Let’s play fill in the blank and guess who said this:
“The White House slapped us in the face,” says ___________________. “The White House is saying you don’t have a constituency we’re concerned about. We don’t care about you.”
It could have been from FDL or the HuffPost or a recommended Diary over at GOS or from a panel at Netroots Nation or a ‘progressive’ pundit on the teevee or Ed Shultz or that dope from The Nation who interviewed Van Jones or somebody else.
The game is to guess who. Give yourself bonus points for guessing the context behind the quote.
To play, just write down your guess and then click the “Continue reading…” link below and see if you guessed correctly.
Ready. Set. Go.
Ok. If you guessed the infamous conservative maven of deception, Richard A. Viguerie–then give yourself a cookie. And if you guessed that Viguerie was complaining about Reagan betraying the conservative movement treat yourself to a nice drink of your favorite beverage.
If you guessed the quote was about President Obama don’t be too hard on yourself. I can see how that could happen as the quote sounds like it could be said by any firebagger or progressive poutrage practitioner of our era complaining about the latest thing President Obama did or didn’t do and the latest way that Obama did not respect the ‘power’ of said firebagger or progressive poutrage practitioner.
It is not surprising that the rhetoric used by a conservative throwing a poutrage tantrum about Reagan is so similar to the poutrage rhetoric used by some on the Left to attack President Obama. Just like our current episodes of poutrage, back in 1981 Viguerie went into his hissy fit because a President was not doing the things Viguerie demanded be done in the way he thought they should be done. And so the legendary wingnut prick threw a tantrum.
It was Steve Benen who describes this “slap in the face” in a post today. He decided to dig up an article specifically mentioned in a recent Charles Krauthammer column about why Chucky fears President Obama (emphasis added):
The net effect of 18 months of Obamaism will be to undo much of Reaganism. Both presidencies were highly ideological, grandly ambitious and often underappreciated by their own side. In his early years, Reagan was bitterly attacked from his right. (Typical Washington Post headline: “For Reagan and the New Right, the Honeymoon Is Over” — and that was six months into his presidency!) Obama is attacked from his left for insufficient zeal on gay rights, immigration reform, closing Guantanamo — the list is long.
Turns out that the source of the headline is a report on conservative poutrage over Reagan nominating Sandra Day O’Connor to the Supreme Court. And while it was the odious Viguerie who was the source of the fill-in-the-black quote cited above, it could have just as easily been any so called progressive calling out President Obama. The endpoints of poutrage have found common ground in talking points.
I find this amazing in no small measure because Barack Obama has already done far more in his first 18 months than Reagan did at this point in his first term. Conservatives took on Reagan over specific battles, but basically they always trusted him. When push came to shove they always had his back. Today they have made Reagan’s record into a myth of conservative victories and Reagan into a romanticized Wingnutopia Saint (despite what actually happened).
Progressives, OTOH, have worked over time to turn an amazing chain of victories over the last 18 months into a narrative of defeat. It is a bit mind boggling to watch as so many ‘progressives’ embrace the memes, frames and talking points of the Right as they level an endless stream of attacks at the most progressive President in my lifetime. And why? Mostly because President Obama does not follow this or that preferred strategy, timing and/or set of tactics to the imagined screenplay of these armchair generals with keyboards. It is stunning to see process trump results and spin trump reality. Watching so many on the left jump at a chance to downplay the victories and inflate the outrage is like tracking an epidemic of foolishness. Useful critiques about important things are lost in the nonsensical noise about every rumor, every post, every tweet and each twist of every news cycle.
It is odd that some on the left have chosen to embrace the same attack tactics, strategies and rhetoric used by the Right when they confronted a President who is basically the champion of their POV without also embracing the way the Right always got Reagan’s back whenever it really mattered.
Meanwhile, things move on. More and more things are getting done by this White House despite the tantrums. Of course, even more could be done if some of the progressive poutrage practitioners would place action and unity over their egos, but they can’t. So it goes. Good luck with that in November.
Time will tell how the story of the Obama Administration will be told and what will be his impact on our Nation. I think it will be a good story regardless of current levels of poutrage on all sides. We shall see, but I think Steve is spot on when he said:
I guess the moral of the story is that perceptions can change in time.
Cheers
dengre
C Nelson Reilly
Was it Jonah Goldberg? My second guess is Michael Steele.
Corner Stone
Ok, I’ll take Shaft. What? I’m talkin’ bout Shaft!
JWL
Dennis: Your half baked critique of left leaning nay sayers is the stuff that sustains the political status quo.
“Better a blue dog than an upfront republican” is the motto of your ilk.
Joseph Nobles
All hail the power of poutragers. They are the bad cop to Obama’s progressive good cops. The only problem is getting lost in the role (see: Firedoglake).
Belafon (formerly anonevent)
We could play this all day.
I think another lesson from this is that those of us who get huffy with those who continually attack Obama for his shortcomings need to trust Obama’s long game.
Davis X. Machina
It’s good to have a type specimen of the species to refer to, for scholarly purposes.
dmsilev
I believe this White House throws people under the bus rather than slapping them in the face.
But yeah. You’d think the administration would get some credit for passing the biggest health-care reform initiative since Medicare and Medicaid were set up. Or some credit for trying to rein in the maniacs on Wall Street. Or etc. etc.
In the eyes of many, I guess not.
dms
calipygian
Hear hear!
Unfortunately, I don’t think the Firebaggers will be happy until Bush (Jeb)/Palin is sworn in in January 2013.
Corner Stone
@Belafon (formerly anonevent):
Mmmm…the long game. So tasty and succulent.
angler
A firebagger thread!! Oh boy!! I was sure it was Hamschulzwaldgoldenkoschaton, but no Viguerie.
The 5th columnist firebag gas passers will go the way of those like Viguerie. That is, destined to have no influence, be ridiculed by their own party, and pass into the night as mere footnotes to the real story, and well deserved.
I hope that those dirty rotten baggers at nutroots nut-shun took note when Pelosi and Reid showed up in person to set em straight on who matters and Obama made a video to tell them too. They are now on notice. No one cares about them, (just like Viguerie and that direct mail b.s. that never caught on) and if it takes the entire party leadership going out of their way to tell you so, tough toenails. They will get no respect, none.
Yee hah, firebaggers, go git em!
arguingwithsignposts
Krauthammer can DIAF as far as I’m concerned.
Besides the burning stupid, why would that be a bad thing?
Bhall35
I’m having a hard time squaring this:
With this:
One has progressives with quotation marks, the other does not, which leads me to think that true progressives, not satisfied with the abandonment of progressive principles, by definition can’t criticize from the right, using right wing talking points and memes. Maybe this post could have benefited from a little more editing. These seem like disconnected thoughts to me.
Dennis G.
@JWL:
Knock your self out with that. When your critique is poutrage over substance I can understand why you must express more poutrage whenever it is mentioned. “Better fluffing my anger than working for progress” is the motto of your ilk. Good luck with that in November.
Bhall35
@Davis X. Machina: Is the Alterman article really using right wing talking points, frames, or memes just because he’s pointing out the real possibility of losing the House in November? What else in his analysis is really a “right wing talking point”? I’m not being snarky, I’d really like to know, because I don’t really see it.
mcd410x
OMG, people have beliefs. And they don’t coincide with MY beliefs. “It’s an outrage!”
I’m not sure what’s worse: The poutrage or the poutrage about the poutrage.
jeffreyw
Thread needs more cream puffs.
Vanilla
Lemon curd
Allison W.
I read that post earlier today. Too bad it won’t enlighten anyone.
Kiril
@angler: Sometimes you hear someone say the left needs to do certain things more like the right does. I guess this is what it would look like.
Allison W.
Don’t forget Mad Men tonight folks.
Davis X. Machina
@Bhall35: He’s taking the same ‘You failed to satisfy the base, and now you’re all gonna die’ position Viguerie was staking out in ’81, mutatīs mutandīs. The frames are not especially right- or left-wing. They’re probably not frames at all, in Lakoff’s sense.
Dennis G.
@Bhall35:
I don’t think poutrage is progressive–especially poutrage built of wingnut memes, frames and talking points–and so I used the quotes.
