republicans have been. John’s comment about feckless Democrats was out of the blue. Maybe he’s just grumpy.

  67. 67.

    Nick

    February 10, 2010 at 12:11 pm

    @Notorious P.A.T.:

    Strong: attacking the messenger.

    The messenger deserves to be attacked. This is the worst excuse for journalism I’ve ever seen.

  68. 68.

    liberal

    February 10, 2010 at 12:12 pm

    @Nick:

    So, what he said was he doesn’t “begruged” wall street bonuses, but thinks there needs to be more regulation and specific reason for them. Feel better now?

    No, given that anyone with a sense of fairness would begrudge them collecting anything other than a date with a noose and a lamppost.

  69. 69.

    Rick Taylor

    February 10, 2010 at 12:14 pm

    I loved this comic by Tom Toles. And yes I think Obama was the best candidate running in the last election but that doesn’t mean I’m not frustrated with him. Via Ezra Klein.

  70. 70.

    Nick

    February 10, 2010 at 12:14 pm

    @liberal:

    No, given that anyone with a sense of fairness would begrudge them collecting anything other than a date with a noose and a lamppost.

    Oh yeah, that sounds like a winning political argument. “Mr. President, how do you feel about bonuses” “I think we should hang all the bankers!”

    Sorry, I’m not a populist.

  71. 71.

    Joe Beese

    February 10, 2010 at 12:16 pm

    @ KCinDC

    ZOMG! Zombie Obama is risen! The reports of voodoo in the White House were true!

  72. 72.

    freelancer

    February 10, 2010 at 12:17 pm

    Just a hopeless party. I’m about ready to just bend over and let the GOP take over.

    While I agree about Democratic fecklessness, please don’t joke about that.

    Even worse, don’t be serious about it either.

  73. 73.

    t jasper parnell

    February 10, 2010 at 12:17 pm

    @Nick: Exactly again. It is possible to disagree, I do, that those guy’s are ridiculously overpaid but it is not fair to use that interview as evidence that, as Krugman puts it, Obama is clueless. And keep in mind that Obama’s administration is actually decreasing the pay to those execs whose firms are still under federal supervision. Half a pony is better than none.

  74. 74.

    Bill E Pilgrim

    February 10, 2010 at 12:17 pm

    @Nick: You think that 75% of the voters are Republicans?

    Let’s be clear, we’re talking about Republicans, i.e. the pro-billionaire voters, not the vast numbers of poorer people who they dupe often to vote for them. The core has shrunk to almost nothing, which means it’s really the hard-core ones left.

    Re Krugman sorry, I read the GOS article (first, actually), then the one it referred to at HuffPost, then Krugman’s and read the entire exchange along the way, and I agree with what Krugman wrote entirely.

    The Republicans are being paid far more heed than they deserve, by any sane measure. It’s truly a mystery, but anyone who claims that the White House is somehow excluded from this is just dreaming.

  75. 75.

    Nick

    February 10, 2010 at 12:19 pm

    @Bill E Pilgrim:

    You think that 75% of the voters are Republicans?

    In some form or another, yeah, I think 75% easily support Republican policies.

  76. 76.

    Rick Taylor

    February 10, 2010 at 12:20 pm

    And the link
    to the Atlantic article predicting the outcome of Obama’s pursuit of bipartisanship on the job’s bill is worth reading.
    __

    Republicans will ask if Obama’s willing to consider an across-the-board tax cut. He’ll say no, because he doesn’t think it will create jobs and he knows it will add significantly to the deficit. Then Republicans will say they couldn’t reach a deal, Obama will have to build a job creation bill with Democrats only, and Republicans will counter every proposal with: “This is more of the same old failed policies from Democrats, who are spending our way into a bottomless hole and tragically burdening on our children with debt without doing a thing create jobs.”
    __
    That will re-dig the trenches. Mainstream news will describe Congress as a partisan pit, and public opinion will begin to turn against the bill because they think Democrats are forcing legislation through, and the bill is taking too long to come together, and they don’t think it will work, anyway because the press surrounding the bill will be mostly negative. Moderate Democrats will get nervous and ask to pare down the bill, which will probably make it less effective, and months later, if Democrats actually pass the weak-sauce law, it will necessarily lose Republicans, alienate independents and frustrate liberals.

  77. 77.

    liberal

    February 10, 2010 at 12:20 pm

    @Nick:

    Oh yeah, that sounds like a winning political argument.

    Don’t be a dumbass. Where did I say he should say that? I’m saying what he should be thinking; and anyone thinking that the big fish among the banksters should all burn in hell would never say they don’t begrudge blah blah blah.

    Of course, I know I’m not allowed to criticize anything Obama does in the comment section of this blog; if I do so, I must be a PUMA (despite having given Obama thousands of dollars); etc etc etc…

    Frankly, I don’t understand Notorious PAT’s anger. I’ve given up hope for this blog’s comment section weeks ago.

  78. 78.

    FlipYrWhig

    February 10, 2010 at 12:22 pm

    @liberal: Even Paul Krugman can fall prey to reading _part_ of a quote. That’s what happened here.

    Is the whole quote outstanding? No. Is it strong, proud, and progressive? No.

    Is the point of the whole quote that CEOs aren’t overpaid because some baseball players make more? Obviously fucking not.

    But of course we have to go through a round of caterwauling about cluelessness, because we have to pretend that it’s too hard to comprehend the fantastical notion that it’s possible to say two fucking things in one fucking sentence.

    I, like most of the American people, don’t begrudge people success or wealth. That’s part of the free market system. I do think that the compensation packages that we’ve seen over the last decade at least have not matched up always to performance

    Note the structure: I don’t begrudge {x} but I do think {y}. That’s _clearly_ not the same statement as “I don’t begrudge {x},” full stop.

    Reporters suck and don’t pay attention to what they’re doing. That’s the bottom line. Never trust that they’re accurately characterizing anything. I’d tell Paul Krugman the same thing.

  79. 79.

    jurassicpork

    February 10, 2010 at 12:27 pm

    Since Washington, DC is snowed in along with the rest of the east coast, I just thought it was high time someone wrote the Republican version (that is, the Rep. Steve King) version of The Shining.

  80. 80.

    Nick

    February 10, 2010 at 12:28 pm

    @liberal:

    Oh, I see, so he should be damning every person who ever worked for a bank and calling for them to burn in hell, cause, you know they’re all bad.

    It’s always exciting to watch left-wing hypocrisy. They get all bend out of shape when people say stupid shit like All Muslims are terrorists or all black men are criminals, but then are generally surprised when people don’t agree with their stereotypes.

    For your information, I happen to know a lot of bankers, who are not anything like those who caused all the financial problems. In fact, some of them had repeatedly warned against some of the moves that were being made.

    Sorry, I do no want a President that speaks in stereotypes. There are bankers who have and will honestly deserve their pay, even if I think it may be too much.

  81. 81.

    Ailuridae

    February 10, 2010 at 12:30 pm

    @Notorious P.A.T.:

    I wrote that you didn’t understand basketball in reference to the post where you demonstrated you don’t understand basketball. Your ability to demonstrate that you don’t understand policy or politics has been established in your other posts.

  82. 82.

    Joel

    February 10, 2010 at 12:32 pm

    @El Cid: This.

    And we’re all the worse for that, too.

  83. 83.

    FlipYrWhig

    February 10, 2010 at 12:33 pm

    @liberal:

    I’m saying what he should be thinking; and anyone thinking that the big fish among the banksters should all burn in hell would never say they don’t begrudge blah blah blah.

    Look, you have no idea what he’s thinking, deep down. Presidents don’t get to follow the same rules by which thoughts are linked to words. He can get up in the morning and think, “The next time I see Ben Nelson I want to rip that ridiculous toupee off his fool head and hope the rest of his skin comes off with it.” And if he’s asked, “What do you think about Ben Nelson?” he’d still say, “Ben’s a solid Democrat and an asset to the Senate and I always look forward to his input, even when we don’t agree.”

    And then hundreds of strutting blogospherians will descend on their keyboards to say, “What a coward! Why doesn’t he crack down on Nelson? Why isn’t he spending every day thinking about ripping his skin off?”

    It’s a foolish game to play, analyzing the words as if they reveal deepest thoughts. Sure, it’s all we have, but we can also JUST FUCKING WAIT to see what happens instead of rushing to be the first one to be properly upset.

  84. 84.

    Quiddity

    February 10, 2010 at 12:34 pm

    If you didn’t know who said it, you’d conclude that those statements by Obama (“don’t begrudge”) were from a Republican, or even somebody like Stephen Moore. That baseball analogy is a straight copy of what Blankfein said:

    “If you don’t pay them for their performance, you’ll lose them. It’s much like professional athletes and movie stars.”

    @Notorious P.A.T.: “Victory here we come” was funny.

    I was wondering when the disillusion would finally set in at Balloon Juice. It was bound to happen since Obama (and the Democrats in Congress) weren’t changing course, and that course was obvious for months. Up until about yesterday, the angst was directed at FDL and extremely minor players that had no role in what was going on. And excuses for Obama abounded. But that was unsustainable.

    There’s nothing wrong with being critical of both parties for their unique failures. The Republicans have nothing to offer, that’s clear. The Democrats haven’t represented their constituents, it’s as simple as that. The institution of the Senate is a major problem; carrots and sticks can be used, but they weren’t. Obama frequently gave away a policy goodie (e.g. nuclear power) without getting something in return. That’s a failure to negotiate effectively, and there’s no disgrace in pointing that out.

    Actually, I think some disgust by the (non FDL) base is healthy. When stalwart defenders of Obama (here, Benen, Drum, Ezra) complain, that’s a clear signal for the Democrats to shape up. They just might do that.

  85. 85.

    Nick

    February 10, 2010 at 12:38 pm

    @Quiddity:

    If you didn’t know who said it, you’d conclude that those statements by Obama (“don’t begrudge”) were from a Republican, or even somebody like Stephen Moore.

    and if a Republican had said it, I wouldn’t have had an issue with it either. Your point?

  86. 86.

    4jkb4ia

    February 10, 2010 at 12:38 pm

    Oh, good. I am watching Bayh in a context I am embarrassed to admit, and although they are OK questions I ask in my gut, “Can they both lose?” (Bayh and Coats)

  87. 87.

    ksmiami

    February 10, 2010 at 12:43 pm

    The dems do need to come out guns blazing and portray the GOP as against the American people, children and apple pie. You may suggest this is harsh, but it has the advantage of being true. They are cynical, stupid SOBs who have no business being in government since they think government can’t do anything but award no-bid contracts to their bizness buddies . Lastly, I think Obama needs to rally the American people by basically saying that the GOP partisanship is directly leading to the fact that our infrastructure is creaky and falling behind those of other nations who can just build as needed like China and India… Do we want to settle for being number 4??? THAT is the winning message because one thing that gets this country unified is competition with “the other”…

  88. 88.

    cat48

    February 10, 2010 at 12:48 pm

    @Quiddity:

    Sorry to disappoint, I’m not hopping on your little “disillusionment train.”

  89. 89.

    iriedc

    February 10, 2010 at 12:48 pm

    John — as a longtime lurker (and life-long Dem), I’ll just say I feel your pain. I can’t tell what’s driving up my blood pressure higher: the childishness of the Republicans, the fecklessness of the Democrats, or my snowbound DC kids asking over-and-over when they can go outside to see their friends.

  90. 90.

    Gus

    February 10, 2010 at 12:49 pm

    The Democrats are blessed to have the Republicans as rivals. If the Republican party wasn’t full of nuts, Bible thumpers and outright assholes, no thinking person would align him/herself with such a feckless and corrupt group as today’s Democratic party.

  91. 91.

    4jkb4ia

    February 10, 2010 at 12:51 pm

    Terrible question! Pure softball!

  92. 92.

    patrick

    February 10, 2010 at 12:51 pm

    In the first Iraq War (man, I just realized how much that sucks, twenty-five years ago i would never have thought I would have to have a number in front of a war with a mid-east country) Saddam Hussein put his troops in a position to be slaughtered. He cared less about his troops being slaughtered than we did, and put us in the perverted position of wanting to stop the war less on our own terms so we could stop killing his people.
    I think of the republicans the same way. They have us compromising to get something — anything — done, otherwise we will have to go on killing so many more of our own people.
    Bravo Republicans. Ruthless bastards.

  93. 93.

    Notorious P.A.T.

    February 10, 2010 at 12:52 pm

    Yes, he has been, or have you not been paying attention for the lat couple of weeks?

    well, there was that conference on C-SPAN. That must have been seen by tens of dozens of people.

    That said, that Krugman post is overreacting to a quote in an article taken completely out of context.

    Please place it in context for us.

    Obama is the star player, but he’s can’t do it alone if the team standing with him is the Clippers.

    But his team isn’t the Clippers (it should be the Nets, this season). He had a supermajority in Congress. That’s more like the Magic, at least.

  94. 94.

    Cerberus

    February 10, 2010 at 12:52 pm

    Yes, Democrats seem unable to adapt political tactics to their diverse body and diverse followers and maximize uses of their minority groups to really build strong alliances, but to be fair to the cowardly frozen lot of MSM fluffers, the media environment they are up against is frighteningly hostile.

    I mean, we have the entire media apparatus of this country literally united for one party and against the other. We are expecting the democrats to hammer home their messages to the people when someone like Bernie Sanders is lucky to get maybe a once a month 5 minute session on Olbermann or Maddow usually as the sole liberal that week available to get out anything for the party or platform so the deep stuff gets sidehorned by just putting out the base level talking points.

    Whereas someone like John McCain basically gets infinite time on every single program on all the major news stations. All of the hosts feel a need to “correct their liberal biases” so they report right-wing media frames and follow their spins. As you noted in the next post, Republicans can lie and lie and lie and they’ll get called out by what, four media personalities max, two of whom are comedians?

    But a liberal getting even access is a rarity and often is placed as a counterweight to a conservative whose voice is repeatedly interviewed solo on the news shows for a debate usually consisting of the liberal having to merely attempt to push through the lies while the host keeps on chiding “them both” for “partisanship” and accepting the right-wing frames as if they could be truth.

    In short, we have a media that has decided to accept the right-wing notion that reality is unimportant. That one doesn’t need to report on accurate information, but that instead two sides need to be the sole focus and those two sides are usually between a right-winger and a slightly less rabid right-winger.

    How is a democrat supposed to fight back? A progressive? They don’t get media access, they can’t get actual facts discussed in the news and even the blogs end up chasing “narrative” rather than discussing the facts on the ground for the simple fact that no one having the debate thanks to the media frames really cares about the facts on the ground.

    Health care reform is necessary, 70% of Americans support radical reform with socialized medicine, the private companies are basically robbing people and companies blind. These are all known facts, but they get ignored for stuff people made up that day and the outrage gets blown up over that (either by people who bought it or people who wonder where the people fighting back are).

    And the media is willing to eviscerate anyone even slightly liberal with every arm at its disposal while allowing endless chatter to drown out the obvious flaws with conservative ideas.

    Now, yes, democrats need to adapt, ideally by listening to their constituents. Ask black organizations, immigrant rights organizations, unions, gay rights groups, feminist organizations, etc… how they fight a hostile press, how to get the message out against a deluge of propaganda, how to reach their target audience when the media is actively trying to fuck them and give credence to the evil bastard side.