My apologies if the prose is confusing. The epic fail of progressives using wingnut memes, frames and talking points is a point I’ve made is the past and will no doubt keep making in the future.
It seems to be a complex idea for some as they always decide that I am calling for zero criticism when it is only a call to avoid using deceptive wingnut language and ideas when making your case. The pull of wingnutopia seems way to strong for some and I put quote marks around the word progressive for them because folks who can not make their case without using the wingnut memes, frames and talking points deserve air quotes around their arguments.
Cheers
Mike in NC
@calipygian:
My money is on Palin/DeMint. This is what we have come to as a nation.
handy
I’d rather take some poutrage, fluffing anger, firebagging, whatever you call it, than to be a part of a movement than is one giant zombie horde of boot lickers like we saw on the right for 8 years during Bush.
Bhall35
@Davis X. Machina: @Dennis G.: Thanks for the replies, folks. Gotta go, Mad Men in 10! I’ll be back when the thread has reached 500+ comments…
Allison W.
I wish the left would recognize that the only time the msm cares what they say is when they are unhappy with Obama. And that when the right agrees with you on Obama or something he did/said, they’re just doubling down to create more damage. It is not, as Ms. Huffington likes to say, beyond left and right.
MSM, right wing – not your friend. period.
joe from Lowell
I was going to guess, based on the “slap in the face,” some old PUMA.
I agree with a lot of what you’re writing here, D., about progressives not appreciating what Obama is doing to further a liberal agenda.
I do disagree with this, though: More and more things are getting done by this White House despite the tantrums. Of course, even more could be done if some of the progressive poutrage practitioners would place action and unity over their egos, but they can’t.
The amount of disloyalty demonstrated, and the damage done to the liberal agenda by splitters not standing with the president, by the conservadems vastly, vastly outweighs the amount by the Progressive Purity Patrol.
Bruce (formerly Steve S.)
Please read this.
Corner Stone
@Dennis G.:
Sigh. Yes, it seems you probably will.
S. cerevisiae
My guess was the Sierra club or another environmental group disgusted at the abandonment of meaningful action on climate. I just hope he will back the EPA on CO2 emissions limits under the CAA.
Fucking Senate.
Jim, Foolish Literalist
@Allison W.:
I think this is sinking in. I honestly believe that if John Kerry had figured this out, he’d have won. The one upside to the Vilsack/NAACP mess was that it reminded everyone, or should have, how the deck is stacked as we head in to the mid-terms
slag
You know what would be nice? If you would be more specific in your complaints. Some of us don’t read the stuff that you read. Otherwise, your generic attacks seem designed as troll bait. And then become kinda snooze-worthy.
Also, I have seen no evidence that Ari Melber is a “dope”. His quoting of Ed Schultz was a little annoying, but really, it was good to give Van Jones a chance to swat Ed down. What’s your specific gripe here?
rootless_e
one of the weird things about those people is that they have only three issues (1) prosecution of Bush era criminals (2) the messaging strategy and (3) negotiation tactics. The first is almost substantive if narrow, but the other two are media drivel compounded by the utter banal idiocy of the advice that is angrily dispensed to the administration.
kommrade reproductive vigor
Not really. The point here isn’t to make a difference or change things for the better. The point is to pitch a fit. When Bush was in office, the fits seemed normal. But he’s out now and these assholes are still laying on their backs kicking and screaming. They haven’t changed a bit, and they won’t.
P.S. I already knew the answer thanks to S. Benen.
handy
There you go. Now back to our regularly scheduled hippy punching.
mugwump
I haven’t read it yet, but it’s got to be a senior Republican, probably Boner or McChinless. Context? Hm-m-m.
Murc
@rootless_e
Some people are also, you know, ticked off at the continuance (and, in fact, the FURTHERANCE) of Bush-era executive power claims and the President deciding, hey, he totally has the power to put hits out on American citizens.
Civil liberties are my first priority, as I believe they’re the bedrock upon which the Republic rests, and I feel, based on what I have observed, that the Obama administration (not Congress; I like to try avoid blaming Obama for things that are Congress’ fault) has been genuinely shitty there. And I say so. Sometimes I say so loudly.
Is that somehow wrong? (Not snark. Legitimate question.)
angler
@Kiril: Kiril were you being serious? This is not a serious thread. Please be advised, this is the catnip thread.
rootless_e
some people like 5star lunching
at hip restaurants with other snoots
but I prefer some hippie punching
and bashing progressive netroots
eric
As much as I wish Obama was more progressive, he is not. On the flip side he is not a conservative reactionary (oxymoron, I know). He cannot frame memes in the MSM because even his modest agenda hurts the corporate interests the MSM serves.
So, even dead-on progressive criticism can be manufactured to weaken Obama…In fact, notice how the Sherrod debacle is all about Obama’s weakness on race and not on the MSM/Breitbart deception and manipulation.
Couple the corporatist complicity of the MSM with the abuse of the filibuster in the Senate, and I fail to see how Obama rises above third in the blame game here.
Lev
The left is only ever united when in opposition. This should be telling us something.
Eh, I could care less about what Jane Hamsher thinks. I think the problem with her ilk is not that they get rank-and-filers to turn against Obama–they don’t–but that they tamp down enthusiasm for him and for what gets accomplished. If I had told these people what would happen by now way back in 2005, I would not have been believed.
eric
@Murc: I agree with your concerns. I think it is a clear failing of the Obama administration. I would also point to “weakness” on Israel as a disappointing continuation of right-wing approaches to the world.
That said, I dont know if it is because he really believes in this new executive power or if he has made the political calculation that he cant take on the Pentagon in addition to the GOP, the MSM, and the Blue Dogs in the Senate.
burnspbesq
@JWL:
Yup. And proudly so. At least we’re in touch with reality.
You do understand, don’t you, that “more Democrats” is a necessary condition to “more and better democrats?” Or are you looking forward to Speaker Boehner and Majority Leader McConnell? Think you can get card-check, or ENDA, or a decent climate/energy bill through a Republican-controlled Congress? If yes, please explain how that’s going to work.
S. cerevisiae
Obama
is better
than we had
but it could be worse
he could be
Caribou Barbie
Yikes!
JWL
DG: “Poutrage”?
…… Oh, I get it. Good one.
Indeed, it epitomizes the Emanuel ‘Fuck Off’ school of political thought.
After all, where else are voters who despise the GOP going to go on election day? Right?
JWL
DG: “Poutrage”?
…… Oh, I get it. Good one.
Indeed, it epitomizes the Emanuel ‘Fuck Off’ school of political thought.
After all, where else are voters who despise the GOP going to go on election day? Right?
rootless_e
@Murc:
No. What bothers me is not people who say that the civil liberties record of the Obama administration is bad (although I think they are flat wrong), what bothers me is people who say that e.g. their strong record in enforcing civil rights doesn’t mean anything.
It also annoys me when people want to misrepresent the actual standard of behavior of the US government. Violations of civil liberties in the name of national security is not a new invention.
JWL
Sorry sorry for for the the double double click click.
gbear
I think that you’re failing to miss the point that #1 (the modern conservative movement) and #2 (the corporate media) are genuinely evil mofos, while Obama is just not quite giving you what you want. It’s like saying that a cold comes in third behind cancer and alzheimers.
Seemed like almost every speech I watched today from Netroots Nation was somebody telling the audience to get over themselves and see the enemy for the evil that it is.
burnspbesq
@gbear:
Would be nice if the message had been received. Seems no more likely than the Mets going on a 14-game winning streak.
Lev
@JWL: And everything would be better if Kucinich were president, right?
eric
@gbear: we are in agreement, perhaps I was not clear enough.
On my planet, the GOP must be defeated at all costs now. We may be too late on climate change to avoid real disaster in the food supply, but not because Obama did not beat his bully pulpit hard enough.
rootless_e
I’m still impressed by this Peter Daou argument. It seems to sum up the ideological incoherence and confusion of netroots.