    But I have a hard time just going “welp, they just need to swing their fists and speak out” because the problem is in fact, how? Where? If Bernie Sanders wanted to speak out, how would he do it? Yeah, he could send more mass emails, try and organize his supporters, maybe do a nice speech on C-Span and hope the MSM notices it so they can edit it to make it sound dumb and deride it as “condescending liberals”, but it’s not like he can show up across from McCain on the sunday talk show circuit and try and do the media’s job by noting the thousand and three lies he’s spreading. They won’t let him and they hate with a fiery passion anyone who expects them to do the real work they are supposed to be doing.

    I’m not entirely sure our democracy can survive the level of broken in our national media.

  95. 95.

    Notorious P.A.T.

    February 10, 2010 at 12:56 pm

    @Nick:

    So, what he said was he doesn’t “begruged” wall street bonuses, but thinks there needs to be more regulation and specific reason for them.

    Wrong. Where did he say he wants more regulation?

    The messenger deserves to be attacked. This is the worst excuse for journalism I’ve ever seen.

    Are you serious?

  96. 96.

    ksmiami

    February 10, 2010 at 12:56 pm

    The dems need to hire Goodby (the Got milk people), or Crispin Porter ASAP to ramp up the ads and make them funny… remember that hilarious ad about the worthless bankers… they need to do this to portray the Republicans as not only ridiculous, but dangerous… and then buy up as much ad space as possible. They need to declare war on the opposition and if they do this, their numbers will go up.

    but but but that would mean updating a message and hiring non-washington people egads!

  97. 97.

    t jasper parnell

    February 10, 2010 at 12:57 pm

    @Cerberus: Great point.
    Points, even. And also Democrats echo McCaskill:
    http://www.talkingpointsmemo.com/archives/2010/02/heatin_up.php?ref=fpblg

  98. 98.

    ksmiami

    February 10, 2010 at 12:59 pm

    BTW I agree the media is hostile, so you need great attention grabbing spots to change the narratives.

  99. 99.

    Notorious P.A.T.

    February 10, 2010 at 1:00 pm

    I wrote that you didn’t understand basketball in reference to the post where you demonstrated you don’t understand basketball.

    So you think it’s the center’s job to carry the ball up court and make plays?

    Oh, I see, so he should be damning every person who ever worked for a bank and calling for them to burn in hell, cause, you know they’re all bad.

    Yeah, that’s the only other alternative. Sheesh.

  100. 100.

    pillsy

    February 10, 2010 at 1:05 pm

    @Cerberus:

    Where? If Bernie Sanders wanted to speak out, how would he do it? Yeah, he could send more mass emails, try and organize his supporters, maybe do a nice speech on C-Span and hope the MSM notices it so they can edit it to make it sound dumb and deride it as “condescending liberals”, but it’s not like he can show up across from McCain on the sunday talk show circuit and try and do the media’s job by noting the thousand and three lies he’s spreading.

    I think it has to go like this. You come out and say something that may or may not be true, but is undeniably offensive and controversial about the Republicans. For instance, without a shade of nuance or hesitation, you say, “The Republicans want the President’s jobs bill to fail because they’re relying on a high rate of unemployment to drive their campaigns in the midterms.” Now, I happen to think this is true, but who fucking cares, even if it’s a lie, you say it anyway.

    Then you’ve crossed the line, and Villagers will be falling all over their fucking selves to condemn you for it. Calls for your head will echo through the, well, echo chamber. Which means people will hear them. Oh, sure, they may hear you in the context of you being excoriated for being a hyperpartisan hack, a dishonest shill, or what-have-you, but they’ll still hear you.

    That’s how you shift the framing and the Overton window and all the rest of it. But the point is you say this shit about Republicans, not Democrats. Somehow that’s the point that always gets lost in the noise, because as much as progressives say they dislike the bipartisan stance taken by the Democratic leadership, they never hesitate to engage in America’s #1 bipartisan pastime, which is talking shit about Democrats.

  101. 101.

    Notorious P.A.T.

    February 10, 2010 at 1:06 pm

    @Quiddity:

    If you didn’t know who said it, you’d conclude that those statements by Obama were from a Republican

    Thank you.

    How many Democrats brag about the huge corporate input of their policies?

    @Nick:

    and if a Republican had said it, I wouldn’t have had an issue with it either.

    Of course you wouldn’t–you just said you aren’t a populist. And you also think 75% of this country supports Republican policies, which tells us a lot about your judgment.

    @cat48:

    Sorry to disappoint, I’m not hopping on your little “disillusionment train.”

    That’s fine. Reality isn’t for everyone, I guess.

  102. 102.

    Notorious P.A.T.

    February 10, 2010 at 1:08 pm

    @ksmiami:

    Excellent post.

    How is a democrat supposed to fight back? A progressive? They don’t get media access

    Do you really think the president doesn’t get media access? He does, but he wastes it on calls for bipartisanship, and for saying the only people who can curb a [tax money bailed-out] CEO’s pay are shareholders.

  103. 103.

    t jasper parnell

    February 10, 2010 at 1:13 pm

    So it looks like the Dems are using a bunch of information that makes clear that the Republicans are hypocrites and liars.

    The DCCC is using the Times report as a jumping off point for inducting a total of 71 GOPers into a “Republican Hypocrisy Hall of Fame,” just one effort among several expected in the coming week from Democrats eager to expose their rivals.

    The “Hall of Fame” push will be sent to local media in the 71 districts of Republicans who “have been caught trying to celebrate the benefits of projects they opposed in President Obama’s recovery bill, the 2009 Omnibus Appropriations bill, and the Omnibus Public Land Management Act,” according to a template of the release obtained by TPMDC.

    [the block quote ought to extend to the TPMDC]
    But, no doubt, this is weak tea and Obama stole somebodies’ ponies.

  104. 104.

    pillsy

    February 10, 2010 at 1:14 pm

    @Notorious P.A.T.:

    So is it your contention that the Republicans are going to be more hostile to corporate interests than Democrats? Because otherwise, what precisely is your point?

  105. 105.

    batgirl

    February 10, 2010 at 1:14 pm

    The stoopid burns. For those intellectually challenged (I hear that is the preferred word for retarded) let’s look at the quote given to us by Notorious P.A.T. side by side with what Obama actually said. (Quick hint: remember learning about reading in context?)

    Notorious P.A.T. quote (seems to be from Bloomberg article repeated by Krugman et. al.):

    President Obama said he doesn’t “begrudge” the $17 million bonus awarded to JPMorgan Chase & Co. Chief Executive Officer Jamie Dimon or the $9 million issued to Goldman Sachs Group Inc. CEO Lloyd Blankfein, noting that some athletes take home more pay.

    What Obama actually said:

    And I, like most of the American people, don’t begrudge people success or wealth. That’s part of the free market system. I do think that the compensation packages that we’ve seen over the last decade at least have not matched up always to performance. I think that shareholders oftentimes have not had any significant say in the pay structures for CEOs…. Listen, $17 million is an extraordinary amount of money. Of course, there are some baseball players who are making more than that who don’t get to the World Series either. So I’m shocked by that as well. I guess the main principle we want to promote is a simple principle of “say on pay,” that shareholders have a chance to actually scrutinize what CEOs are getting paid.

    JFC! I’m beginning to think that we get the politicians we deserve. Stupid, incompetent, short-sighted politicians for a stupid, incompetent, short-sighted people.

  106. 106.

    t jasper parnell

    February 10, 2010 at 1:15 pm

    @pillsy: His point is that the Dumbocrats are wishy washy girly men who can’t shoot straight like straight shooters shoot. This leaves aside, of course, all the stuff they have done by focusing on all the ponies they haven’t delivered.

  107. 107.

    Rock

    February 10, 2010 at 1:16 pm

    Dear John Cole,

    I am as unenamored with the Democratic party as you. When voting in the primary this year, it occurred to me that I am not a Democrat, but rather I am anti-Republican. I think their governance and policies are terrible.

    No matter how feckless the Democrats are, a Republican ascendancy in Washington would be bad. As long as she has the backing of Fox, the possibility of Palin being elected the next President of the country exists. Surely that’s a result worth resisting.

    The Democratic party has failed in terms of leadership — they have not been able to whip their members into line and that falls on Obama. As frustrating as that is, it’s possible he doesn’t have the leverage over his party that we would hope he does.

    The second failure of the Democratic party is their failure to win public opinion. They need an organized effort that publicly accuses the Republicans of putting party before country, and calls them untrustworthy liars. I can understand that Obama cannot personally do this in stark terms that will resonate with the public. The Democrats lack a Fox that can shape media coverage and public opinion.

    Your blog is actually (believe it or not) an important voice fighting back against the rightist media coverage. You are part of the best answer to Fox that anti-Republicans (liberals? progressives? whatever) have. Rather than yield to the rule of a bunch of callow warmongering plutocrats, I would hope you will continue to engage both the Democrats and Republicans forcefully. The HCR debate actually caused me to call an elected politicians office for the first time. I don’t know if it was useful, but the chance that it might be makes it worth it. Despite the general uselessness of the Democrats, not giving up on them is similarly worthwhile because they seem the only chance for reasonable governance we have.

  108. 108.

    Cerberus

    February 10, 2010 at 1:20 pm

    @pillsy:

    Good idea. Even one that has been done. But…

    There’s this guy called Alan Grayson who has done that, there are any number of left wing personalities who have done it.

    The thing is that the media gets wise to it. Have you heard from Grayson recently? He’s been doing the fighting back thing as loud and brazenly he could. Same with Al Franken though less brazen and more subtle. Hell, Obama and Gibbs have thrown out a few jabs.

    And it works, true, the first time. But eventually it gets drowned in the “analysis” where they’ll hire several right-wing flacks and a villager toolbag to drown it in endless hours of bloviating. Now, I don’t think that means stop, I mean the right-wing will always find something to whine about and self-censoring oneself leads to crises like modern democrats and the defeat of progressivism in general.

    But it does mean that they start shifting to talking about you rather than even bothering to play a clip and eventually to ignore altogether. The media has had their pout and now pretends Grayson doesn’t exist, having grown wise to how popular he became by just fighting back.

    How do we fight that?

    I mean, yeah, if we could pump a direct link between him and the blogs so they fire-stormed each of his points, maybe, but even that will lead to diminished returns on the level of “kick ’em where it hurts”.

  109. 109.

    AhabTRuler

    February 10, 2010 at 1:20 pm

    my snowbound DC kids asking over-and-over when they can go outside to see their friends.

    Christ, just give ’em a shovel and tell them to start digging. That should keep them occupied for a while.

  110. 110.

    Comrade Darkness

    February 10, 2010 at 1:21 pm

    Trouble with knighting some other point-persons from the dems is all the reporters are following teabaggers around like slobbering puppy dogs and pay zero attention to anything not directly anti-obama short of obama himself. Fox has taken to unabashedly campaigning for candidates, most blatantly Brown.

    The majority of the willfully ignorant will not act rationally while the press is busily jacking off the right. It just won’t happen.

  111. 111.

    Laura W

    February 10, 2010 at 1:27 pm

    @AhabTRuler: You did bottles.

  112. 112.

    FlipYrWhig

    February 10, 2010 at 1:28 pm

    @Quiddity:

    That baseball analogy is a straight copy of what Blankfein said:
    __

    “If you don’t pay them for their performance, you’ll lose them. It’s much like professional athletes and movie stars.

    Um, that is not a “straight copy.”

    Listen, $17 million is an extraordinary amount of money. Of course, there are some baseball players who are making more than that who don’t get to the World Series either. So I’m shocked by that as well.

    Obama is saying he’s “shocked” that athletes on teams that don’t win championships would get paid so much — because, by extension, you should only get paid multi millions _if you perform_. Blankfein’s point is that the best-paid people get that way because they are the best. Obama’s point is that _only_ the best people — only the champions — should be the best-paid, and these corporate titans _have not_ been the champions. If anything, he’s using Blankfein’s analogy _against_ Blankfein.

    There’s disillusionment, and then there’s affected disillusionment.

    (Edited for clarity after original posting.)

  113. 113.

    Cerberus

    February 10, 2010 at 1:32 pm

    @Notorious P.A.T.:

    Uh huh. Except, listen to a full speech by Obama. He spends quite a bit of time sending barbs, he just prefaces with statements that give undue respect to opponents. Look at his epic takedowns at the Republican summit. He doesn’t waste all his time on appeals for bipartisanship.

    However, the media has mastered the art of talking about liberal or centrist figures with right-wing notions so that even the alternative media followers end up still believing their frames. The only thing Obama is for is coming together healing stuff, because that’s all the media wants us to believe he believes and willing to use every epithet of respect and undue fairness he uses rhetorically to ignore the actual topics he discusses.

    See also Michael Moore being a “propagandist” who’s “just out to make a buck”, “Al Gore claimed he invented the internet”, and “Even the liberal TNR…”

    The full screening happens once and then the next week is spent spinning it, editing it, reducing it to the soundbites the villagers want to talk about (i.e. right-wing propaganda, right-wing frames).

    Now, yes, again, internet, minority groups, etc… This isn’t a “give up all hope” post. Indeed I feel the fact that we’re facing this much obstinate bullshit from everything and still manage to make amazing showings to be proof that we’re cutting through a shit-ton of it and we just need to keep shaking things up and trying new things to keep getting maximal real information to maximal real people and we’re making a lot of real progress, but just to point out the context we’re decrying the “wussiness” of our Democratic leaders.

    For God’s sake, we have a media that violently yells at every liberal invited on a show in place of the agreed upon topic for calling the teabaggers teabaggers when they only delightfully commented on the self-fail of their own name. The entire media apparatus has decided to wipe their memories clean of things that happened less than a year ago to blame liberals for something conservatives did to themselves.

    And that’s normal procedure. Look at the “Obama” recession, the “Obama” bailout of the banks, and “Clinton’s” 9/11.

    That’s a broken ass media we’re up against.

  114. 114.

    WereBear

    February 10, 2010 at 1:32 pm

    @Cerberus: You make several excellent points. This is the elephant in the room; the media has decided they are the news, they don’t just report on it.

    The solution is not to fix the media; we don’t have the money.

    The solution is to fix the people to stop depending on media uncritically… and that’s where the age gap comes in.

    Older people are used to believing what they saw on the “news,” for the most part not understanding that Walter Cronkite hasn’t worked this beat for decades, and what they have now is infotainment. Ask anyone over sixty; I’m willing to bet they don’t even know what infotainment is, and they won’t believe you if you tell them.

    On the considerable other hand, there’s the younger people, who grew up cynical, knowing how much they are lied to in the name of marketing.

    They’ll probably come up with something else in a while. But right now they are on the cusp of a serious dieoff and the devolution into Whig-type laughing stock.

    I hope the country holds out that long.

  115. 115.

    The Raven

    February 10, 2010 at 1:34 pm

    I wonder if perhaps Obama’s persistence isn’t eventually going to break the Republican Party line. Perhaps. Personally, I have trouble believing it’s possible, but, just maybe…

  116. 116.

    pillsy

    February 10, 2010 at 1:34 pm

    @Cerberus:

    How do we fight that?

    Find someone other than Alan Grayson. He’s one Democrat in Congress—there are well over 200 of them.

    It’s going to be a slow, painful, incremental process, but the alternatives appear to be either sitting on our hands or joining in on the attacks on Democrats. Given that the other choices have no chance of being helpful, try the one thing that has a chance of working.