Insofar as this means anything at all, it seems profoundly wrong.
stillnotking
I lived through the Reagan years. If you think conservatives had remotely the level of disappointment with Reagan that liberals have with Obama, then you’re either delusional or misinformed. One rant from Viguerie doesn’t prove whatever you think it proves.
Resident Firebagger
Gawd some days the Obama fluffing on this blog just gets to be too much. To recap:
HCR: Whatever you think of it (and I don’t think much of it), it won’t appear till 2014! And the administration really did secretly negotiate away the public option at the start. Maybe the votes weren’t there in the Senate, but the harm of actually having a vote was what?
FinReg: Whatever good comes of it, it won’t prevent another 2008-style meltdown.
HAMP: I suppose this clusterfuck has been brought up on B-J, but damned if I can recall when.
Continued contractor-powered, futile, gruesome war in Iraq and Afghanistan. (And the military continues to lose qualified people to DADT.)
First advocated offshore drilling expansion, then post-spill, allowed BP to run local police forces and dump whatever it damn well pleased in the Gulf. Administration scientists say things aren’t any less politicized now than they were under Bush.
Hippie punching when criticized from the left, and the force of god brought down on whistle-blowers. Instant, pants-wetting capitulation when attacked by the scumbag Andrew Breitbart.
Didn’t even get to civil liberties. That record speaks for itself anyway.
But yeah, sure, Obama’s lefty critics are just like the right-wing loons that were down on Reagan, and Jane Hamsher co-signed something with Grover Norquist. And when all those unemployed people vote Republican this fall, they’ll just be too ignorant to understand how good they’ve had it with Obama and the Democrats.
Sigh. I’ll see you later…
JWL
Lev: Better yet, Bernie Sanders.
Like human yo-yo’s, the “lesser of two evils” crowd pucker every two years like clockwork.
arguingwithsignposts
@Resident Firebagger:
don’t let the door hit you on the ass on the way out.
rootless_e
all they want is a bully pulpit
some leadership
and a line in the sand
but Obama is such a meanie
he won’t give them
a helping hand
all they want is to be
constructively critical
to call the administration
cowardly whores
just because they say it
over and over
those obamabots
say they are bores
Allison W.
@rootless_e:
does this mean pick a goal that he has zero chance of winning and plug at it until the day he dies?
I think his statement reflects what progressives see themselves doing, but I don’t see them doing it.
rootless_e
@Resident Firebagger:
“HCR: Whatever you think of it (and I don’t think much of it), it won’t appear till 2014!”
Weird how you keep repeating republican lies and people don’t appreciate it.
MNPundit
And yet, you said it yourself. Republicans TRUSTED RR.
No one trusts Obama because he doesn’t actually fight for things unless he wants to. As Drums says, even HE is annoyed –KEVIN FUCKING DRUM ANNOYED–because he doesn’t know if Obama really wanted the centrist bills in the first place or wanted more lefty stuff and simply compromised.
Now I happen to think that Obama keeps selling out the people to the business interests but gets stuff that improves people’s lives doing it. I think destroying the business interests would bring about better results long term and in fact, because of Obama’s approach we might not even HAVE a long term.
You guys think I’m stupid.
So impasse.
Allison W.
@Resident Firebagger:
why do you come here? you always get slammed and change no one’s mind. why do you come here? Its like sitting at a lunch table where no one likes you.
rootless_e
@Allison W.:
“does this mean pick a goal that he has zero chance of winning and plug at it until the day he dies?”
I think so. This is “The Charge of the Light Brigade” school of political strategy – of course as advanced by people who do not plan on coming anywhere near a horse or a gun.
arguingwithsignposts
@MNPundit:
And this is different from any other person on the planet how?
Allison W.
@MNPundit:
He doesn’t actually fight for things unless he wants to? o-kay.
And Kevin Drum is annoyed? OMFG!!! NOW WE ARE REALLY FUCKED IF KEVIN DRUM’S ANNOYED.
Omnes Omnibus
@rootless_e: C’est magnifique, mais ce n’est pas la guerre: c’est de la folie.
Dr. Omed
Sorry. I had to pawn my cowbell.
slag
One thing I would note (if we’re going to be talking about people undermining the Administration here) is that some jackass on this very blog immediately–without passing Go or collecting $200–kicked a progressive member of this Administration to the curb as soon as he was attacked by the right wing for doing something he didn’t even do:
What kind of asshole gives in to rightwing propaganda so easily? Oh…that’s right…a lot of us do.
Jim, Foolish Literalist
@JWL:
I think this is one of the stupidest phrases in politics. I’ve heard this about every Democratic presidential candidate of my voting life. Bill Clinton, Al Gore, John Kerry and now Barack Obama aren’t flawed, or imperfect, or have a different opinion on given issues. They’re “evil”. And you really wonder why no one takes Naderites seriously? But I’ll give you this much, Bernie Sanders would probably get a higher percentage of the vote than Dennis Kucinich as he lost 49 (rather than 50) states to Mitt Romney.
As for “puckering”: I’m trying to get Democrats elected to the Senate. What do you do, besides preen-trolling on blogs? Campaigning to replace Barbara Boxer with a “real progressive”?
mclaren
Yes indeedy, “poutrage” is what people express when they get angry about the President of the United States of America ordering the assassination of U.S. citizens without a trial of charged of evidence of any crime.
That’s pouting. It’s infantile. It’s immature.
The mature serious people recognize that the constitution is shite and the trials are for babies. REAL MEN assassinate U.S. citizens without charges and then break out a case of Budweiser and party hearty.
Are you drunk?
Are you on drugs?
Are you brain damaged?
Shelton Lankford
It has been so long since I heard a national figure that could wear the label of liberal or progressive with any authority, I guess I have forgot what they would sound like. Obama told us what he would be like. Hillary looked like the conservative in the field, but she was the known quantity – the Clinton. Obama didn’t make any outrageous promises. We filled in the blanks and took the hints that at least a few of the Bush policies would be reversed quickly.
Politics being the art of the possible, there is a level of understanding expected of those of a liberal mindset. But we wish our politicians would at least WANT to do more toward our goals of restoring the Republic to something better than a warmongering torture state pursuing resource wars to support our bloated consumer society. Call it leadership, but you can’t do that from the center of the pack.
We are victims of the two-party system, and when we have a moderate running against the bull-goose-looney of the right, realists have a simple choice. Anyone who thinks we will ever elect a liberal/progressive presidential candidate under our binary system is dreaming. A corporate shill is the best we can do. Sitting it out is not an option for a rational person when the irrationality of the Teabaggers is the alternative.
Have I got that right, guys? Don’t express any higher aspirations than a BFF of Israel, a guy who can sign off on more money for the Pentagon each year of his tenure, and who can pretend to be on the side of the people while asking for billions for Wall Street Banks?
Check.
El Tiburon
@JWL:
Ditto. This is getting very tiresome.
Bullshit. Obama is not Tiger Woods playing solo, there is a thing called Congress that played a role, and amazing? The dems have a super majority, why are these victories so amazing?
Our healthcare system is basically the same fucked up, for profit system it has always been. Same with Finreg in that nothing is really going to change. We are still in Iraq and Afghanistan and will be, in some form or fashion, for years to come. We still hold prisoners without charges, are waging a war In Pakistan, no serious job creation effort, economic policies still run by the same people who fucked it up to begin with.
Let’s put it this way: corporate america is very fucking happy right now, as are the top 1%. Middle America? Not so much.
So yeah, the victories are great, awesome man! ut do you really expect us to STFU when it is very evident that Obama appears intent on going down the same path that his predecessor did,?
Allison W.
@Shelton Lankford:
Are you talking third party? Another white male led party with access to money and power? yep, that’s exactly what we need.
Sly
@stillnotking:
Obama’s approval rating among Democrats is around 80%. It’s been hovering slightly above 80% since Dec, 2009. What’s ultimately dragging him into the high 40% range are Republicans and Independents.
Reagan’s approval rating among Republicans was roughly at the same level in 1982, and Reagan’s average approval among Republicans, over eight years, was 84%.
This discrepancy in your perception can likely be attributed to the echo chamber that much of the progosphere has constructed. Along similar lines as that of Pauline Kael’s: “I don’t know how Nixon won. No one I know voted for him.” The Democratic Party is larger than you think it is.
eric
@El Tiburon: “The dems have a super majority, why are these victories so amazing?”
really? You believe this? Ben Nelson ring any bells?
Obama may be a centrist, but the Senate is effed up.
Allison W.
@El Tiburon:
for the GAZILLIONTH TIME, no one is telling you to STFU!!!
Just come up with ideas and strategies that wasn’t pulled from a fictional movie. Ya know, get real.
ornery curmudgeon
@Dennis G.:
I don’t think poutrage is progressive—especially poutrage built of wingnut memes, frames and talking points—and so I used the quotes.
Dennis, it would be more clear if you named a few of these “wingnut memes, frames and talking points.”
The epic fail of progressives using wingnut memes, frames and talking points is a point I’ve made is the past
Yes, but what IS the substance of your point, Dennis? What are these “wingnut memes, frames and talking points” you keep talking about?
“… a call to avoid using deceptive wingnut language and ideas when making your case … folks who can not make their case without using the wingnut memes, frames and talking points…”
WHAT are you talking about, Dennis? WHAT???
In the wide world THIS is your fight to pick. Ok … so what is the gain here, what are you trying to accomplish?
Would you care to discuss something that doesn’t involve spitting on diverse allies? How about something on the CEO of BP resigning. I don’t know.
Fred Fnord
I am a neutral party in this whole ‘Obama is the devil/Obama is a god’ controversy. I never really liked him all that much, and never expected much from him, and I have been pleasantly surprised by how much he has gotten done. (Although I am frankly skeptical that the health care reform bill will actually help anyone who is seriously ill, I think it might well help some people who aren’t, which is certainly nothing to sneeze at.)
But every post like this makes me want to join the ‘Firebaggers’ group, if only because the other side (that would be you, Dennis) are being such complete assholes to them. “Stop attacking Obama!” “Stop using that tactic!” “Everyone stop doing things that I don’t like and do what I say!” My God, you’re so much more offended by, and offensive towards, people who disagree with you from the left than you ever were towards the righties.
Really, this is exactly why the left is essentially gone from the conversation in the country today. If they use the tactics that you approve of, they are absolutely ignored by both center (that’s you) and right. And then, when they do manage to get noticed (by giving up and using extreme tactics), the center and the right both pile onto them and rip them to shreds. Meanwhile, the extreme right makes a lot of noise, the regular right kowtows to them, and the center is completely silent, hoping nobody will notice they’re there.
Plus, this has all become so goddamned boring. I don’t want to read a blog that is one constant whine against the left, as this one was for a while. It’s like turning on your radio and listening to two hours of mosquito music. The attitude displayed in these posts is always this astonished disbelief that there could be anyone on the left who doesn’t think that Obama’s doing a great job, which leads to these smug, patronizing lectures on exactly how these people should spend their energies. It is grating and nauseating.
Not that this will stop you from attacking them, or that anything I could say would stop them. This exact pattern has been going on for fifty years, and it’s why the left has lost and will continue to lose in this country, pretty much forever. By the time the Democrats are demographically locked in and the Repubs are essentially the party of the south, this very dynamic will have ensured that the politics of the Democrats are where the Repubs are right now.
—fred
Calvin Jones and the 13th Apostle
Which is exactly why people like me where glad Sestak ran against Snarlin’ Arlen Specter. But if we all listened to Obama and Specter became another HolyJoe, then what?
ornery curmudgeon
@Allison W.: why do you come here? you always get slammed and change no one’s mind. why do you come here? Its like sitting at a lunch table where no one likes you.
Umm, I like Resident Firebagger, he is welcome diverse voice. Ok?
On the other hand … you, Allison W., talk like a Con. Mockery, belittlement, marginalization of others you perceive to be minority.
Allison W.
@Calvin Jones and the 13th Apostle:
If there was a time for Arlen Specter to turn into a HolyJoe it would be now. And he hasn’t.
ornery curmudgeon
@Fred Fnord: That was good, Fred.
Jim, Foolish Literalist
@Calvin Jones and the 13th Apostle:
But if Obama had endorsed Specter (ETA: duh, Jim.. if he had endorsed Sestak, I mean), or even stayed neutral, and Specter had started, during the health care debate, to play the kind of games he’s been playing with Kagan, what then? I’m thrilled Specter lost the primary, very glad he’s on his way out, but that race just highlights what a narrow field Obama has to play within (and wasn’t Rendell running all over the state telling people what a swell fella Arlen is? those kinds of local politics play into it too)
GregB
Has anyone been slapped under the bus?
Allison W.
@ornery curmudgeon:
Stinks of firebaggery also, too.
I’ve been accused of being a firebagger and a teabagger – feels good when allegedly smart people can’t figure me out.
Micheline
@Fred Fnord: Oh gimme a break. If the firebaggers can dish it, then they can take it.
cat48
Actually, Eric Alter, was incorrect according to Hamsher who supplied the info to the Wall St. Journal to begin with:
angler
@Fred Fnord: Fred that was a much more reasoned case for what this is than simple mockery. Still these threads have the compulsive attraction of picking a scab. The itch to pontficate about political maturity is not about what a blogger or congress critter said this week. Instead it’s the old saw and deep in the DNA of the Democrats because we are the majority or “natural governing party” , sorry Repubs, you ain’t it. In our narrative, not theirs, we would have elected Humphrey if not for Gene McCarthy; Scoop Jackson if not for McGovern; Carter sandbagged by Ted Kennedy; Jesse Jackson boofed Mondale and Dukakis; Clinton was driven to it by the liberal Congress; Nader; Dean; Obama submarined H. Clinton, wait, umm err, now that he’s in, Jane Hamsher!
I say we wind it way back. If the firebagger ancestors had not been purists and run Alson Streeter on the Union Labor ticket in 1888 Grover Cleveland would have served consecutive terms instead of non-consecutive ones. Streetbaggers!
It’s a mirror effect. Bitch that the bogeyman left wants the whole pie and not a slice and then say we would have x, y, or z passed and solved if not for the left and their pie fancying. The fault, dear grown ups, is not in the FDLers but in ourselves.
Now having had a good cry about the perfect-good enemy thing, stop wasting your time on this bullshit and put shoulders to the wheel for November. Probably some dreaded firebaggers will be right there with you.
tim
@Resident Firebagger:
Don’t listen to the BJ Kool Kids, Res.
I like you, and that’s all that matters.
Why anyone would want to hang out at a blog where all they ever hear is what they already think and say echoed back in their ears is beyond me…but that’s what a lot of geniuses here are all about.
There’s something about Cole’s bullshit that entertains and intrigues me enough to check this place out a time or two a day. Annoying the BJ groupies is just gravy.
burnspbesq
@GregB:
No. It’s Sunday. We throw people in the face on Sunday. And not until after “Mad Men” and “SportsCenter.”
AnotherBruce
@Allison W.:
Really, tell that to Obama and his “catfood commission”. Jesus you people are blind.
Allison W.
@tim:
oh please. hang out here all you want. just don’t complain about being in a situation that you constantly put yourself in.
I guess that’s the same payoff that resident firebagger gets when he comes here.
tim
@ornery curmudgeon:
Ditto.
Allison W.
@AnotherBruce:
tell what to Obama? what are you talking about?
And sorry, I don’t buy into hysterics so that cat food commission nonsense doesn’t work on me. When you open your eyes to facts and common sense you would see why my knees don’t buckle over the cat food commission.
roshan
I don’t agree with this at all. Why would one forsake his campaign promises? And why should the supporters cheer when he does that?. Yeah, everyone on our side thinks having a democrat in the white house is better than having a republican. Hell you can have Obama for 5 more terms if possible, but how is that going to help us? If he is not going to do what we asked of him. The behind the scenes civil liberties deterioration under his presidency would turnoff most on the left. I don’t want to slog my whole life in search of a better progressive democrat. If my opposition means that a republican ascends to office then so be it. The republicans will tear down this country. But that wouldn’t end it, it might as well be a new beginning and that’s what I am looking for.
petorado
Obama’s done a hell of lot. They haven’t done a good job of salesmanship. People want to know where there electeds stand. Right now Democrats are acting as though they know how to work in the realm of the possible — if it looks like the votes aren’t there they won’t move forward. That’s politics.