    You have to get lots of people to repeatedly emphasize your point—no one was taking any of the GOP talking points seriously this time last year. But they kept on repeating them anyway, and it worked. One thing to bear in mind that I think the Democrats are (re-)learning is that you just can’t let the shit hang out there: witness how the ridiculous GOP Undibomber hand-wringing isn’t getting the same pass their last seven or eight ridiculous bits of hand-wringing did.

  117. 117.

    FlipYrWhig

    February 10, 2010 at 1:37 pm

    To simplify my own post : Both quotes allude to the idea that athletes are paid for performance. Blankfein is suggesting that banker-athletes are performing well and thus deserve to be well paid. Obama is suggesting that banker-athletes are performing poorly and thus do not deserve to be well paid.

    Obama’s hedge — which is probably unnecessary — is to preface his criticism by saying that he’s not opposed to the idea that top performance deserves the reward of top pay. That led some otherwise sharp people, even Krugman, to read the version of the quote provided by the characteristically dumbassed reporter in the opposite manner it was clearly intended.

  118. 118.

    Just Some Fuckhead

    February 10, 2010 at 1:40 pm

    They are soft on everything- except when it comes to infighting. Then they come out with guns a blazin’.

    Damn, yer like a fish in water then. Cuz all you ever do is spin everyone up and cause havoc, hate and discontent. Then you sit back and pretend to be a horrified observer.

    Did you do this when you were a Republican – go off on the Paultards or RINOS or ClubForGrowthers every coupla days?? Because I don’t remember it.

    When in Rome, I guess.

  119. 119.

    FlipYrWhig

    February 10, 2010 at 1:42 pm

    @Cerberus:

    He spends quite a bit of time sending barbs, he just prefaces with statements that give undue respect to opponents.

    Yes I said Yes Oh God Yes. Exactly right. And for some reason it confuses reporters terribly. It’s like they listen only to the first halves of all sentences. If they covered the funeral of Julius Caesar, they’d say that Mark Antony praised Brutus as an honorable man.

  120. 120.

    Comrade Darkness

    February 10, 2010 at 1:43 pm

    @Cerberus: Yeah, this sense that the political crap we were suffering through was merely the last gasp of the middle aged jackass WASP was what got me through the 80s. Well, on the upside, since Bush set up medicare (with the drug plan added on) to run up 10 trillion in deficits in very short order, which will cause it to be seriously defunded all at once, these old bitters WILL be dying off sooner than the current actuarial charts account for.

    So, um, look on the bright side?

  121. 121.

    Nick

    February 10, 2010 at 1:47 pm

    @Notorious P.A.T.:

    Do you really think the president doesn’t get media access? He does, but he wastes it on calls for bipartisanship, and for saying the only people who can curb a [tax money bailed-out] CEO’s pay are shareholders.

    I’m beginning to realize people only see what they want to see.

    WERE YOU NOT AROUND TWO WEEKS AGO WHEN PRESIDENT OBAMA SMACKED AROUND THE REPUBLICANS FOR AN HOUR AND A HALF ON LIVE TELEVISION!?!?!

    Good Lord!

  122. 122.

    Cerberus

    February 10, 2010 at 1:48 pm

    @Comrade Darkness:

    Yeah it bears a hell of a lot of repeating that the teabaggers dug deep into their souls, pulled out an epic national conference that received constant media exposure, media hype, and an open platform to present their views to the world in real time uninterrupted glory.

    That drew 600 people most of whom were out and out white supremacists. Did this receive any attention? No. Even the blogosphere is forced to talk about this like its a real movement. Most panels at the San Diego Comic Con get more attendees. Regional groups of furries have more attendance. You get Pride Festivals in hostile countries that kill gays for being out that get more participators than that.

    Stories that will get local “human interest” attention at best, callous dismissal at worst (look at the hippies still protesting about whatever it is hippies protest about, gross human rights violations, yeah, blah blah blah, nice puppet, faggot and now for the real story 7 people in klan garb and their powerful counterprotest on behalf of heartland america freedom values and why we must worship them as gods) rival them in number by orders of magnitude mind-boggingly intense.

    But these are the people who are a “national movement” and the “real story” and actually a group of people. This isn’t a protest movement, it’s a regional convention, it’s the Bay Street Sci Fi Convention for 1700s cosplayers and those interested in alternative history civil war where all the n*****rs died horrible screaming deaths instead of being freed.

    But media perception fuels everything. People assume the anti-war movement is dead, run out of steam, gone. Why? They never made the news, they’re voices weren’t even reported locally, but we assume the teabaggers actually matter because the media follows it so much that everyone (in media) acts like it matters, so even us liberals who do the head counts and go, uh, that’s not even in the same ballpark as impressive are left chasing after them actually responding to them as if they were relevant.

    Because their media relevance is a product of a broken system of privileging any right-wingers over any liberals and chasing new and exciting ways to sell the same old garbage in hopes of keeping the con going a little longer or at least burning out everyone who cares from politics so they stop voting and electing in actual progressives or close proximities thereof.

    That’s the purpose of this shit, to burn us out on the long ass fight facing any group up against a hostile media of entrenched status quo beneficiaries.

    In short, we’re all n*****rs and queers now, biatches.

  123. 123.

    Nick

    February 10, 2010 at 1:49 pm

    @Notorious P.A.T.:

    well, there was that conference on C-SPAN. That must have been seen by tens of dozens of people.

    Well, first of all, it was on MSNBC and CNN as well.

    Also, I find it funny that you’re downplaying CSPAN when I remember you a few months ago arguing we should force the Republicans to filibuster so people can see it on CSPAN.

    All tens of dozens of them?

  124. 124.

    Quiddity

    February 10, 2010 at 1:49 pm

    @cat48:

    You’re not disappointed by this? From Meyerson:

    Democratic senators had developed a compromise proposal that would have jettisoned the controversial “card check” process … in favor of expediting the election process (so that management couldn’t delay for months, or even years, employees’ votes on whether to unionize) and stiffening the penalties for violating the rules that govern election conduct.

    The compromise had a shot at winning all 60 Democratic votes. The unions, which spent more than $300 million in the 2008 elections on Democrats’ behalf, wanted a vote on EFCA last year, but Obama and Senate Majority Leader Harry Reid asked them to wait until health reform had passed.

    This is basic bill management we’re talking about.

    ALSO: I’m not sure if Balloon Juice is the right place for a debate between those who think Obama and the Democrats are doing the best they can, and those who think otherwise. But, as far as I can tell, IT IS THE PLACE, at least for the moment. No other blogs seem to have quite the same divided audience.

  125. 125.

    John S.

    February 10, 2010 at 1:52 pm

    BTW I agree the media is hostile, so you need great attention grabbing spots to change the narratives.

    Speaking as an advertising guy, I cannot understand what happened to the team that brought us the most visually cohesive and well branded presidential campaign in history.

    Why can’t they bring a little of that to the public discourse?

  126. 126.

    Midnight Marauder

    February 10, 2010 at 1:52 pm

    @Ailuridae:

    I wrote that you didn’t understand basketball in reference to the post where you demonstrated you don’t understand basketball. Your ability to demonstrate that you don’t understand policy or politics has been established in your other posts.

    Their ability to understand policy or politics aside, it’s pretty safe to say that Notorious P.A.T. has not the slightest clue how basketball operates.

  127. 127.

    Nick

    February 10, 2010 at 1:53 pm

    @Notorious P.A.T.:

    Blind as a bat I see

    Wrong. Where did he say he wants more regulation?

    I assume you read English, so here it is

    think that shareholders oftentimes have not had any significant say in the pay structures for CEOs. . I guess the main principle we want to promote is a simple principle of “say on pay,” that shareholders have a chance to actually scrutinize what CEOs are getting paid. And I think that serves as a restraint and helps align performance with pay.

    We call that…regulation.

  128. 128.

    Quiddity

    February 10, 2010 at 1:54 pm

    @Nick:

    In politics, it’s never a good idea to give an inch – especially these days. The GOP con-fab w/Obama will be mostly forgotten. Obama’s “savvy businessmen” line will be repeated by those for whom it advantages (probably Republicans trying to fool independents).

  129. 129.

    Nick

    February 10, 2010 at 1:55 pm

    @John S.:

    Speaking as an advertising guy, I cannot understand what happened to the team that brought us the most visually cohesive and well branded presidential campaign in history.

    Why can’t they bring a little of that to the public discourse?

    Because they’re no longer talking about a person, they’re talking about policies, and policies bore people.

    A campaign is selling a person. Governing is selling policies. Completely different things.

  130. 130.

    FlipYrWhig

    February 10, 2010 at 1:55 pm

    @Quiddity: Wait–giving away “card check” to score a victory _wouldn’t_ have been thrown on the pile proving insufficient progressive zeal and over-willingness to compromise? Isn’t that exactly what happened with the “public option”?

  131. 131.

    Max

    February 10, 2010 at 1:55 pm

    @Notorious P.A.T.: You really should start visiting TaylorMarsh.com.

    They have post after post after post about how much Obama is the fail, and Hillary should resign and primary him.

    You’d fit right in and I think you’d enjoy being amongst your people.

  132. 132.

    Nick

    February 10, 2010 at 1:56 pm

    @Quiddity: I can guarantee you Independents wouldn’t have the slightest issue with what he said.

  133. 133.

    mrmobi

    February 10, 2010 at 2:02 pm

    John, you are forgetting that 11th-dimensional chess is quite difficult and even a master player like Obama will occasionally make mistakes. I know we didn’t sign up for mistakes from him, but I think it’s time that we get a grip on that. (this means you, Paul Krugman)

    I’m just a little surprised at all the hysteria about these comments. We do currently operate under a (modified) free-enterprise system, don’t we? Is everyone here ready for across-the-board wage caps for all CEOs? (really?) So let’s not give up on the Democrats just yet, ok? You are doing terrific work at this blog, John, and I’d really hate to see you become dispirited.

    On a happier note, isn’t Rachel great? I try not to miss her show, because it is simply the best politics show anywhere. Someone remind me again why she is not hosting Press the Meat?

    To recap, we are not, “totally fucking screwed.” If you want to see “totally fucking screwed,” you should stop by my Post Office here in the Chicago suburbs some afternoon, where we occasionally have people with giant posters portraying Obama as Hitler and a table with various pieces of their racist/hate literature. Fun times.

    Whoever said “Democracy is messy” was a goddamn master of understatement.

  134. 134.

    pillsy

    February 10, 2010 at 2:07 pm

    @Quiddity:

    So do you think that the Republicans are going to do a better job defending the interests of organized labor? If not, what the fuck is your point?

  135. 135.

    Cerberus

    February 10, 2010 at 2:08 pm

    @Comrade Darkness:

    I’m going to hell for laughing at this. So true. And it’s true of a lot of things. Old fucks tend to be the last people left who think the time pre-60s revolutions was at all enjoyable to live through, the last people who think gays are disgusting creatures who should be eliminated before being granted rights, to believe unquestioningly in media, and think that women as property style marriages were peachy keen.

    I’ll miss the old radicals for sure, those that kept their fire up from the bad ol days, but the slow march of progress is what it is mainly because the victories of those radicals allowed us kids to grow up without the bullshit that any of that was at all desirable. In short, the kids are always all right and it sucks that so often, the last lap of any long struggle is the waiting for old folks to die lap.

    @pillsy:

    True, but again, they just stop featuring any democrat. A lot of democrats have been throwing heat at republicans the entire debate cycle. Hell many of them have been pushing progressive legislation. A few succeeded. Where are they on the news circuits, where are they in the ether surrounding this shit?

    The media has perfected the dual arts of blocking their “enemies” from any mainstream outlet and flooding the ether with a lot of flak talking “about” their enemies and what their doing or more often, what they are doing wrong. How many media hours were devoted to a bunch of fact-free assertions of “strategy” with most of the face-time focus being on a handful of republicans in democrat clothing?

    Pelosi had some great choice words about Stupak. She even sent a few emails about it. I mean, I don’t remember them. No one remembers them. Everyone “remembers” that she has egg on her face and “is a weak leader”.

    But yeah, I’m not trying to burn people out. What we can do is again, follow the minority groups. Change it up, lots of strategies at once, stronger alliances, maximizing new media, paying attention more to new media than the traditional outlets, and a bunch of other stuff. And best part, there’s a lot we can do on the ground that isn’t just despairing at the surrealism of the latest media tempest in a tea pot.

    One thing we can do more on the ground is being the radicals we want to see. Why just defend a public option? Argue on the merits of adopting the best health care system in the world, that found in France or Scandinavian countries. Why just call out Republicans on individual lies? Point out how they always argue in bad faith, that everything they say is either lies or projection and usually both. Why just defend Keynesianism? Defend actual socialism (see again Denmark, holy shit it is a nice country to live in, also the Soviet Union made us their bitches on health care back in the 70s, that’s sad right there).

    This shit is actual genuine “Overton Window shifting” rather than the crap we often see from the FDL types. We need to drop the media frames entirely and speak entirely from real experiences, real evidence, dismissing all bullshit, and standing for what we’d love to see and settling for what we can get.

    And frankly, we damn sure can do that.

  136. 136.

    Cerberus

    February 10, 2010 at 2:11 pm

    Aargh, moderation, trying again, FYWP!

    @Comrade Darkness:
    I’m going to hell for laughing at this. So true. And it’s true of a lot of things. Old fucks tend to be the last people left who think the time pre-60s revolutions was at all enjoyable to live through, the last people who think gays are disgusting creatures who should be eliminated before being granted rights, to believe unquestioningly in media, and think that women as property style marriages were peachy keen.

    I’ll miss the old radicals for sure, those that kept their fire up from the bad ol days, but the slow march of progress is what it is mainly because the victories of those radicals allowed us kids to grow up without the bullshit that any of that was at all desirable. In short, the kids are always all right and it sucks that so often, the last lap of any long struggle is the waiting for old folks to die lap.

    @pillsy:
    True, but again, they just stop featuring any democrat. A lot of democrats have been throwing heat at republicans the entire debate cycle. Hell many of them have been pushing progressive legislation. A few succeeded. Where are they on the news circuits, where are they in the ether surrounding this shit?

    The media has perfected the dual arts of blocking their “enemies” from any mainstream outlet and flooding the ether with a lot of flak talking “about” their enemies and what their doing or more often, what they are doing wrong. How many media hours were devoted to a bunch of fact-free assertions of “strategy” with most of the face-time focus being on a handful of republicans in democrat clothing?
    Pelosi had some great choice words about Stupak. She even sent a few emails about it. I mean, I don’t remember them. No one remembers them. Everyone “remembers” that she has egg on her face and “is a weak leader”.

    But yeah, I’m not trying to burn people out. What we can do is again, follow the minority groups. Change it up, lots of strategies at once, stronger alliances, maximizing new media, paying attention more to new media than the traditional outlets, and a bunch of other stuff. And best part, there’s a lot we can do on the ground that isn’t just despairing at the surrealism of the latest media tempest in a tea pot.

    One thing we can do more on the ground is being the radicals we want to see. Why just defend a public option? Argue on the merits of adopting the best health care system in the world, that found in France or Scandinavian countries. Why just call out Republicans on individual lies? Point out how they always argue in bad faith, that everything they say is either lies or projection and usually both. Why just defend Keynesianism? Defend actual socia.lism (see again Denmark, holy shit it is a nice country to live in, also the Soviet Union made us their bitches on health care back in the 70s, that’s sad right there).

    This shit is actual genuine “Overton Window shifting” rather than the crap we often see from the FDL types. We need to drop the media frames entirely and speak entirely from real experiences, real evidence, dismissing all bullshit, and standing for what we’d love to see and settling for what we can get.

    And frankly, we damn sure can do that.

  137. 137.

    eemom

    February 10, 2010 at 2:11 pm

    It’s a modern American political tragedy. We’ve got a guy in the White House capable of more nuance than anyone in recent memory, and a political culture that can’t deal with any nuance at all.

    http://www.salon.com/news/politics/barack_obama/index.html?story=/tech/htww/2010/02/10/bloomberg_and_obama

  138. 138.

    Cerberus

    February 10, 2010 at 2:20 pm

    @Quiddity:

    Because of the media. The media doesn’t spend 24 hour segments talking about how Sen. Chambliss’s “my esteemed colleague from Minnesota” is actually a deep and abiding show of respect for the opinions and politics of Sen. Franken and thus he’s a flip-flopper if he tries to vote against one of his bills.

    Yet, for democrats, nonsense twaddle ends up the message, nonsense twaddle only included because the media has turned “bipartisanship” into the biggest advertising campaign the world has ever known so that even people who want republican heads on pikes can be found saying things like “well we need a strong conservative party in this country” or “one-party rule is never a good thing, even if that party is a divided band of various smaller groups who will happily battle amongst each other to form a better bill and the other party are overt psychotics”.

    I think that’s the elephant in the room in all these conversations. The democrats seem hogtied because the media is openly hostile. Now, true, they should take some advice from their minority constituents and learn what they do and every progressive organization has had to do in this country to get by and to adapt to the various strategies of cutting us out, but it’s not like they’re happy that the only part of their message that gets out is either their twaddle or a half-second soundbite of them not including the twaddle and what a bad move it was because feeble fobble poop.

  139. 139.

    Comrade Darkness

    February 10, 2010 at 2:30 pm

    @Cerberus: I got out of breath reading that in silence. And it pretty much, um, summarizes my thoughts.

    I think mockery is the way to go. Concerted mockery. Every left-leaning person on faux news should say, “600 teabaggers 100 reporters” at several points in the interview. The utter ridiculousness of that stands on its own, but it must be repeated. Tossed in their faces. And next week, mock them repeatedly for whatever stupid shit they’ve moved on to. Throw their own inane words in their face. It’s amazing how flustered some shithead on faux gets when the mere words “fair and balanced” come back at them. It’s an epic joke, just by itself. Democrats think too much to be effective on this stage, but really they can learn. 5 words or less. preferably catchy. Repeat. Repeat. Repeat.

  140. 140.

    Da Bomb

    February 10, 2010 at 2:31 pm

    @eemom: Isn’t that the truth?

  141. 141.

    different church-lady

    February 10, 2010 at 2:35 pm

    (throws glass of water in your face)

    Now you’re hysterical, and you’re wet!

  142. 142.

    rikyrah

    February 10, 2010 at 2:39 pm

    Maddow did a great job on this piece and told the truth.

  143. 143.

    ruemara

    February 10, 2010 at 2:47 pm

    @John S.:

    As a former advertising person, I’m surprised you need to ask. The media stopped paying attention. Obama is no longer the young, sleek, hip thing. Bashing Obama is the young, sleek, hipster thing. He won. He is now the force to be pushed back against because he, like all icons, must be shoved off the stand and destroyed. It is the way of media in America. Put it up, throw shit at it, push it off, then celebrate a comeback. We are morons.

    And what Obama said Re: banksters, was neither praise nor was it the righteous bitchslap you wish it was. Deal with it. He’s president and bitchslapping isn’t something he can do now.

  144. 144.

    Ash Can

    February 10, 2010 at 3:06 pm

    @ruemara: Actually, this, from January 29, pretty much was a bitchslap, and it was definitely directed at the Wall Street carbuncles raking in big-ass bonuses while their companies remained in hock to the taxpayers under TARP.

  145. 145.

    Quiddity

    February 10, 2010 at 3:10 pm

    @pillsy:

    The GOP wants to cripple labor. That’s a given. Obama and the Democrats missed an opportunity to help labor. I guess you’ll have to ask labor to see if they think he’s defending their interests. I don’t think he’s doing much at all. Neither does Harold Meyerson, who is generally seen as a spokesperson for labor. And it’s going to be a factor when it comes to GOTV efforts and fund raising this year, so it’s not a minor issue. It will have consequences in many purple states where labor is THE factor in determining if a Democrat or Republican wins.

    @FlipYrWhig:

    The non-card-check legislation is stalled and probably dead (now that Brown won Mass.) I’m sure that there are some who would have complained that it was insufficiently progressive, but how does that affect the basic critique that the White House is not doing effective “bill management”?

  146. 146.

    sparky

    February 10, 2010 at 3:21 pm

    @Notorious P.A.T.: good on you for at least attempting to bat back some of the stuff floating around here these days.

    dunno what happened to this place–used to be a blog where you could disagree with the conventional wisdom and at least people would consider it. in between trolling, i mean. lately it seems to be flooded with Obama defenders.

    reading the comments here now is just sad. people attempting to demonstrate, for example, that Obama’s language was taken out of context, or trying to parse it. this is like watching redstate go through gyres attempting to explain what GWB really “meant.” if you have to parse everything (and it’s still crapola, btw) your person is doing it wrong. sorry.

    and can we please stop with the “it’s the media’s fault” crap? enough, already. sure, the talking heads and the op-ed writers are venal toadies. so what? the president of the US can commandeer the broadcast networks any time he wants to, and as someone noted above, when he does, it’s just to give some bromides. no action EVER follows.

    and this is leaving aside the administration’s despicable civil rights record. how many people defending Obama on this thread condemned the executive assassination program, or Bagram or the whitewash of the Bush DOJ? these are atrocious (and no, that is not rhetorical excess) acts, and i must say i am disappointed that very few people here seem to even care. instead we get excited about changed airline waiting regulations, as if somehow our inconvenience on an airplane is more important than spending a trillion dollars a year on killing people in other countries.

    i volunteered for Obama, and while i did not expect the messiah, i am appalled at how he has adopted so much of the Bush/national security state without even a struggle. and that leaves aside his corporate masters, who have, rather humiliatingly to the Ds, shown who really controls the top of the puppet strings in DC. paging Chuck Schumer.

  147. 147.

    FlipYrWhig

    February 10, 2010 at 3:32 pm

    @Quiddity:

    how does that affect the basic critique that the White House is not doing effective “bill management”?

    If “effective bill management” would have led to a bigger shitstorm, that’s seems like a funny evaluative criterion. At a certain point this becomes, in the old Borscht Belt gag, lousy food… and such small portions.

  148. 148.

    sparky

    February 10, 2010 at 3:38 pm

    @ruemara:

    Too much cannot be said against the men of wealth who sacrifice everything to getting wealth. There is not in the world a more ignoble character than the mere money-getting American, insensible to every duty,regardless of every principle, bent only on amassing a fortune, and putting his fortune only to the basestuses —whether these uses be to speculate in stocks andwreck railroads himself, or to allow his son to lead alife of foolish and expensive idleness and gross debauchery, or to purchase some scoundrel of high social position, foreign or native, for his daughter. Such a man is only the more dangerous if he occasionally does some deed like founding a college or endowing a church, which makes those good people who are also foolish forget his real iniquity. These men are equally careless of the working men, whom they oppress, and of the State, whose existence they imperil. There are not very many of them, but there is a very great number of men who approach more or less closely to the type,and, just in so far as they do so approach, they are curses to the country.

    Theodore Roosevelt. Written before he was president, but he referred to it when he was in office.
    compare with:

    Well, look, first of all, I know both those guys. They’re very savvy businessmen. And I, like most of the American people, don’t begrudge people success or wealth. That’s part of the free market system. I do think that the compensation packages that we’ve seen over the last decade at least have not matched up always to performance. I think that shareholders oftentimes have not had any significant say in the pay structures for CEOs.

    you figure it out.

  149. 149.

    FlipYrWhig

    February 10, 2010 at 3:39 pm

    @sparky:

    used to be a blog where you could disagree with the conventional wisdom and at least people would consider it. in between trolling, i mean. lately it seems to be flooded with Obama defenders.

    On the blogs at least, Obama-bashing _became conventional wisdom_. Every other blog got flooded with knee-jerk critics who think they’re being brave contrarians by linking to the same HuffPo piece every else already did and saying the equivalent of “Heh indeed.”

  150. 150.

    FlipYrWhig

    February 10, 2010 at 3:43 pm

    @sparky:

    16 April 1963
    __
    My Dear Fellow Clergymen:
    __
    While confined here in the Birmingham city jail, I came across your recent statement calling my present activities “unwise and untimely.” Seldom do I pause to answer criticism of my work and ideas. If I sought to answer all the criticisms that cross my desk, my secretaries would have little time for anything other than such correspondence in the course of the day, and I would have no time for constructive work. But since I feel that you are men of genuine good will and that your criticisms are sincerely set forth, I want to try to answer your statement in what I hope will be patient and reasonable terms.

    OMG, what a wuss! King says his white critics are of “genuine good will” and their criticisms are “sincerely set forth”! “Patient” and “reasonable”? WTF? Grow a pair, Martin!

  151. 151.

    Quiddity

    February 10, 2010 at 3:44 pm

    @sparky:

    I agree with your observation 100%. “this place” changed about the beginning of the year, around the time the Senate/House HCR legislation was stalling. Then post-Brown in Mass., the feelings intensified. Why that is, is a mystery to me.

    Nobody with a pulse can deny the various factors in play that hinder Obama and the Democrats: media landscape, Senate rules, low information voters, Republican noise machine, even some Democrats. But that doesn’t mean Obama should be exempt from criticism, when warranted.

    Re your remark:

    reading the comments here now is just sad. people attempting to demonstrate, for example, that Obama’s language was taken out of context, or trying to parse it. this is like watching redstate go through gyres attempting to explain what GWB really “meant.” if you have to parse everything (and it’s still crapola, btw) your person is doing it wrong. sorry.

    Over at theplumbline, this comment:

    I am sick of President Obama always relying on Nuance and Inference. He needs to do some plain talking that can be understood by the average working class person.

    Tell it straight and like it is, for a change. He is always having to come back and try to clarify, because he is too damn opaque in the first place.

    Hey, I’m willing to say “leave Obama alone” as long as there are other pugnacious figures making the case. Robert Gibbs isn’t enough. We need tough talk from Biden or Sibelius or somebody else from the White House. Absent that, we’ve got Obama speaking in his trademark style:

    I, like most of the American people, don’t begrudge people success or wealth.

    That is not effective in several ways:
    -o- At a time of increasing wealth disparity – for structural reasons (labor dis-empowerment, free trade) – it comes off as accepting the status quo.
    -o- He’s reinforcing the center-right meme when he says “most of the American people” are cool with what’s happening.
    -o- “begrudge” is hifalutin; whatever happened to the more direct “resent”?

    So something has to be done regarding messaging. I think a major error by the White House is that they depend on Obama too much to deliver the message. He’s fine with speeches and in some other forums. But for the daily message – which is what’s he’s becoming – he’s not the right guy.

  152. 152.

    Bruce (formerly Steve S.)

    February 10, 2010 at 3:44 pm

    Just a hopeless party.

    So today instead of progressive bloggers it’s the whole damned Democratic Party? Let me ask you this, if the Democrats are truly “hopeless” then aren’t the disaffected progressive bloggers right to try to blow it all up? Help me out with a way forward out of your conundrum.

  153. 153.

    sparky

    February 10, 2010 at 3:56 pm

    @FlipYrWhig: i was referring to this blog, not those blogs. should i infer that you are claiming this is a protect Obama blog?

  154. 154.

    Bullsmith

    February 10, 2010 at 3:56 pm

    The problem with the Republicans is they don’tknow how to use power at least not to any productive use. They know how to get it, how hold onto it and how to leverage a little of it into looking like a lot. But on what basis do they know how to use it?

    Or are you saying they know how to use power to do the same few destructive things (borrow money, give it to your friends, call this “tax cuts”, also bomb people.) until there’s nothing left to destroy? Then, yes, they certainly do.

    Then again the Republican Party’s pretty small right now and the teabagger-fundie cadres are truly, truly insane. Perhaps the party could be taken over from within?

  155. 155.

    t jasper parnell

    February 10, 2010 at 3:57 pm

    @FlipYrWhig: It is true; saying something nice about Obama is now rare. Krugman’s flip out represents the problem with that whole mind set.

  156. 156.

    FlipYrWhig

    February 10, 2010 at 3:58 pm

    @Quiddity:

    He’s reinforcing the center-right meme when he says “most of the American people” are cool with what’s happening

    He’s _obviously_ not saying that. He’s _obviously_ saying that “most of the American people” support the idea that some people will acquire success and wealth. He then TURNS to say that this is a different case.

    He also has been getting hammered for months if not years by nimrods who say he’s a wealth-spreading soci/alist who wants to take their stuff. So he has to pay _even more_ lip service to the idea that he’s not a class warrior. People hate bank bonuses, but some of the people who hate bank bonuses _also_ think Obama is some kind of wild-eyed pinko.

    Yes, it’s a shame that it’s necessary. But it is in fact _more_ necessary for him to make those noises.

  157. 157.

    t jasper parnell

    February 10, 2010 at 4:01 pm

    @sparky: This is an equal opportunity lets argue about Obama blog. With Cole, for example, arguing with himself on the weak sisterhoodedness of the Dems.

  158. 158.

    Nick

    February 10, 2010 at 4:02 pm

    @Quiddity: You know, I favored Obama for one major reason…that he didn’t talk to this country like we were a bunch of five year olds. That he used big words and put the pressure on us to use our brains, analyze, discuss, debate and not jump to boneheaded conclusions and make rash decisions (populism)

    But if that strategy isn’t working and he needs to start talking like Sarah Palin in order to get his message across because the American people cannot stomach to be led by a man who is smarter than most of them, then this probably isn’t the country for me.

  159. 159.

    Nick

    February 10, 2010 at 4:04 pm

    @FlipYrWhig:

    He’s obviously saying that “most of the American people” support the idea that some people will acquire success and wealth.

    Which, I suppose, in the world of left blogistan is a “right wing” message.

    How someone doesn’t become a teabagger reading some liberal blogs is beyond me.

  160. 160.

    FlipYrWhig

    February 10, 2010 at 4:05 pm

    @sparky: You should infer that there are more Obama defenders here because the screaming crazy people took over all the other blogs. So we’re kinda prickly about that. And the larger point is that it’s hard to define “conventional wisdom” around here, because some of us are here because we got plenty fucking tired of hearing the same half-cocked ranting everywhere else and feel disinclined to give it a fair hearing yet again.

    It’s like when people complain about colleges being hotbeds of liberalism and call for better representation of conservative views on campus. It makes me think, Damn, diversity and free exchange of ideas are great, but why can’t we have _just one fucking place_ free of the same bullshit being flung _everywhere_ else?