The base wants to know where their electeds stand. Where is their hill to die on. Poutragers see the results of the political compromises and wring their hands. Enter slings and arrows. If the Obama administration was better at saying, “we had to bargain this stuff away, but we’ll be back,” I think the poutragers would be pacified. Not that the world revolves around the base, but where does Obama stand on torture, Guantanamo, etc.? Not so sure anymore. A better PR effort would give more clarity to things … though this is an election year and we know the other side is looking for all the ammunition it can carry.
arguingwithsignposts
@roshan:
Fuck you and the horse you rode in on. There are a lot of innocent people between that GOP administration and the “potential” new beginning you imagine.
Seriously. That attitude is bullshit.
burnspbesq
@roshan:
Aw, that’s just silly and tiresome. Obama is exactly what anyone WHO WAS PAYING ATTENTION AND NOT PROJECTING expected he would be. If you can’t manage your expectations, that’s not my problem. Or Obama’s.
Jim, Foolish Literalist
@petorado: “we had to bargain this stuff away, but we’ll be back,” I think the poutragers would be pacified.
They have said that, and the poutragers said, “Oh yeah? When?”
Obama tried to close Gitmo, the Blue Dogs couldn’t run away fast enough
When any elected legislator, much less a Democrat of whatever stripe, is this stupid, in public, it makes it hard to move legislation. See Claire McCaskill on climate change or the stimulus; Evan Bayh on the estate tax; Jim Webb on affirmative action. As for salesmanship: Americans are resistant to change in good times; with ten percent unemployment it’s damn near impossible. Doesn’t mean you give up, but the first step is acknowledging the ground you’re fighting on, not pretending it shouldn’t matter.
Allison W.
@roshan:
What new beginning? Do you think its going to be the dawn of progressive rule? People like you must have nothing to lose otherwise why would you say something like this?
eemom
Yeah, NOTHING like what goes on at FDL.
Another difference being that here, everybody is allowed to spew whatever they think ad infinitum — whereas there, your ass is banned after three comments — max — of disagreement with the Gospel According to Jane.
Speaking of which, what the hell are all you people doing over here tonight? Are you on the shit list because you didn’t wish Her Ladyship happy birthday today?
NR
@burnspbesq:
I paid attention when he said he supported a public option and opposed an individual mandate. Indeed, that was a big part of the reason why I voted for him in the primary.
Bobby Thomson
Shorter Dennis: Why can’t Democrats be more like Republicans? Here’s a tip. If you want people to notice what you’ve done for them, try making it effective a little sooner than four years from now. Or better yet, making sure they have a job first before you worry about other things.
Seriously, if Reagan hadn’t shit thousands of jobs out after the ’82 elections, he would have been a one-termer and the world would be a lot different today. And if Obama doesn’t do the same thing. he will lose in 2012 by about the same margin that Carter did – if not worse. Until he does, any comparisons to Reagan are pretty fucking premature.
Anya
@roshan: You are on a suicide mission but the rest of us will not follow you. Any reasonable person who witnessed the damage done to the country in the last eight years, would not talk about GOP taking over as a solution to reaching a new beginning.
JWL
Foolish Literalist wrote: “I think this is one of the stupidest phrases in politics. I’ve heard this about every Democratic presidential candidate of my voting life”.
Bullshit, F.T. You have certainly not heard the term “yo-yo” applied to every democratic presidential candidate in your voting lifetime. I know, because I’ve lived through that same time.
“Flip flop”, OK. Still, that’s a generic attack phrase. Even then, you misrepresent the point I made.
And “evil”? Did I accuse the administration of being evil?
We’re agreed that Nader is a schmuck. Still, it’s very odd you saw fit to mention him at all, as I certainly didn’t.
Does your heartfelt desire to elect democrats extend to Blanche Lincoln? If so, why? If Ben Nelson were up for re-election this year, would you fight tooth-and-nail on his behalf? I assume you would. Again, why?
Finally, let’s talk about Barbara Boxer. It so happens I helped vote her into office the first few times she ran for the House (I’m a native San Franciscan). I helped elect her to the senate twice. My sister even once worked alongside her, before Boxer began her political career. She’s a good person.
But in 2006 she campaigned on Joe Lieberman’s behalf, and then took a hike on Ned LaMont. Which is to say, she campaigned on behalf of a man whose vote she knew would negate her own on matters of war and peace. And that I don’t forgive.
Long story short: the democratic party no longer represents me. Still, I remain a patriot. My love of country has never been defined by political affiliation.
I submit it boils down to this: your knee jerk support of the ever-rightward movement of the democratic party spells its doom. It enables the corporate/fascist takeover of our government.
I wait upon insurgency within its ranks.
roshan
@arguingwithsignposts:
Well, almost all history books I have read, have had mention of some sort of revolution in the past. And I am guessing there was a lot of innocent blood spilled during them, why not have one now?. The money changers have a firm grab on the administration (not surprising, but still) and they are not going to let go if I start cheering for this president. I know just one way to get rid of them, a French style revolution, with guillotines at the end of it.
@burnspbesq:
Well, if some of us have woken up from our false hopes then what’s not to like about that?
If Obama and his team wanted a winning narrative of his accomplishments flowing endlessly on the airwaves, they might need to buy a propaganda machine like Fox. I am just not going to sit up and cheer every time he sells us out.
Jethro Troll
@tim:
There’s a word on the internet for people who show up just to annoy others.
arguingwithsignposts
@Bobby Thomson:
My god, could you make a more ridiculous statement? Reagan shitting jobs? really?
Bobby Thomson
@Fred Fnord: This. A thousand times this.
arguingwithsignposts
@roshan:
Then pony your ass up to the guillotines first, motherfucker.
ETA: revolution, once unleashed, doesn’t follow a predefined path. See those teabaggers? yeah, don’t assume that “new beginning” is going to play out the way you want.
Jim, Foolish Literalist
@JWL:
No
You assume incorrectly.
Bobby Thomson
@arguingwithsignposts:
I’m not sure what you’re characterizing as ridiculous.
If it’s the notion that presidents really have that much of an effect on macroeconomics, I hear you. As a practical matter, though, presidents are judged on macroeconomics, whether they deserve it or not. The jobless situation must improve for Obama to win re-election. If it does – significantly – he will, just as Reagan did.
If you’re questioning whether the economy added jobs after the ’82 elections, take a look at the unemployment figures for 1982 and 1983. Then compare them to 1984.
If you’re questioning whether a person could actually excrete jobs, you should study metaphors.
mclaren
@arguingwithsignposts:
Agree 100%. This Democrat far-left “the worse, the better” atittude is nothing but warmed-over Leninism. Vadimir Ilich Lenin loved it when things kept getting worse for the average person in Czarist Russia, because he saw that as putting his glorious revolution that much closer to power.
Trouble is, that’s how you climb to power over a gigantic mountain of corpses. No thanks.
The’re another big problem with this horseshit of “let’s allow the Republicans back into power and then they’re screw things up to badly that the Democrats will finally rid to power with majorities bigenough to let us actualy do something.”
The big problem is that when times get bad enough, people start to behave irrationally. Average folks get desperate when they’re scraping lice out of their overcoats with the shards of their broken laptop LCDs and roasting sparrows on curtain rods inside the dumpster where they live. When times get that bad, people get desperate, and instead of voting for the Democrats as an alternative to the Republicans, they vote for someone like Mussolini. Because at least he makes the fucking trains run on time.
For all my criticism of Obama, I’m also sympathetic to his plight. This guy can’t wave a magic wand and make things happen just because he says so. Big policies require congress to sign off on legislation, and with the psychos and far-right loons we’ve got in congress, that ties Obama’s hands to some extent.
So when people complain “Why would someone break their campaign promises?” well… Out here in the real world, pols break their campaign promises when congress won’t give them the majorities they need to pass the required legislation, the legislation they campaigned on.