  161. 161.

    sparky

    February 10, 2010 at 4:07 pm

    @Quiddity: yes, but if i understand you correctly you are assuming (or positing, at any rate) that the administration is otherwise willing to broadcast a message that will offend one of the key purseholders for the Ds. after some reflection on the rhetoric and the actual proposals (allows us to ignore all the folderol about how useless Congress is, which, for this argument is irrelevant), i find it stretches credulity to think that the Ds actually want to say anything inflammatory. they are in a straightjacket of their own (inadvertent?) devising, and what some see as a failure is, i think, better understood as the consequence of subscribing to a status quo that is defined by others.

    now, if you want to argue the failure is that actors with real political power allow (encourage?) the status quo to be defined in that fashion, that’s a different question and, i think, one that has a number of answers.

  162. 162.

    t jasper parnell

    February 10, 2010 at 4:11 pm

    @Nick: I would wager that as many Americans who support free market capitalism and getting rich find bankers and others who are paid 10s of millions of dollars a year beyond the pale.

    [Edit see, for example, this comment on this very blog:
    https://balloon-juice.com/?p=34414&cpage=2#comment-1579128%5D

  163. 163.

    sparky

    February 10, 2010 at 4:13 pm

    @FlipYrWhig: i think i can understand your frustration, but are you really contending that most of the people here who are critical of the administration are those kind of hit and run screamers? i admit that i am sometimes given to rhetorical excess but most of the other skeptics here (sorry couldn’t think of a better term) seem pretty calm in their comments. yes, i am excluding trolls, because there are a few here but honestly not many.

    if you are wondering about me, i read Glenzilla, but don’t read FDL. never have. and i can understand defending Obama. what i can’t understand is silence about Obama actions that are bad news.

  164. 164.

    Nick

    February 10, 2010 at 4:16 pm

    @t jasper parnell: Yes, only Obama didn’t specifically say bankers, he said, and I’ll quote him again.

    And I, like most of the American people, don’t begrudge
    people success or wealth

    Success and wealth is not spelled b-a-n-k-e-r-s.

  165. 165.

    sparky

    February 10, 2010 at 4:16 pm

    @t jasper parnell: yes, that’s what i thought too. it seems to have shifted of late, but perhaps that’s just a misperception on my part.

  166. 166.

    t jasper parnell

    February 10, 2010 at 4:19 pm

    @Nick: Nick, except, of course, that the examples from the business world about whom he was speaking were, you know, bankers. And, just as by the way, he was also pointing out — as has already been pointed out — that unsuccessful bankers and sports figures earn the ginormous salaries that they don’t deserve.

  167. 167.

    Notorious P.A.T.

    February 10, 2010 at 4:19 pm

    @pillsy:

    So is it your contention that the Republicans are going to be more hostile to corporate interests than Democrats? Because otherwise, what precisely is your point?

    My point is: it would be quite nice if Obama would protect the 300 million taxpayers of this country instead of ignoring the misdeeds of Wall Street. Maybe push for a consumer financial protection agency as hard as he pushed for Bernanke?

    @batgirl:

    Here is the quote you think exonerates Obama:

    And I, like most of the American people, don’t begrudge people success or wealth. That’s part of the free market system. I do think that the compensation packages that we’ve seen over the last decade at least have not matched up always to performance. I think that shareholders oftentimes have not had any significant say in the pay structures for CEOs…. Listen, $17 million is an extraordinary amount of money. Of course, there are some baseball players who are making more than that who don’t get to the World Series either. So I’m shocked by that as well. I guess the main principle we want to promote is a simple principle of “say on pay,” that shareholders have a chance to actually scrutinize what CEOs are getting paid.

    1. What is successful about Wall Street? They bet our country’s solvency on house prices going up forever, and lost big time.
    2. What does the free market have to do with those firms still existing, when they were saved by taxpayer funds?
    3. Oooh, what a ringing indictment of CEO pay! “I think it has not always matched up to performance”. Considering all the bold actions he has taken to correct this problem, you can tell he really means it!
    4. Exactly how many of us does he think own shares in Goldman Sachs? If he thinks it’s a good trade to lose middle-class and poor voters in return for securing that shareholder support, more power to him.
    5. What do baseball players have to do with this? Major league baseball makes a lot of money, and doesn’t need to be bailed out, and it didn’t gamble our society’s financial future away.
    6. “So I’m shocked by that as well” Oh yes, it’s so obvious by the sternly-worded letters you occasionally send out, you are really ticked off by these CEOs.
    7. Again with the poor, poor shareholders. Some naive people think the government is there to look out for taxpayers, not shareholders, especially when the only reason the shareholders still have shares worth a damn is taxpayer money.
    8. And the icing on the cake: he says shareholders should get to determine pay, not CEOs–then says it’s good that CEOs are being paid with shares, not cash.

  168. 168.

    Nick

    February 10, 2010 at 4:22 pm

    @t jasper parnell: That was my point. His comments were simply, to paraphrase “Look, I don’t resent people getting rich, I just don’t know if these bankers, like sports figures, deserve the wealth they have gotten”

    I don’t understand what’s wrong with that statement. Could someone tell me what’s so bad about that statement?

  169. 169.

    FlipYrWhig

    February 10, 2010 at 4:23 pm

    @t jasper parnell:

    I would wager that as many Americans who support free market capitalism and getting rich find bankers and others who are paid 10s of millions of dollars a year beyond the pale.

    Yes, absolutely. Which is the point of Obama’s comment. “We’re all capitalists here, but at this scale, I have to say, it does bother me.” Now, he didn’t say it that way. But the statement is set up to say that what’s going on with the banks is the _opposite_ of the “success and wealth” most Americans would support. It just takes a beat too long to get there (the beat that included “savvy businessmen”), and arrived to the blogs wrapped in a bullshit headline with a bullshittier lead sentence.

  170. 170.

    Nick

    February 10, 2010 at 4:26 pm

    @Notorious P.A.T.:

    Maybe push for a consumer financial protection agency as hard as he pushed for Bernanke?

    Ignorance got your tongue again? Remember this?

    http://www.businessweek.com/news/2010-01-20/obama-presses-dodd-to-act-on-consumer-protection-agency-measure.html

    President Obama met with retiring Sen. Chris Dodd (D-CT) yesterday and, according to the New York Times, pushed Dodd on the creation of a consumer protection agency.

    Dodd, who chairs the Senate Banking Committee, has reportedly been discussing dropping the agency in order to get Republican support on other financial regulatory reforms. Dodd recently announced that he will retire after this term.

    But aides told the Times that for Obama, the agency is “non-negotiable.”

    You’re so one-track mind focused on Wall St, you’re not realizing Obama wasn’t specifically talking about ONLY Wall st when he said “success and wealth,” he was talking about it in a general terms.

    You’re so busy looking for a reason to be outraged, you’re missing a hell of a lot.

  171. 171.

    Notorious P.A.T.

    February 10, 2010 at 4:29 pm

    Uh huh. Except, listen to a full speech by Obama.

    Fuck his speeches. When he works for escalation in Afghanistan but not for health care reform, and when he pleads with Congress to re-confirm Ben Bernanke but not to pass a cap-and-trade bill, it’s quite easy to see where his priorities are.

    @FlipYrWhig:

    Obama is suggesting that banker-athletes are performing poorly and thus do not deserve to be well paid.

    Actually, he is saying it is up to the shareholders to decide what bankers are paid. He is “shocked” at their current pay, but what is he going to do about it? And what will he do about it if shareholders decide they are alright with that pay?

    @Nick:

    We call that…regulation.

    You REALLY think that “leave it up to the shareholders” is regulation? Gosh, I didn’t know that corporate shareholders were now a branch of the government.

    @Max:

    They have post after post after post about how much Obama is the fail, and Hillary should resign and primary him. You’d fit right in and I think you’d enjoy being amongst your people.

    Right, because I so often say “Gosh, I wish we had Hillary instead of Obama!” That is something I usually say.

    But it’s me who sees what isn’t there, not you.

  172. 172.

    FlipYrWhig

    February 10, 2010 at 4:29 pm

    @Notorious P.A.T.:

    1. What is successful about Wall Street?

    That’s what _Obama_ is saying! Holy Christ! “Not that I have a problem with success or wealth or capitalism, but on pure performance these guys don’t deserve it.”

    5. What do baseball players have to do with this?

    Common people, you know, the ones everyone says Obama can’t connect with? Well, see, there’s this really frequent sports-talk gripe about players who get paid too much but don’t help their teams win. Thus:

    $17 million is an extraordinary amount of money. Of course, there are some baseball players who are making more than that who don’t get to the World Series either. So I’m shocked by that as well.

    The point isn’t that baseball players make more money than bank CEOs. The point is that money should be linked to winning.

  173. 173.

    t jasper parnell

    February 10, 2010 at 4:31 pm

    @Notorious P.A.T.:
    CEOs are getting paid.

    1. What is successful about Wall Street? They bet our country’s solvency on house prices going up forever, and lost big time.

    Exactly, that’s why Obama has been working on re-establishing regulatory regimes and the Democrats in the Congress have already passed new legislation

    2. What does the free market have to do with those firms still existing, when they were saved by taxpayer funds?

    Nothing. But lots of people like to think that there is a free market out there. I betcha, doncha know, that Obama actually believes that there is a free market. He is, in other words, wrong here but he is no more wrong that many, many of his fellow Americans.

    3. Oooh, what a ringing indictment of CEO pay! “I think it has not always matched up to performance”. Considering all the bold actions he has taken to correct this problem, you can tell he really means it!

    He has done more than any of his predecessors. It’s not enough but it is better than nothing.

    4. Exactly how many of us does he think own shares in Goldman Sachs? If he thinks it’s a good trade to lose middle-class and poor voters in return for securing that shareholder support, more power to him.

    If you go back a few months to when the stock market tumbled and you think it through, you will recall lots of middle class folks, like me, whose 401k lost 25 percent of its value. Its insidious there it is.

    5. What do baseball players have to do with this? Major league baseball makes a lot of money, and doesn’t need to be bailed out, and it didn’t gamble our society’s financial future away.

    Its a folksy analogy common to American discourse; indeed, common to any culture that has sports.

    6. “So I’m shocked by that as well” Oh yes, it’s so obvious by the sternly-worded letters you occasionally send out, you are really ticked off by these CEOs.

    ?
    7. Again with the poor, poor shareholders. Some naive people think the government is there to look out for taxpayers, not shareholders, especially when the only reason the shareholders still have shares worth a damn is taxpayer money.

    Taxpayers and shareholders a two sets that intersect

    8. And the icing on the cake: he says shareholders should get to determine pay, not CEOs—then says it’s good that CEOs are being paid with shares, not cash.

    Well, yes they should be in and shares that are held, right now in any event, for a mandatory 5 years instead of a grab bag of cash are better because they reward long-term thinking and strategies over short-term gain. But maybe you’re right and he should have done anything or he should have instituted socialism and ponies by executive order.

  174. 174.

    Notorious P.A.T.

    February 10, 2010 at 4:32 pm

    @Nick:

    You’re Mr “75%. of the country prefers Republican policies” and you call ME ignorant? Wow, what gall.

    I’m glad Obama did that. More of that is what we need.

    You’re so one-track mind focused on Wall St, you’re not realizing Obama wasn’t specifically talking about ONLY Wall st when he said “success and wealth,” he was talking about it in a general terms.

    That’s absolutely ludicrous. He was talking about wealth in “general terms”? He finished that thought with “that’s part of the free-market system”. Is success with your family or success in losing weight part of the free-market system?

  175. 175.

    FlipYrWhig

    February 10, 2010 at 4:33 pm

    @Notorious P.A.T.:

    Actually, he is saying it is up to the shareholders to decide what bankers are paid. He is “shocked” at their current pay, but what is he going to do about it?

    I dunno, what do you _want_ him to do about it? Seems like it is at heart an internal company matter for the shareholders to get pissed about and solve.

  176. 176.

    Nick

    February 10, 2010 at 4:33 pm

    @Notorious P.A.T.:

    You REALLY think that “leave it up to the shareholders” is regulation? Gosh, I didn’t know that corporate shareholders were now a branch of the government.

    Oh, I’m sorry, I’m forgot that I was supposed to support your naive idea that the government can fix everything.

  177. 177.

    Notorious P.A.T.

    February 10, 2010 at 4:33 pm

    Success and wealth is not spelled b-a-n-k-e-r-s.


    But bankers is what the interview was about.

  178. 178.

    Notorious P.A.T.

    February 10, 2010 at 4:34 pm

    @Midnight Marauder:

    it’s pretty safe to say that Notorious P.A.T. has not the slightest clue how basketball operates.

    Alright genius, where exactly did I go wrong? Should Kareem have been breaking the press and drive-and-dishing instead of Magic? Please be specific.

  179. 179.

    Notorious P.A.T.

    February 10, 2010 at 4:34 pm

    @Nick:

    Oh, I’m sorry, I’m forgot that I was supposed to support your naive idea that the government can fix everything.

    Where the HELL did I say “government can fix everything”? Sheeeesh.

  180. 180.

    Mnemosyne

    February 10, 2010 at 4:35 pm

    @sparky:

    it seems to have shifted of late, but perhaps that’s just a misperception on my part.

    I can’t speak for anyone else, but for me there was a shift when people started showing up and out-and-out lying about the healthcare bill. Not just one, but multiple people pushing the same lies. How many times did we see people with private insurance claim that they were going to have to pay the excise tax?

    Once the majority of the Obama critics who showed up here started using tactics like that, I stopped listening to them, because 90 percent of the time, I was able to do a brief Google and discover that they were “accidentally” leaving out big chunks of facts. Like the 5 (five) ongoing torture investigations that I guess you think aren’t good enough so you can just pretend they’re not happening at all.

  181. 181.

    FlipYrWhig

    February 10, 2010 at 4:35 pm

    @Notorious P.A.T.:

    He was talking about wealth in “general terms”? He finished that thought with “that’s part of the free-market system”

    Yes. Success and wealth are part of the free-market system. That is the preamble to the main point, which is that the bank CEOs have not done enough to deserve the wealth that _should_ come with success in a free-market system, which is why there should be ways for the shareholders to have their say about executive compensation.

  182. 182.

    Notorious P.A.T.

    February 10, 2010 at 4:35 pm

    It’s not enough but it is better than nothing.

    There’s Obama’s campaign slogan in ’12, I suppose.

    “OBAMA: Not enough but better than nothing”

  183. 183.

    Nick

    February 10, 2010 at 4:35 pm

    @Notorious P.A.T.: Wow, you’re unbelievably stupid…or just grasping at straws

    Is success with your family or success in losing weight part of the free-market system?

    CAREER SUCCESS, FINANCIAL SUCCESS, DUMBASS!!! He’s talking about, for example, if you start a restaurant and it become a chain that makes you millions, THAT kind of success.

    ugh.

  184. 184.

    Notorious P.A.T.

    February 10, 2010 at 4:37 pm

    That is the preamble to the main point, which is that the bank CEOs have not done enough to deserve the wealth that should come with success in a free-market system

    But if they haven’t done enough to deserve their pay, why does Obama say he doesn’t begrudge them that pay?

  185. 185.

    Notorious P.A.T.

    February 10, 2010 at 4:37 pm

    @Nick:

    Well, I’m not the one who is dumb enough to think we are a right-wing nation where 75% of voters prefer Republican policies. So I guess we can answer that right quick.