Where I fault Obama big-time is in not being tough enough and savvy enough in negotiating with congress. Look at LBJ to see how it should be done.LBJ threatened senators, he bullied congressmen, he horse-trade, he played one group of opponents off against another, he started off by asking for the moon and gradually dropped his demands down to what he actually wanted all along… LBJ really played the legislative system.
Obama is like a poker player who displays all his cards at the start of every hand and then politely asks his opponents to compromise with him when they play their hands. No one’s gonna do that. Obama setting up back-room negotiations as in HCR and banking reform where he starts by giving up most of he wants in legislation is naive and foolish. Obama is getting rolled. He’s an ivory tower Harvard naif with no experience in hardball real-world tough-ass politics, and he keeps getting scammed and played for a sucker. And his response? This stupid call for bipartisanship. You don’t ask for more bipartisanship when your opponents are trying to guy you, you go at them with a meat hook.
Hal
I had a friend on Facebook who posted some ridiculous little ditty about Obama, something along the lines of “When I was a kid, Ronald Reagan was President, we had money, and hope” or some such, that veers off into how now Obama is President, there’s no hope, and everyone is broke.
Never mind that at 35, he would have been 6 when Reagan was elected, it just really illustrates how revisionist history has enveloped Ronald Reagan. Now all conservatives think he cut taxes and Government, and everything was great until Clinton came along.
No one remembers his high 30’s approval ratings, or that plenty of conservatives at the time thought he wasn’t conservative enough.
In fact, the more I think about it, this all seems to be standard for every President. I remember Bill Clinton crashing and burning in his first two years, and major questions about whether he could ever recover. He did, though at what cost to the party overall is debatable, it just shows that none of this is new, or original.
arguingwithsignposts
@Bobby Thomson:
Your first assumption is correct. The economy was “due” a correction at that point. *I* could have been at the helm and had an economic uptick in 1982.
I just find it somewhat ironic that the president who fired all the air traffic controllers should get credit for creating so many jobs.
I tend to disagree. A lot depends on his opponent, and what else is going on in 2012. That’s counterintuitive, I know.
roshan
@Allison W.:
If you haven’t yet noticed, a lot of folks have lost most of their life’s worth. If you haven’t, then that’s good for you. Yeah, the new beginning might not be all progressive but if you put up that against the current-wait-and-watch-he-might-do-something-we-like-attitude, guess which I am going to take.
slightly_peeved
I’m yet to see anyone disparaging the healthcare bill that can cobble together any form of argument based on what was actually in the healthcare bill.
The proposed healthcare exchanges include community rating, a ban on recission, no changes in premium due to pre-existing conditions, and a required percentage of premiums spent on healthcare. Those 4 things are the main difference between the US system and other first-world healthcare systems.
If you just say it won’t work because for-profit companies are involved, you’re going against the evidence of other health systems that do involve for-profit companies. You’re just throwing out slogans as a subsitute for serious criticism.
DW
Just curious – can anyone give me an example of where a stay pure, let the other side win rather than compromise and this will lead to a glorious new dawn actually worked? I can’t really think of a case where “heighten the contradictions” worked. I can think of several where it failed miserably. On the other hand, the Christian Right got a lot of mileage out of slowly and steadily taking over the Republican party and moving politics to their side – even if it meant spending decades building themselves up before they became dominant in the Republican party. They didn’t really get their candidate until Dubya in 2000. If the firedoglake crowd really wants to be effective, follow the Christian Right and the Tea Party crowd – show up for primaries, recruit candidates and take over the base of the Democrats. If progressives stay home and let the conservative win big, the inevitable conclusion will be that the country has shifted right. People who don’t show up are ignored. If you go off in a huff waiting for someone to apologize to you, you’ll be waiting a very long time.
slightly_peeved
It is. See this Gallup article: The Obama Drop and Obama Paradox
And if you re-elect the people who caused it, the assumption won’t be that you hated it; the assumption will be that the government can get away with it. Not that the opposition were insufficiently against it. Last time I checked, ballot papers don’t have a “your comments” section.
General Stuck
@roshan: @Allison W.:
If my opposition means that a republican ascends to office then so be it. The republicans will tear down this country. But that wouldn’t end it, it might as well be a new beginning and that’s what I am looking for.
You know, I have some respect for Roshan coming out and admitting to what I’ve been accusing his little band of crazies of for a while now. Of being kindred nihilist spirits with the tea baggers on the right. Each less than a stones throw away from each other on the dark backside of the ideological spectrum, in the desire to let it all burn down if they can’t have it all their way, giving these rival packs of hyenas equal opportunity to snatch up the carcass of a dead America and breath back life into it the ideal of what it needs to be from an ideologues perch. At least it seems that some days.
General Stuck
@Fred Fnord:
Life is hard, then you die. So I say go for it.
burnspbesq
@NR:
Were you asleep in civics class on the day they covered three branches of government and separation of powers?
I support a public option as an intermediate step on the way to single payer. Alas, I am burdened with the knowledge that there are no unicorns, and Congress has a say in the matter. So for now, I take what I can get, and I’ll come back for the next piece when conditions are better.
When did “incremental” become a motherfucking obscentiy?
KG
@roshan:
Here is your ball, go the fuck home.
@roshan: you say you want a revolution, well, my friend, we all want to change the world… but when you talk about destruction, don’t you know you can count me out.
When was the last time that there was a revolution in a western nation? The idea that a revolution would be any kind of good is just incredibly stupid. A revolution would mean civil war, it would mean people shooting at each other in the streets, it would mean death and destruction on a level that we likely couldn’t imagine. That you could even possibly talk like that just astounds me. It disturbs me when teatards say it, to hear that someone on the other side might actually be willing to take them up on it rather than laugh at them for being so incredibly stupid/insane is so incredibly disappointing that I don’t know what to say.
Oh, and to answer my question, the last western civil war that I can think of was the Spanish, and that didn’t really turn out well for progressives, or well, anyone other than those who believe in militarist-fascist dictatorships.
Socraticsilence
@roshan:
I’m sorry but you’re fucking insane, normally I can take the firebagger bs but anyone who thinks a “French Revolution” type action is a laudable necessary thing is either insane or ignorant of history, there’s no other real option, but hey I guess you, Mao, Pol Pot, and the rest can regret the deaths of innocents for the good of the people, after all its not too bad being early period Robespierre, I just hope if you’re Revolution comes to pass that you continue to mirror the incorruptible all the way down.
Malron
Simple answer: Obama don’t do ideology and the left will never forgive him for it. There was a Rachel Maddow interview of Obama one week before the election that highlights this. Obama will not get into the ideological wars the “true progressives” get a hardon for, so he’s weak, cowardly, a sellout, a corporatist, a failure and so on and so on and shoo-be-doo-be-doooooo-be…
I Think you’re spot on, Dennis. You also make me want to watch a few of these vids from Harry and Nancy telling the NN to wake the fuck up. I notice every instance of “rebuttal” to Dennis in this thread is “yeah, but (insert point Dennis already conceded here)” as if that misstep or shortcoming of this administration totally negates the historical accomplishments Obama has had. And, if that doesn’t sell their point, then its right back to the “Obot” ad hominems. Just post after post from people illustrating Dennis’ point while they think they are refudiating it. I has a sad.
Back to tweaking my dying pc as I prepare for the night shift at work.
Hal
I thought that line of thinking had been thoroughly debunked sometime around 2003 when it turned out that, no; Bush and Gore were not two sides of the same coin, and things could, and did, prove far worse with Bush as President.
kt
This reflexive trivializing and mocking of anyone expressing displeasure with Obama is really getting old. Regardless of how impressed you are with your own sense of hard nosed “realism” or political sophistication, the fact remains that we have had Presidents who used their power not only to pass laws, but to inspire Americans into a new perception of what is considered normal.
It is the squandering of his once-in-a-generation opportunity to define a new American normal that has so many of us “poutragers” pissed off. The opportunity is gone and it ain’t coming back. Too many people have become disillusioned or downright hostile to his agenda.
Aside from his Commander in chief duties, he really doesn’t have much else to do beyond signing or vetoing bills. When you strip away all the trappings, his primary function as President is to do precisely the type of persuasion and cheerleading for causes that you so deride.
darms
Hi, I’m pissed that Obama has continued the GW torture, surveillance & abduction programs and has not investigated a single GW official for breaking the law. (indeed, GW’s politicization of the DOJ was dismissed w/o any charges whatsoever meaning what GW did is now legal,,,) Please tell me how this compares w/Viguerie’s outrage against Reagan for him not being reichtwing enough, all I wanted Obama to do was to enforce the law & respect the consitution/bill of rights.. How many were arrested on federal marijuana charges these last 18 months? Those laws are being enforced. Indeed, imagine what would be happening to the MOTU @ Goldman-Sachs, AIG, BP et had they been caught selling drugs, then & only then would they have been in real trouble.
Socraticsilence
@kt:
You mean like marshalling support and passing the farthest reaching Healthcare bill in nearly half a century, or what? Because from where I’m sitting that’s redefinition of normal in a pretty huge way- put it this way- HCR alone puts Obama legacy wise above any Democratic President since LBJ- 8 years of Clinton and 4 years of Carter did less to change the status quo longterm than 18 months of Obama.
General Stuck
Someone forgot to close the portal to internet progressive hell tonight.
General Stuck
I got a chuckle from this one.
Sgt. Jrod and his Howling Commandos
Oh goodie, let’s rag on the goddam firebaggers some more! They are clearly the biggest threat to our country which exists, so spending a couple hours every fucking day grousing about them is totally justified.
Haven’t you heard? The best way to help Obama’s agenda is to completely ignore right-wingers with actual power and clout in favor of screaming about a completely powerless bunch of far-leftists. Why, it’s entirely normal for a true liberal to unload a hundred times more bile onto Jane Fucking Hamsher than any Republican Senator or media mogul.
Why, there might be a whole one percent of the population that still gives half a shit what Jane Hamsher says! Chipping away at that number should be the primary focus of this blog, by God!
That crazy 27% of the population who’s trying to destroy everything that makes America decent are boring and passe. It’s certainly not a subject worth a tenth of the time we should spend parroting “firebagger” and screaming at anyone on the left who’s not tongue-bathing Obama’s balls with enough vigor.
By God.
Alan in SF
Obama — Superman or Hitler?
Sorry, you don’t get any other choices.
Alan in SF
@burnspbesq:
The argument isn’t that Obama tried to get a public option and failed. The argument is that he promised a public option in order to get progressives to not mention single payer, which they obediently did, when he had already promised the health care industry in a secret backroom deal that there would be no public option.
http://www.huffingtonpost.com/miles-mogulescu/the-real-reason-obamas-pl_b_473924.html
No more straw men.
Socraticsilence
@darms: Oh for god’s sakes- multiple things are wrong with your comment- one, non-partisan career prosecutors condemened Bush’s politicization of the DoJ but also noted upon investigation that what was done was ultimately legal- I mean would you have prefered Obama leaned on the investigators so he could go after Bush admin officials? Secondly, torture ended more than a year ago it was one of the Obama administrations first offical actions, the banning of enhanced interrogation techiniques and the wholesale adoption of the Army Field manual procedures on interogation (procedures written with an eye towards Geneva).
Finally, what you wanted Obama to do is unprecedented- no president has investigated his predecessors admin throughly with regards to FP related crimes (or most crimes honestly)- Truman didn’t go after Roosevelt thugs for internment, LBJ didn’t do anything about JFK’s Vietnam Crimes (or the investigations of Hoover), Nixon ditto, Carter Ditto, Reagan didn’t push on the funding of the Mujihadeen by Carter (instead as is the custom largely continuing it), neither Bush I nor Clinton seriously investigated Iran-Contra, Bush II didn’t investigate Clinton’s HR abuses via Cruise Missle and so on and so forth.
General Stuck
@Sgt. Jrod and his Howling Commandos:
Relax, There’s time to do both.
Batocchio
Ehh, in the end it depends on how people vote. The thing is, unlike conservatives, liberals are generally pushing for policies that benefit the whole country and don’t necessarily benefit them personally. That makes the dynamics significantly different. Obama deserves credit for what he’d accomplished, and deserves criticism for some other things, such as his conservative-leaning economic team and no torture investigations (because those both affect the whole country and its future, versus being personal score-settling). I think some of the firebaggers go too far, but Obama and the Dems need liberal pressure to keep them honest, and it’s dumb politics for the White House to hippie-punch so often. Viguere was whining, but Reagan didn’t publicly insult his base, either. It hurts morale, much more so any liberal activists critical of Democratic politicians.
Socraticsilence
@General Stuck:
oh that one was funny, the scary one was the “so some innocent people might die in a revolution, blood in the streets is a worthwhile price for progress” schpiel Rohsan was trying to sell earlier it was like some lifted a Lenin or Robespierre speech and was unwilling to give proper credit.
JWL
Foolish Literalist:
So. You stand prepared to withhold support from a democratic senatorial nominee.
How on earth then can you chastise other voters from doing likewise, where other democratic candidates are concerned?
Extend that disenchantment to the party in general, and you have a clue as to why left leaners draw conclusions inimical to the democratic party establishment.
TuiMel
@Allison W.:
Yeah, RFB, take your idealogical cooties and go. Nobody likes you and all hearts beat as one here. In fact, I’m seriously considering giving you an electronic wedgie, but maybe I’ll just demand your lunch money.
burnspbesq
@Alan in SF:
If you’ve got an archived copy of a page from the campaign website, or a transcript of a campaign speech, in which a public option was “promised,” bring it on. I don’t remember seeing or hearing anything like that, but that could just be my memory playing tricks on me.
Unsubstantiated allegations in an anonymously sourced story are only the same thing as facts at FDL. This is not FDL.
kt
@Socraticsilence: You mean like marshalling support and passing the farthest reaching Healthcare bill in nearly half a century, or what?
It remains to be seen exactly how far reaching the health care bill, or any of his successes, will be after the November election.
I work in the liberal nirvana of Massachusetts and can tell you that even here, many of the blue collar guys I work with have a visceral hatred for Obama. They hate the health care bill, they hate the “jobs killing” financial reforms, they think Obama caused the deficit and are itching for 2012 to get his ass out of the White House. These are the people still stuck in the “Reagan normal” and if anything, Obama’s all steak, no sizzle approach has hardened their views in this old mindset.
Like it or not, while Obama is busy passing bills, none of that will matter if his support structure is voted out of office. The Republicans are still defining the American normal and this is a huge problem because if you can’t even persuade blue collar guys, who directly benefit from the laws he’s signed to support your agenda, Republicans could undo almost everything he’s accomplished in a matter of months. They aren’t going to worry about bipartisanship or trivialities like rules. They’re going to ram through their repeals.
slightly_peeved
roshan
@burnspbesq:
Something like this or this?
Mnemosyne
@burnspbesq:
The death of the public option has been greatly exaggerated. But don’t tell the angry ones, because they’ll turn on a dime and tell us how much the public option sucks and how much they hated it from the very beginning if it actually passes.
Mnemosyne
@kt:
This wouldn’t have anything to do with Obama’s, um, hue, now would it? It’s the “visceral hatred” after less than two years in office that’s sending up a red flag for me.
Especially since the right wing and the MSM has been riding the “Obama helps black people over white people” pony pretty much since Day One with the complaints about how banks were “forced” to loan money to irresponsible black and brown people and that was what caused the financial crash.
If they complain about “Fannie Mae,” that’s what they’re saying, BTW: black and brown people wrecked the economy by not paying back their mortgages.
General Stuck
@kt:
Bullshit. They aren’t going to ram through repeals without a two thirds majority vote. You are simply full of shit with the firebagging nonsense. The wingnuts have no good candidates for 2012, but they do have allies on the left to help them win, like you for instance, and your firebagging puma nitwit pals.
From the beginning of his presidency, Obama has consistently garnered his most support from liberal democrats over moderate and conservative ones. The liberals out in the countryside, the ones that count, not the self important bloviators that populate left wing blogs. You folks are no more than a tempest in a chamber pot.