  186. 186.

    Nick

    February 10, 2010 at 4:37 pm

    @Notorious P.A.T.: Subject FAIL!

    No, bonuses and big salaries is what the QUESTION was about.

  187. 187.

    Nick

    February 10, 2010 at 4:39 pm

    @Notorious P.A.T.: No, you’re the one dumb enough to believe everyone will sing kumbaya to progressive populism. WAKE UP PAT, Independents aren’t voting Republicans across the country, and 20% of Democrats aren’t voting Republican across the country, because the government isn’t spending enough money.

  188. 188.

    Nick

    February 10, 2010 at 4:40 pm

    @Notorious P.A.T.:

    But if they haven’t done enough to deserve their pay, why does Obama say he doesn’t begrudge them that pay?

    OH GOOD FUCKING CHRIST, HE DIDN’T SAY THAT! PLEASE, SHOW ME EXACTLY WHERE HE SAID THE WORDS “I do not begrudge these CEOs bonuses”

    He did NOT say that.

  189. 189.

    FlipYrWhig

    February 10, 2010 at 4:41 pm

    @Notorious P.A.T.:

    bankers is what the interview was about.

    IMHO the real complaint about what Obama said should be that he gives too much ground and defaults to a kind of defensiveness.

    The question was about bank CEOs.

    The answer was, first, a disclaimer about how he’s not opposed to success and wealth; and then, second, in that light, a specific reply about what to do with bank CEOs. Linking the two is the idea that bank CEOs should have to _deserve_ what they’re paid.

    So your issue with him should be this: Why does he make all these disclaimer moves? It sounds like throat-clearing. Why doesn’t he just answer the question directly?

    And that would be a valid point, worth debating.

  190. 190.

    Mnemosyne

    February 10, 2010 at 4:43 pm

    @Notorious P.A.T.:

    He was talking about wealth in “general terms”?

    Unless you think that Alex Rodriguez works for B of A then, yes, he was talking about wealth in general terms, which is why he discussed it in terms of rich people who aren’t bankers.

  191. 191.

    t jasper parnell

    February 10, 2010 at 4:45 pm

    @Notorious P.A.T.:

    You could read this and see if you agree that:

    there is one extremely consequential area where Obama has done just about everything a liberal could ask for–but done it so quietly that almost no one, including most liberals, has noticed. Obama’s three Republican predecessors were all committed to weakening or even destroying the country’s regulatory apparatus: the Environmental Protection Agency (EPA), the Occupational Safety and Health Administration (OSHA), the Securities and Exchange Commission (SEC), and the other agencies that are supposed to protect workers and consumers by regulating business practices. Now Obama is seeking to rebuild these battered institutions. In doing so, he isn’t simply improving the effectiveness of various government offices or making scattered progress on a few issues

  192. 192.

    Mnemosyne

    February 10, 2010 at 4:46 pm

    @Notorious P.A.T.:

    But if they haven’t done enough to deserve their pay, why does Obama say he doesn’t begrudge them that pay?

    He doesn’t, as several other people have already explained in word-by-word detail. I’m really not getting your reading comprehension fail here. It’s like you’ve never heard of a simile or a metaphor.

  193. 193.

    FlipYrWhig

    February 10, 2010 at 4:48 pm

    @Notorious P.A.T.:

    if they haven’t done enough to deserve their pay, why does Obama say he doesn’t begrudge them that pay?

    Aha. Nick is right. Only the Bloomberg reporter and the HuffPo headline writer phrased it that way.

    He’s asked about these bank CEO bonuses.

    He says that he doesn’t begrudge wealth or success as a general rule.

    He then talks about the specific cases, and literally uses the word “shocked.”

    This whole fiasco is like answering a question with, “Maybe there’s something I’m missing, but I think {xyz}” and having everyone say, “OMG! He admitted there was something he was missing!”

  194. 194.

    Nick

    February 10, 2010 at 4:50 pm

    @FlipYrWhig:

    So your issue with him should be this: Why does he make all these disclaimer moves? It sounds like throat-clearing. Why doesn’t he just answer the question directly?

    The obvious answer is that if he answered the question directly, they would’ve spun it as him being against wealth and success and he wants to tax the hell out of anyone who makes a lot of money (which everyone wants to do) and as such, is against you succeeding.

    But many liberals don’t think that message sticks, which is very delusional of them.

    It’s kinda like how they think if we argue that everyone deserves equal human rights, people will just up and oppose terrorism and support gay marriage.

  195. 195.

    Nick

    February 10, 2010 at 4:50 pm

    @FlipYrWhig:

    So your issue with him should be this: Why does he make all these disclaimer moves? It sounds like throat-clearing. Why doesn’t he just answer the question directly?

    The obvious answer is that if he answered the question directly, they would’ve spun it as him being against wealth and success and he wants to tax the hell out of anyone who makes a lot of money (which everyone wants to do) and as such, is against you succeeding.

    But many liberals don’t think that message sticks, which is very delusional of them.

    It’s kinda like how they think if we argue that everyone deserves equal human rights, people will just up and oppose torture and support gay marriage.

  196. 196.

    t jasper parnell

    February 10, 2010 at 4:51 pm

    @Notorious P.A.T.:

    Why that is almost a coherent response, although it misses the larger point that far from your characterization of Obama as doing nothing he has, in fact, done quite a bit and if you and those who think Obama is all about the fail in everything would take a deep breath and look at what he has done you too might find your self urging him on instead of mindless criticizing. And yes, I think your criticism is mindless.

  197. 197.

    Mnemosyne

    February 10, 2010 at 4:51 pm

    @FlipYrWhig:

    This whole fiasco is like answering a question with, “Maybe there’s something I’m missing, but I think {xyz}” and having everyone say, “OMG! He admitted there was something he was missing!”

    Oh, you’re just being a silly O-bot who wants to defend Obama the same way RedState defended Bush as long as you insist on actually reading the guy’s words for yourself and pointing out that Krugman went off half-cocked on a partial quote.

  198. 198.

    Midnight Marauder

    February 10, 2010 at 4:52 pm

    @Notorious P.A.T.:

    Alright genius, where exactly did I go wrong? Should Kareem have been breaking the press and drive-and-dishing instead of Magic? Please be specific.

    Well technically, when you’re the point guard it isn’t your job to look around for someone else to pass the ball.

    Fundamentally, that is exactly what a point guard does. Exactly. Just replace “point guard” with “quarterback” to understand how patently absurd that statement was.

  199. 199.

    FlipYrWhig

    February 10, 2010 at 4:56 pm

    @Midnight Marauder: In defense of Notorious P.A.T.:

    Well technically, when you’re the point guard it isn’t your job to look around for someone else to pass the ball.

    The problem is the ambiguity of the phrase “someone else to pass the ball.” Does it mean that the point guard isn’t looking to pass the ball to someone else? Or does it mean that the point guard isn’t looking for someone else to pass the ball to him?

  200. 200.

    t jasper parnell

    February 10, 2010 at 5:01 pm

    @FlipYrWhig: Stop reading with nuance and understanding and start reading with hostile intent and then you too can accuse Obama of killing babies and loving corrupt wallstreet fat cats more than he loves the everyman and women who made America great by not investing in stocks and bonds but by voting for Hillary or Kucinich as the case may be..

  201. 201.

    Serenity Now

    February 10, 2010 at 5:11 pm

    This place is really one of the last few smart liberal blogs on the internet…if only for the intelligence of the commentators. Every time I think, oh gosh are they going to buy the BS here too? A bunch of intelligent, truthful, aware people totally smack down said BS/crap meme of the day.

    Thank y’all.

    OT: Professional news models (I no longer think of them as reporters) are getting way to much joy out of this snow storm.

  202. 202.

    Midnight Marauder

    February 10, 2010 at 5:13 pm

    @FlipYrWhig:

    The problem is the ambiguity of the phrase “someone else to pass the ball.” Does it mean that the point guard isn’t looking to pass the ball to someone else? Or does it mean that the point guard isn’t looking for someone else to pass the ball to him?

    I guess I can accept that. However, if you are the point guard, both of those things are your job. It’s your job to run the offense via a) passing the ball around on your own; or b) if someone else has the ball and is stuck/trapped, telling them where to move the ball. Either way, the ambiguity didn’t do that analogy any favors.

  203. 203.

    FlipYrWhig

    February 10, 2010 at 5:21 pm

    @Midnight Marauder: Good point. But I think that’s why Notorious P.A.T. was confused by the reaction to the comment. One sentence that could mean two almost completely opposite things! Did anyone else see an old Saturday Night Live bit with Ed Asner as the nuclear power plant manager on his last day, and his parting words were, “You can’t put too much water in a nuclear reactor”?

  204. 204.

    4jkb4ia

    February 10, 2010 at 5:31 pm

    Merkley did not show up in order to ask a question! (Same hearing)
    Impression that Banking has less demagoguery per Republican senator confirmed. DeMint has enough for two Republican senators.

  205. 205.

    4jkb4ia

    February 10, 2010 at 5:33 pm

    It’s important for Merkley to have a question even if the stories were all written because of the point which John alluded to some time ago that you want to have a difference between left-wing populism and right-wing populism that isn’t the social issues. You don’t want to give Bunning the floor for everything you wanted to say yourself.

  206. 206.

    Bullsmith

    February 10, 2010 at 5:34 pm

    The problem here is that there are obvious, really really obvious problems in the way Wall Street works that the President seems to be completely ignoring. A couple of, I hope, uncontroversial examples:

    1) How did worthless paper get rated AAA and get sold to widows-and-orphans type investors? To me there is prima facae evidence of fraud, but surely everyone sees we need better securities ratings or our investment decisions aren’t anything but misinformed guesses.

    2) The same people who get CEO compensation sit on each other’s boards and determine each other’s compensation. The same people sit on the NYFED and regulate themselves. The same people sit in the Treasury and regulate their peers. The CEO of Godman’s was in the room when the ex-CEO decided to give them billions, most of it hidden from the public at the time.

    A clear result of these two problems nobody in Washington seems to be really addressing was contained in some of the early blog criticism of Obama’s over-hyped comment, I think in Krugman. Rating agencies are threatening to downgrade the rating of big banks if they see signs that the banks will not be automatically bailed out if they gamble badly again. In other words right now they are rated as safe investments not because they are financially sound, but because the rating agency has determined they have free and unlimited access to taxpayer’s money as necessary.

    So what Obama said was meh. But being a year after the bank bailout without any kind of significant regulatory reform or any kind of upper-class tax increase or any other actual reaction to what was basically an inside job is pretty frustrating. Goldman guys, past and present, looted the Treasury and walked away, and the President is busy mending his bridges with Wall Street.

    America’s fucked. Any sign of a Roosevelt on the horizon?

  207. 207.

    t jasper parnell

    February 10, 2010 at 5:40 pm

    @Bullsmith: John Judis argues that Obama is acting more like Roosevelt than he is getting credit for:

    Obama’s regulatory appointments could not be more different–no surprise given that he is the son of two social scientists (one of whom attempted to introduce scientific administration to Kenya) and that he once worked in academia himself. Indeed, the flow of expertise into the federal bureaucracy over the past year has been reminiscent of what took place at the start of the New Deal.

  208. 208.

    Bruce (formerly Steve S.)

    February 10, 2010 at 5:41 pm

    OH GOOD FUCKING CHRIST, HE DIDN’T SAY THAT! PLEASE, SHOW ME EXACTLY WHERE HE SAID THE WORDS “I do not begrudge these CEOs bonuses”

    He said he doesn’t begrudge “wealth” as a consequence of the “free market system”. Though, he goes on to in fact begrudge wealth that is not tied to athletic performance or shareholder scrutiny. That’s of course a contradiction, in that if we are a free market system, and markets allocate money where they will, and it ends up in the pockets of Wall Street execs and baseball players, then that’s the way it goes. The President is speaking politically, needless to say, and is dumbing down his answer quite a bit for mass consumption. I wouldn’t take it too seriously, let’s just hope that instead of vague gobbledegook we get meaningful financial regulation in the next few months.

  209. 209.

    4jkb4ia

    February 10, 2010 at 5:54 pm

    OK, Merkley is coming, and will ask question, albeit out of order.

  210. 210.

    Mnemosyne

    February 10, 2010 at 6:00 pm

    @Bullsmith:

    How did worthless paper get rated AAA and get sold to widows-and-orphans type investors?

    If you haven’t already, you need to listen to “The Giant Pool of Money” episode of This American Life. It walks you through what happened step-by-step and, brother, it’s even more effed up than you ever dreamed.

  211. 211.

    4jkb4ia

    February 10, 2010 at 6:06 pm

    Related to the core discussion here, my mom, obviously no fan of Matt Taibbi from what I will write, said that Goldman Sachs was able to survive the crisis because they embraced all of the risks, and were smarter than anybody else. So the issue is not what Blankfein gives himself but the activity for which he feels fairly rewarded for what he gives himself, as we saw in the NYT with betting against the housing market and hiding it from the other suckers. And that was a softball for Obama to hit.

    (Edit: Goldman compensation committee decided amount of bonus)

  212. 212.

    4jkb4ia

    February 10, 2010 at 6:31 pm

    (Not such a softball because it doesn’t benefit Obama to mention being sorry for poor AIG)

  213. 213.

    LanceThruster

    February 10, 2010 at 6:39 pm

    I feel your pain, John. Especially since the only other option is to side with the party of concentrated evil (move over Mayberry Machiavellis). I can see why so many go over to the dark side. Better to be an amoral f*ckwit than a cloying and obsequious majority party member.

    All I can figure is that domestic spying provided some serious dirt on the Dems. Otherwise, a person might actually want to make use of their spine rather than relinquish it voluntarily.

  214. 214.

    Notorious P.A.T.

    February 10, 2010 at 6:49 pm

    @Midnight Marauder:

    Well technically, when you’re the point guard it isn’t your job to look around for someone else to pass the ball.

    Fundamentally, that is exactly what a point guard does. Exactly. Just replace “point guard” with “quarterback” to understand how patently absurd that statement was.

    So, for the record: you think the point guard should look for someone else to run the offense, rather than do it themself? I have to admit, that is. . . original.

  215. 215.

    Notorious P.A.T.

    February 10, 2010 at 6:59 pm

    @FlipYrWhig:

    I dunno, what do you want him to do about it? Seems like it is at heart an internal company matter for the shareholders to get pissed about and solve.

    How many billions of dollars did we give to those companies? Oh well, it’s gone down the rabbit hole now. I guess we don’t get a say in what they do with it, huh? Sweet deal.

    OMG, what a wuss! King says his white critics are of “genuine good will” and their criticisms are “sincerely set forth”! “Patient” and “reasonable”? WTF? Grow a pair, Martin!

    Good comparison, because King (like Obama) shied away from confrontation, let situations get out of hand then expected to save the day with just a glowing speech, and wasn’t too worried about disturbing the comfortable.

  216. 216.

    Notorious P.A.T.

    February 10, 2010 at 7:04 pm

    @Nick:

    I would guess that 75% figure is actually about right. We live in an obviously right-wing country.

    538.com: 5 out of 6 polls show 60% or more of public support a public opotion

    Link

    ABC News: clear majority support public option over bipartisan approach

    Link

    Reuters: 59.9% of Americans back public option

    Link

  217. 217.

    Nick

    February 10, 2010 at 7:07 pm

    @Notorious P.A.T.:

    How many billions of dollars did we give to those companies? Oh well, it’s gone down the rabbit hole now.

    Seriously, do you live in your own reality? You didn’t know the President took on the Republicans on live television at least twice in a week. You didn’t know he demanded Chris Dodd keep the consumer protection agency in the financial reform bill and you don’t know that THEY PAID BACK MOST OF THE TARP MONEY!

  218. 218.

    Notorious P.A.T.

    February 10, 2010 at 7:12 pm

    @Nick:

    I would guess that 75% figure is actually about right. We live in an obviously right-wing country.

    Polling Report.com: Clear majority of Americans against war in Iraq.

    “Do you favor or oppose the U.S. war in Iraq? (1/22-24/10)”

    Favor: 39%
    Oppose: 60%

    http://www.pollingreport.com/iraq.htm

    Pew Research: March 19, 2008– a 54% majority said the U.S. made the wrong decision in using military force in Iraq, while 38% said it was the right decision.

    Link

  219. 219.

    t jasper parnell

    February 10, 2010 at 7:13 pm

    @Notorious P.A.T.:

    How many billions of dollars did we give to those companies? Oh well, it’s gone down the rabbit hole now. I guess we don’t get a say in what they do with it, huh? Sweet deal.

    Well, according to this we promised $574,071,801,955 to 829 Recipients of which $499,479,755,291 has been sent out and $165,614,458,261returned.

    As to what they did with, some like Fanny and Freddie used it to say afloat as did GMC and others, no doubt, used it to buy ponies. Personally, I am glad that the money went to GMC and saved goodness knows how many jobs and sad that bankers and others are still paying themselves too much but gladden that Obama created a special master who, for the first time since the Great Depression, can interfere with CEO compensation and has begun to create a system that ties compensation to success and fosters among those benefiting a concern for the long-range health of the companies they run.

  220. 220.

    Mnemosyne

    February 10, 2010 at 7:15 pm

    @Notorious P.A.T.:

    How many billions of dollars did we give to those companies? Oh well, it’s gone down the rabbit hole now.

    And by “down the rabbit hole” you mean “back into the US Treasury,” right?

    Of course, they’ve only repaid $161 billion of the $245 billion so far, so clearly this is total OBAMA FAIL despite the expected $19 billion profit the government will make!

  221. 221.

    t jasper parnell

    February 10, 2010 at 7:20 pm

    If you are interested in the Stimulus numbers go here and learn that Govt has so far spent $179 billion with a further $154 billion in the works
    and has $247 billion remaining with $93 billion in Tax cuts issued and $119 billion in Tax cuts remaining.

    Personally I don’t think the tax cuts are good idea. As they say, however, sausages and laws are remarkable similar.

  222. 222.

    Notorious P.A.T.

    February 10, 2010 at 7:23 pm

    @Nick:

    I would guess that 75% figure is actually about right. We live in an obviously right-wing country.

    CBS: “Forty-two percent of Americans now say same sex couples should be allowed to legally marry, a new CBS News/New York Times poll finds. Twenty-eight percent say same sex couples should have no legal recognition – down from 35 percent in March – while 25 percent support civil unions, but not marriage, for gay couples.”

    Link

    ABC: “Support for gay marriage, legalizing illegal immigrants and decriminalizing marijuana all are at new highs. Three-quarters of Americans favor federal regulation of greenhouse gases. Two-thirds support establishing relations with Cuba.”

    Link (pdf)

  223. 223.

    t jasper parnell

    February 10, 2010 at 7:26 pm

    @Notorious P.A.T.: You are right the the 75% number is [as] nonsensical as the notion that America is center right.

  224. 224.

    Notorious P.A.T.

    February 10, 2010 at 7:27 pm

    @Mnemosyne:

    From your link:

    Still, banks still aren’t lending at full throttle yet —- consumer credit has been falling for months, and borrowing dropped by $8.7 billion in September.

    Isn’t that what we gave banks that money for: to lend out?

    But at least Obama “scolded” the banks for not lending. I’m sure they feel totally shamed.

    Of course, they’ve only repaid $161 billion of the $245 billion so far, so clearly this is total OBAMA FAIL despite the expected $19 billion profit the government will make!

    Well shoot, no chance that estimate will turn out to be wrong.

  225. 225.

    Midnight Marauder

    February 10, 2010 at 7:29 pm

    @Notorious P.A.T.:

    So, for the record: you think the point guard should look for someone else to run the offense, rather than do it themself? I have to admit, that is. . . original.

    As the point guard, your primary mission to keep the ball moving and in play, whether you have said ball in your hands or not. That’s all I’m saying.

    But let’s just agree that the basketball analogy fest got off to a inherently doomed start, all right?

  226. 226.

    Nick

    February 10, 2010 at 7:32 pm

    @Notorious P.A.T.: When I said, “in some form or another…I think 75% back Republican policies”, that first part didn’t really make it through into your brain did it? Not surprising from someone who can’t seem to digest AN ENTIRE QUOTE, just filter what you want to hear.

    But go ahead and keep living in your delusional world where America is a secret progressive utopia.

  227. 227.

    t jasper parnell

    February 10, 2010 at 7:33 pm

    @Notorious P.A.T.:
    So far there is an estimated loss of 9 bn with 17.6 bn in revenue from the bank bailouts. While lending remains tight, one can hope things are going to loosen up and that Obama’s continued use of the bully pulpit and regulatory regimes to hasten the loosening will bear addition fruit. Or, of course, we could curse the darkness.

  228. 228.

    Nick

    February 10, 2010 at 7:37 pm

    @Notorious P.A.T.: Let’s play the poll game

    Now I would turn to the case involving the man who tried to blow up a commercial airliner on Christmas Day. Do you think the accused Christmas Day attacker should be tried as an enemy combatant or as an ordinary criminal?”

    2/2-8/19

    Enemy Combatant- 76%
    Ordinary Criminal- 19%
    Unsure- 5%

    “Which do you prefer: to make sure that the 9/11 suspects receive the constitutional protections afforded in a civilian trial, or to make sure that the 9/11 suspects are not eligible for all of those constitutional protections by having a military trial?”

    2/2-8/10

    Civilian Trial- 25%
    Military Trial- 68%
    Unsure- 6%

    http://www.pollingreport.com/terror.htm
    The latter I’d argue is very CLEARLY a Republican policy.

  229. 229.

    t jasper parnell

    February 10, 2010 at 7:38 pm

    @Nick: What policies, though? The liberty freedom and a pony policies or the slash, burn, privatize, and aid the rich policies.

    The GOP needs to be the party of Old People, of traditional values (like freedom, democracy, religious liberty, and the family) and of dynamic, entreprenuerial economic growth fed by liberty and the free market (not crony capitalism).

  230. 230.

    Notorious P.A.T.

    February 10, 2010 at 7:40 pm

    @Nick:

    I would guess that 75% figure is actually about right. We live in an obviously right-wing country.

    CAP: “By 61 percent to 29 percent, voters say that keeping Social Security as a program with a guaranteed monthly benefit is more important than letting younger workers decide for themselves how some of their Social Security contributions are invested, with varying benefit levels depending on the success of their investments.”

    Link

    538.com: “In fact, a more objective and equivocal evaluation of public opinion on more than two dozen specific issues finds that the Republican Congress has far more often been on the wrong side of [public opinion]”

    “An ABC/Post poll found a 73-26 majority in favor of taxing financial sector bonuses over $1 million dollars, although the White House has not advocated for that measure. . . a CBS/NYT poll in April found 74 percent in favor, and 23 percent opposed, to raising taxes on those making more than $250,000 per year. . . A Time/SRBI poll in October found that 59 percent of the public favors more regulation of Wall Street versus 13 percent favoring less. . . Four organizations — FOX, Gallup, Quinnipiac, and CNN — have released polls on Don’t Ask Don’t Tell since Obama’s inauguration. They show an average of 58 percent saying that Don’t Ask Don’t Tell should be repealed and that gays and lesbians should be allowed to serve openly in the military. . . A CNN poll in December found 74 percent thought Obama should concentrate on creating more jobs “even if it means less deficit reduction. . . ”

    Link

  231. 231.

    t jasper parnell

    February 10, 2010 at 7:42 pm

    Because it never gets old, what Obama actually said:

    “I, like most of the American people, don’t begrudge people success or wealth. That’s part of the free market system. I do think that the compensation packages that we’ve seen over the last decade at least have not matched up always to performance. I think that shareholders oftentimes have not had any significant say in the pay structures for CEOs.”

    When asked whether seventeen million dollars is a lot for Main Street to stomach, he expressed shock at the size of the compensation and called for the same actions that are a part of the comprehensive financial reform proposal that has been working its way through Congress:

    “Listen, $17 million is an extraordinary amount of money. Of course, there are some baseball players who are making more than that who don’t get to the World Series either. So I’m shocked by that as well. I guess the main principle we want to promote is a simple principle of “say on pay,” that shareholders have a chance to actually scrutinize what CEOs are getting paid. And I think that serves as a restraint and helps align performance with pay. The other thing we do think is the more that pay comes in the form of stock that requires proven performance over a certain period of time as opposed to quarterly earnings is a fairer way of measuring CEOs’ success and ultimately will make the performance of American businesses better.”

    [all the stuff after the block quote ought to be block quoted]

  232. 232.

    Notorious P.A.T.

    February 10, 2010 at 7:45 pm

    @Nick:

    When I said, “in some form or another…I think 75% back Republican policies”, that first part didn’t really make it through into your brain did it?

    When did you say “in some form or another”?

    Anyway, that doesn’t help you. It’s idiotic to say “we are living in a center-right nation”. How has Social Security lasted 80 years and Medicare 45? Those are programs that conservatives hate. How did we get the civil rights acts passed? Conservatives opposed those. Where you live, do most people go around saying “gee, I wish we would start a war with Iraq” or “it’s fine with me if industry dumps whatever pollution they want into our water”?

  233. 233.

    Mnemosyne

    February 10, 2010 at 7:48 pm

    @Notorious P.A.T.:

    Isn’t that what we gave banks that money for: to lend out?

    You move the goalposts almost as smoothly as Newt does.

  234. 234.

    Notorious P.A.T.

    February 10, 2010 at 7:50 pm

    he expressed shock

    I’m amazed at how impressed some people are with that.

    and called for the same actions that are a part of the comprehensive financial reform proposal that has been working its way through Congress

    Maybe my monitor is broken, maybe my glasses are fogged up, but I don’t see any support for regulatory reform in his interview. Letting shareholders decide is hardly a regulatory reform. Maybe he did call for that in the interview. I’ll believe it when I see it. And the idea that taking stock instead of money will encourage CEOs to do a better job is a dream. Our government has proven it will pay top dollar for worthless paper.

  235. 235.

    Notorious P.A.T.

    February 10, 2010 at 7:51 pm

    @Mnemosyne:

    You move the goalposts almost as smoothly as Newt does.

    Now what the heck are YOU talking about? I could be wrong, but I think all I’ve been saying was that it was foolish to give that money to banks without any restrictions.

  236. 236.

    t jasper parnell

    February 10, 2010 at 7:53 pm

    @Mnemosyne: I am not sure but I don’t think this is goal post moving; I think that NPAT is angry because everything hasn’t happened at once, which is wrong but wrong in a different way, although you may be right and maintaining the outrage requires goal post moving because unlike Zeno’s paradox moving half way to the goal actually means one day you’ll get there.

  237. 237.

    t jasper parnell

    February 10, 2010 at 7:54 pm

    @Notorious P.A.T.:
    Ya know this interview isn’t all he has said or done

    @Notorious P.A.T.: There were some restrictions, but I think you’re right there ought to have been more. I blame the panic everyone was in. [And you’ve said far more than this; most of it without anything like a factually basis]

  238. 238.

    Notorious P.A.T.

    February 10, 2010 at 7:56 pm

    @Nick:

    “Do you think the accused Christmas Day attacker should be tried as an enemy combatant or as an ordinary criminal?”

    Wow, many Americans who think a foreigner who tried to kill people in the name of al-Qaeda counts as an enemy combatant. I guess it’s time to tear up my Liberal Membership Card.

  239. 239.

    FlipYrWhig

    February 10, 2010 at 7:57 pm

    @Notorious P.A.T.:

    How many billions of dollars did we give to those companies? Oh well, it’s gone down the rabbit hole now. I guess we don’t get a say in what they do with it, huh? Sweet deal.

    OK, fine, yes, Someone should do Something. Now the trick is to figure out who Someone is and what Something is and make sure Someone can actually accomplish Something. Obama gave one suggestion in this interview, which was the “say on pay” thing. How else do you want “say” to happen, materially, tangibly, legally, bureaucratically? Remember when there was that whole to-do about whether it was possible to pass a law that would claw back last year’s round of bonuses, and how it’s actually constitutionally difficult?

  240. 240.

    Mnemosyne

    February 10, 2010 at 7:59 pm

    @Notorious P.A.T.:

    I could be wrong, but I think all I’ve been saying was that it was foolish to give that money to banks without any restrictions.

    No, that’s not what you said. This is what you said:

    How many billions of dollars did we give to those companies? Oh well, it’s gone down the rabbit hole now. I guess we don’t get a say in what they do with it, huh? Sweet deal.

    Since the money has been repaid, no, we don’t really get much of a say in what they do with it. We loaned them money and they paid it back. You seemed to be implying that they took our money without repaying it, which is not correct. If that’s not what you were implying, I’m not sure what your problem is since they paid the money back.

  241. 241.

    FlipYrWhig

    February 10, 2010 at 8:00 pm

    @Notorious P.A.T.:

    Maybe my monitor is broken, maybe my glasses are fogged up, but I don’t see any support for regulatory reform in his interview.

    [Gasp!] You just admitted that your monitor is broken and your glasses are fogged up! I mean, it’s right there, in the first half of your sentence. I’m not sure how you can recover from this startling gaffe.

  242. 242.

    Nick

    February 10, 2010 at 8:02 pm

    @Notorious P.A.T.:

    Wow, many Americans who think a foreigner who tried to kill people in the name of al-Qaeda counts as an enemy combatant. I guess it’s time to tear up my Liberal Membership Card.

    Glenn Greenwald would certainly think so.

  243. 243.

    FlipYrWhig

    February 10, 2010 at 8:03 pm

    @Notorious P.A.T.:

    I could be wrong, but I think all I’ve been saying was that it was foolish to give that money to banks without any restrictions.

    And here you actually admitted that you were wrong! First halves of sentences really are the best part, because therein you can always find the entire truth.

  244. 244.

    Mnemosyne

    February 10, 2010 at 8:05 pm

    @t jasper parnell:

    you may be right and maintaining the outrage requires goal post moving because unlike Zeno’s paradox moving half way to the goal actually means one day you’ll get there.

    Given the political failures of the past 30 years or so, I can’t say I entirely blame people who are unwilling to accept incremental change, but it pisses me off when they try to pretend the incremental change never happened at all.

  245. 245.

    t jasper parnell

    February 10, 2010 at 8:06 pm

    A further point, because my contributions have so helped to shape the conversation, how many here have seen the WH and its minions fulminating about the Baptists in Haiti? Me neither. Yet today, it seems, the miscreants, for miscreants they were, get to go free. This, I submit, is evidence of the massive change Obama represents.

  246. 246.

    t jasper parnell

    February 10, 2010 at 8:07 pm

    @Mnemosyne: agree on all points.

  247. 247.

    Notorious P.A.T.

    February 10, 2010 at 8:09 pm

    @t jasper parnell:

    I think that NPAT is angry because everything hasn’t happened at once

    Yes, that’s it. I think everything should have been done at once. Good call.

    I’m not mad because the stimulus was half the size it should have been due to Democrats negotiating against themselves. I’m not mad because Obama is basically pursuing Bush’s civil liberties strategies. I’m not mad because Obama thinks there is a big difference between holding innocent people in prison forever on Guantanamo Bay and holding innocent people in prison forever in Illinois. I’m not mad because Democrats wasted their supermajority year by letting Max Baucus have a month to toy around with health care reform, and letting Ben Nelson have a month to screw around, and spending a month trying to come up with something that Olympia Snowe would support, constantly watering down their plan for support that never came, and that millions of people knew plainly would never come. I’m not mad that Obama thinks we need to send thousands more war-weary soldiers to Afghanistan to fight 200 al-Qaeda militants, at a cost of billions of dollars that he doesn’t see fit to raise money for. I’m not mad that Obama saw fit to bring back Ben Bernanke as Fed Chairman, a man who refuses to use his office to fight unemployment (which is 50% of the Federal Reserve’s reason for existence). I’m not mad that he refuses to carry out his Constitutionally-mandated responsibilities to enforce the law by looking into Bush-era lawbreaking because–get this– it might divide the country. I’m not mad that he had no backup plan in case his “Momentum Strategy” didn’t work. I’m not mad that, rather than issue an executive order for the military (which he commands) to ignore Don’t Ask Don’t Tell, he wants a deeply dysfunctional Congress to handle it. I’m not mad that, rather than fight the needed fight and argue for more federal spending to combat the recession, he instead comes out with a ridiculous “spending freeze” plan.

    No, I’m mad because I expect the little man who lives in my TV to just wave his wand and do everything he said he would do all at once! Because that’s how we who are disappointed with Obama are: we expect everything to happen all at once. That’s why we volunteered for days and weeks during his campaign, and why donated money we couldn’t really afford (not because we could give enough to swing the election, but because we figured that over time it would add up), and why we spent a whole summer trying to get our parents and co-workers and neighbors to support the black guy. We did that because, obviously, we expect change to happen overnight.

  248. 248.

    t jasper parnell

    February 10, 2010 at 8:12 pm

    @t jasper parnell: Is that that irony thing I’ve heard so much about? Like I said, you seem mad because everything didn’t happen at once and, it turns out, politicians are politicians. Good for you, I say, the world needs more idealists.

    [this is not, in fact, a response to me but to NPAT supra]

  249. 249.

    Nick

    February 10, 2010 at 8:20 pm

    @Notorious P.A.T.:

    I’m starting to believe you can’t read

    When did you say “in some form or another”?

    Comment 75;

    February 10th, 2010 at 12:19 pm Reply to this comment

    Nick

    @Bill E Pilgrim:

    You think that 75% of the voters are Republicans?

    In some form or another, yeah, I think 75% easily support Republican policies.

    As far as this;

    Anyway, that doesn’t help you. It’s idiotic to say “we are living in a center-right nation”. How has Social Security lasted 80 years and Medicare 45? Those are programs that conservatives hate. How did we get the civil rights acts passed? Conservatives opposed those.

    They passed when we weren’t a center-right nation, which we weren’t until about 1980.

    Where you live, do most people go around saying “gee, I wish we would start a war with Iraq” or “it’s fine with me if industry dumps whatever pollution they want into our water”?

    Actually yeah. Welcome to fabulous Oradell, New Jersey.

  250. 250.

    Bruce (formerly Steve S.)

    February 10, 2010 at 8:20 pm

    Because it never gets old,

    Actually, it is a bunch of contradictory nonsense that is getting old quick, though I don’t begrudge a politician trying to play both sides of the fence. We’ll see what kind of genuine reform comes out of our lovely government in the coming months, in the meantime I hope we’re not exposed to too much more of this kind of boilerplate. Had a bellyful of it during the health care marathon.

  251. 251.

    sparky

    February 10, 2010 at 8:21 pm

    @Mnemosyne: um, what exactly is the incremental change?

    not a snark question: i am curious as to what, exactly, has “changed”. and by that i mean non-trivial changes in policy, because it is nonsense to say that a D and an R would have exactly the same policies or staffers. e.g., saying Obama appointed different people than Bush is pretty much a non-starter.

  252. 252.

    t jasper parnell

    February 10, 2010 at 8:30 pm

    @sparky:

    saying Obama appointed different people than Bush is pretty much a non-starter.

    This is nonsense on stilts. The folks charged with doing things matter as they will or won’t actually try to, you know, do things. It takes a while for this approach to work, which is why it is incremental change. It is also why it so frustrating to watch.

    And to NPAT re how hard you worked etc. Golly and none of the 90% or so of self identified liberal who continue to support Obama did anything like that. Nope it was you and those who wanted change now and damn the torpedoes who got him elected, all on your lonesome. Sheesh.

  253. 253.

    Mnemosyne

    February 10, 2010 at 8:48 pm

    @sparky:

    and by that i mean non-trivial changes in policy, because it is nonsense to say that a D and an R would have exactly the same policies or staffers. e.g., saying Obama appointed different people than Bush is pretty much a non-starter.

    Now you have to tell me what you mean by “non-trivial changes in policy.” I think that having OSHA actually enforcing the law and making sure that employees are protected from workplace accidents is a “non-trivial” change. I think expanding S-CHIP is a “non-trivial” change. I think that withdrawing troops from Iraq is a “non-trivial” change. I think that getting a stimulus package passed through Congress at all is a “non-trivial” change, no matter how much people whine about it being too small.

    So you’re going to have to define it for me before I can answer: what do you mean by “non-trivial changes in policy”?

  254. 254.

    Mnemosyne

    February 10, 2010 at 9:01 pm

    @Notorious P.A.T.:

    That’s a whole lotta angry there, P.A.T. Can I unpack a little for you?

    I’m not mad because the stimulus was half the size it should have been due to Democrats negotiating against themselves.

    So the fact that the stimulus is, in fact, working means nothing because you didn’t get the exact package that you wanted.

    I’m not mad because Obama is basically pursuing Bush’s civil liberties strategies. I’m not mad because Obama thinks there is a big difference between holding innocent people in prison forever on Guantanamo Bay and holding innocent people in prison forever in Illinois.

    Noted. I doubt many on the left will disagree with you.

    I’m not mad because Democrats wasted their supermajority year by letting Max Baucus have a month to toy around with health care reform, and letting Ben Nelson have a month to screw around, and spending a month trying to come up with something that Olympia Snowe would support, constantly watering down their plan for support that never came, and that millions of people knew plainly would never come.

    Yes, it’s all Obama’s fault that both the House and the Senate passed healthcare reform bills and that they’re currently mired in a dispute about which trigger gets pulled first, the House approval of the Senate bill or the Senate’s package of fixes. What a lo-ser.

    I’m not mad that Obama thinks we need to send thousands more war-weary soldiers to Afghanistan to fight 200 al-Qaeda militants, at a cost of billions of dollars that he doesn’t see fit to raise money for.

    Go ahead and be mad, but don’t even pretend to be surprised. Obama talked about Afghanistan as a war we should be fighting pretty much from day one of his campaign. The fact that you disagree with him doesn’t mean that he lied to you.

    I’m not mad that Obama saw fit to bring back Ben Bernanke as Fed Chairman, a man who refuses to use his office to fight unemployment (which is 50% of the Federal Reserve’s reason for existence).

    Not too thrilled about that one myself, and Geithner needs to be canned.

    I’m not mad that he refuses to carry out his Constitutionally-mandated responsibilities to enforce the law by looking into Bush-era lawbreaking because—get this—it might divide the country.

    Yes, other than the five (5) ongoing investigations, absolutely nothing is being done. You do realize that life is not like “Law and Order” and you can’t wrap up a huge case with thousands of suspects in an hour, right?

    I’m not mad that he had no backup plan in case his “Momentum Strategy” didn’t work.

    Yep, that was a mistake. And?

    I’m not mad that, rather than issue an executive order for the military (which he commands) to ignore Don’t Ask Don’t Tell, he wants a deeply dysfunctional Congress to handle it.

    If you’re mad that the President refuses to overturn legislation passed by Congress by fiat, then what you want is a dictator, not a president. You’re upset because Obama doesn’t do what Bush did and ignore Congress and the Constitution, only from the left. I’m happy Obama doesn’t do what Bush did, because what Bush did was wrong.

    I’m not mad that, rather than fight the needed fight and argue for more federal spending to combat the recession, he instead comes out with a ridiculous “spending freeze” plan.

    A badly calculated move that went, um, nowhere.

    If you want to be mad, be mad, but it’s pretty interesting that you’re taking the important and the trivial and giving them equal weight just so you can maintain a sufficient head of steam to keep your outrage engine going.

  255. 255.

    Recall

    February 11, 2010 at 1:55 am

    THE PRESIDENT: Well, look, first of all, I know both those guys. They’re very savvy businessmen. And I, like most of the American people, don’t begrudge people success or wealth. That’s part of the free market system. I do think that the compensation packages that we’ve seen over the last decade at least have not matched up always to performance. I think that shareholders oftentimes have not had any significant say in the pay structures for CEOs.

    I don’t know what American people he talks to, but the ones I know would prefer a regulatory scheme that looks like the Al Capone scene from the Untouchables.

  256. 256.

    slightly_peeved

    February 11, 2010 at 4:43 am

    Anyway, that doesn’t help you. It’s idiotic to say “we are living in a center-right nation”. How has Social Security lasted 80 years and Medicare 45? Those are programs that conservatives hate.

    That actually supports the thesis that the US is a center-right nation. In other nations, conservatives like Social Security and Medicare. That conservatives hate them in the US shows how far to the right US politics is, relative to everywhere else.

    I’d like to restate a question I asked in a previous thread; for those people who think Obama is incompetent or doing a terrible job, what is their example of a good president? I think saying he’s doing a bad job, as opposed to a job you don’t like, requires some standard of what constitutes a good job as president. And to be fair, it should be a standard which someone’s actually achieved – if Obama is a terrible president, presumably many presidents have been better.

  257. 257.

    sparky

    February 11, 2010 at 9:16 am

    @t jasper parnell: nice rhetorical charge, but not so. my point is that since Bush often appointed people who were hostile to the agencies they ran or were incompetent, appointing people who want the agency to do whatever it is they think it is supposed to do is not change from anything except the Bush regime. Obama has appointed different people but appointing competent people is part of the job, and always was before GWB. pretending that Bush is the standard for presidential appointments is disingenuous.

  258. 258.

    sparky

    February 11, 2010 at 9:31 am

    @Mnemosyne:
    OSHA et al: as i said in a different comment, appointing people to do the agency’s mission is pretty much part of the job. i’d certainly agree that it’s an improvement from Bush, but getting back to what, before Bush, was status quo isn’t exactly change.

    as to the stimulus, no one has contended that it wasn’t useful, to a point. i think NPAT’s point was that (a) it was too small and (b) since about half of it was tax breaks, it was less useful than it could have been. the complaint is that the Ds gave away a lot when they didn’t have to. at that point in time, a stimulus was a no-brainer. but if you want to argue for that one, ok, though i think the only reason the Rs voted against it was because they knew it would pass anyway.

    Iraq: have to disagree here. sending troops from Iraq to Afghanistan is not change. incidentally, i call bullshit on the notion that Obama said he was going to pour troops into Afghanistan. i certainly would have been opposed to him if that was part of his platform.

    as to actual change, HCR would be a change, even though i violently disagree with the method. SCHIP is an expansion of an existing program–good but hardly change. by that logic Bush is more progressive than Obama since he enacted prescription benefits.

    financial reform? hello?

    i would have agreed on the “no torture” policy change except that it seems simply to have been outsourced. changing the shell we are hiding our misdeeds under is change, but i wouldn’t call it substantive change.

    everything else seems to be tinkering at the margins. i’d be happy to be proven wrong, frankly.

  259. 259.

    sparky

    February 11, 2010 at 9:44 am

    clarification: Bush was probably the worst president in modern US history, and is in the running for worst president period. saying Obama is better than Bush is, consequently, not really saying much of anything. arguing that Obama is doing a great job because he is “better than Bush” is either self-delusion or hackery. or i suppose, to be more generous, wishful thinking.

  260. 260.

    t jasper parnell

    February 11, 2010 at 12:05 pm

    @sparky: Here is the thing, though. It is not just that Obama is better than Bush; it is that he is better at appointing competent, committed leaders to regulatory agencies than anyone since the Great Depression, according to at least one report.

    And let’s not forget that given that the last Dem president declared the era of big government over, Obama is swimming upstream to recreate a liberal commitment to government intervention.

  261. 261.

    Throwin Stones

    February 11, 2010 at 12:39 pm

    testing for view fix

Comments are closed.

Primary Sidebar

Image by MomSense (5/10.25)

Recent Comments

  • frosty on Squishable Tuesday Morning Open Thread (May 20, 2025 @ 10:12am)
  • MazeDancer on On The Road – robtrim – A terrace in France (May 20, 2025 @ 10:08am)
  • schrodingers_cat on Squishable Tuesday Morning Open Thread (May 20, 2025 @ 10:08am)
  • Jeffro on Squishable Tuesday Morning Open Thread (May 20, 2025 @ 10:07am)
  • Soprano2 on Squishable Tuesday Morning Open Thread (May 20, 2025 @ 10:06am)

PA Supreme Court At Risk

Donate

Balloon Juice Posts

View by Topic
View by Author
View by Month & Year
View by Past Author

Featuring

Medium Cool
Artists in Our Midst
Authors in Our Midst
War in Ukraine
Donate to Razom for Ukraine

🎈Keep Balloon Juice Ad Free

Become a Balloon Juice Patreon
Donate with Venmo, Zelle or PayPal

Meetups

Upcoming Ohio Meetup May 17
5/11 Post about the May 17 Ohio Meetup

Calling All Jackals

Site Feedback
Nominate a Rotating Tag
Submit Photos to On the Road
Balloon Juice Anniversary (All Links)
Balloon Juice Anniversary (All Posts)
Fix Nyms with Apostrophes

Hands Off! – Denver, San Diego & Austin

Social Media

Balloon Juice
WaterGirl
TaMara
John Cole
DougJ (aka NYT Pitchbot)
Betty Cracker
Tom Levenson
David Anderson
Major Major Major Major
DougJ NYT Pitchbot
mistermix

Keeping Track

Legal Challenges (Lawfare)
Republicans Fleeing Town Halls (TPM)
21 Letters (to Borrow or Steal)
Search Donations from a Brand

PA Supreme Court At Risk

Donate

Site Footer

Come for the politics, stay for the snark.

  • Facebook
  • RSS
  • Twitter
  • YouTube
  • Comment Policy
  • Our Authors
  • Blogroll
  • Our Artists
  • Privacy Policy

Copyright © 2025 Dev Balloon Juice · All Rights Reserved · Powered by BizBudding Inc

Share this ArticleLike this article? Email it to a friend!

Email sent!