NR
@slightly_peeved: Obama promised a public option during the campaign. But even when it was gaining momentum in the Senate, he refused to twist arms for it. He then went on to say that the public option wasn’t that important. And when he did finally twist arms, it was for a bill without a public option.
DougL (frmrly: Conservatively Liberal)
The manic progressives can go pound sand for all I care. Lesser of two evils?! lo-fuckin’ l! It’ll be another choice between sane and insane in 2012, just like 2008. If the Pet Issue Progressives want to sit it out then they can shut the fuck up about it. If you don’t vote then STFU since you obviously don’t give a shit about anything but your pet issues. Your vote is your voice, if you choose to silence it then you lose the right to bitch about anything that happens as a result of it.
I don’t agree with Obama on everything he has or has not done but all I have to do is think about what a McCain/Palin presidency would be like to temper my disappointment. Manic progressive assholes at places like Kos shit all over Obama.They did it when he first posted there and they have been doing it ever since. I am glad to see that the manic progressives are about 20% of the people who hang out there (based on a poll in a diary about Van Jones’ post Netroot Nation speech interview and his telling the manic progressives to back off). There might be hope if enough of us tell the manics to go pound sand. While we do care about their issues and may see eye to eye in our wanting them resolved, we are not going to dismiss ground that we have gained on other issues.
The Pet Issue Manic Progressives are a noisy bunch but then so are the teabaggers. Problem for the Pet Issue Manic Progressives is that if the 20% figure at Kos is a good indicator of their number, then they are outnumbered by the teabaggers. Still, both are noisy minorities who the press is giving an inordinate amount of coverage to. Gee, I wonder why that is…lol! Useful idiots, all.
Barring a real scandal, Obama has my vote in 2012 and that is that. As far as progress and politics, our country moves like a pendulum, not a Ferrari. That’s a feature, not a bug. You want it to move? Then keep pushing like the wingers do. Want to give up? Then STFU about it because I don’t care to listen to children whine about their stupid decisions they later regret.
/back to my self-imposed comment hiatus from the blog insanity…
burnspbesq
@roshan:
Close, but no cigar. Those things don’t say what you think they say.
FlipYrWhig
@kt:
This might be significant if these blue caller Massachusetts guys told you they had voted for Obama but had become disenchanted. Is that what happened? Because there are millions of people in Massachusetts who never liked Obama in the first place, and if his standing declined among those, well, I’m not sure why we or he should be too concerned about that.
NobodySpecial
@burnspbesq:
Yes, he’s just reading
and not applying your…SPECIAL filter to not see what it really said.
Dr. Morpheus
Yes and Reid inserted the public option and it got killed by Lieberman.
Endless vitriol for Obama, but Lieberman skates.
slightly_peeved
@NR:
None of which implies any secret deal, so I’m not sure why you bring any of it up.
Besides which, the “momentum” for it didn’t matter shit without Lieberman or Snowe. And the more Obama and progressives pushed for the public option, the more Lieberman liked the idea of voting against it.
FlipYrWhig
I would venture to say that there were around _20_ Senate Democrats who never were too keen on the public option. We heard about Lieberman, Lincoln, Landrieu, and Nelson near the end, but there was also Baucus, Kent Conrad, Tom Carper…
Then when there was that letter in support of the PO near the endgame, they got 25 to sign it. The Progressive Change Campaign Committee also said that 15 more indicated some level of support in public statements.
The sad fact is that there are only so many arms you can twist. The ideological division among Democrats has led us to this point where the only way to get the party to come together is through compromises, incrementalism, and technocratic fixes that focus on budgetary impact.
NobodySpecial
@FlipYrWhig: You might venture to say that, but you would also have to concede that a vote was never taken on the public option, and further that a vote was never taken after the administration made a public and private effort to include it in the bill. Neither for or against the case is proven in the lack of a vote. The best we can offer is that running count I think TPM was keeping, that showed 44 or so at it’s peak willing to vote for it.
That being said, it doesn’t seem unreasonable to think that the pressure of a publicly supported private option (as polls showed all through the yearlong debate), a judicious use of Obama’s political capital, and a willingness by Reid to actually drag members into line might have given them the 50 needed. Two of those three things were missing, however.
As a result, Reid owes his political future to the Teabaggers nominating a woman who couldn’t win Las Vegas dogcatcher elections, and Obama gets both fair and unfair criticism for what wasn’t attempted. The fair is the reported negotiations which dealt it away prior to the bill being introduced. The unfair is completely blaming Obama for the Senate being competely off the rails.
Ailuridae
@FlipYrWhig:
I don’t mean to come off as harsh on this as you are just the entry point into this conversation but we know this information, right? Open Left did solid great advocacy on this point and it never, ever got above votes for a weak public option.
http://openleft.com/diary/14574/latest-public-option-whip-count
FFS, Reid getting to 59 votes on a massive expansion of Medicare is an amazing accomplishment given that 15+ members of the caucus were unwilling to commit to a PO.
And these are simple fucking fact that the FDL-bots and our Corner Stone’s and Just Some Fuckheads are unwilling to address.
Additionally since the PO is deficit reducing in any incarnation it can be passed through reconciliation with 50 votes.
There are two simple ways to know a leftist has no idea what the are talking about in the HCR reform debates. They ignore the actual whip counting that was done for the PO and they insist on pretending that the PO would address costs in a meaningful way while refusing to acknowledge the actual source of current and future costs in the system (doctor’s compensation and provider profits)
Ailuridae
@NobodySpecial:
That being said, it doesn’t seem unreasonable to think that the pressure of a publicly supported private option (as polls showed all through the yearlong debate), a judicious use of Obama’s political capital, and a willingness by Reid to actually drag members into line might have given them the 50 needed. Two of those three things were missing, however.
Wait, what? You can’t be serious.
Reid, by all measures, got them to 59 votes on a more aggressive and more progressive Medicare expansion for those over 50 and couldn’t get to 60 votes because of Lieberman.
If its true that very little effort could get a public option passed with 50 votes then there is no shortage of time to pass it before the exchanges come into existence, right? That can just be revisited at any point without sacrificing the insurance reform or the massive aid to the poor in the actual bill, right?
Bobby Thomson
@General Stuck:
Of course, that assumes that the president would actually use the veto power. I’d put the odds of veto at about 55%.
slightly_peeved
@NobodySpecial:
The only report is from anonymous lobbyists for the hospital industry, and that doesn’t exactly address the public option as proposed (since the public options proposed paid more than the medicare rate). I don’t think it’s fair on Obama to assume that any form of public option was traded away given that as the only source of the accusation.
I’d suggest another one; that the entirety of their argument for or against the HCR reform is based on the presence or lack thereof of a public option, and ignores the strong regulatory measures included elsewhere.
slightly_peeved
Just to clarify: the second bit was a response to Alluridae.
rootless_e
@NR:
“I paid attention when he said he supported a public option and opposed an individual mandate. Indeed, that was a big part of the reason why I voted for him in the primary. ”
What’s the penalty for ignoring the mandate? Come on. Tell us.
Jayackroyd
For those who do not understand “firebaggers” concern about the country’s direction under the administration:
https://balloon-juice.com/2010/07/25/two-tiers/
BTD
Hmmm. I’m not sure what point you are trying to make here Dennis, but you may be interested to know that Reagan’s NEXT appointment to the Supreme Court was Antonin Scalia.
I think the bitching worked out pretty well for Viguerie.
Oh BTW, Reagan won 49 states in 2004.
What was your point again?
General Stuck
@Bobby Thomson: To repeal a standing public law, it takes a two thirds majority from both chambers, and has nothing to do with a presidential veto. Learn stuff before spouting off. Why aren’t you morons over at Redstate lending aid and comfort to the wngnuts, instead of here where facts matter at least a little. jeebus.
shortstop
@handy: Because nothing in between those two extremes is even possible.
brantl
@JWL: Even the Blue Dogs have been better than the Republicans. That’s why you primary them, but you have to back them in the general.
cmorenc
@arguingwithsignposts
Actually, this quote was at the core of one of the rare Krauthammer columns in which much (though certainly not all) of what he had was accurate and sensible. It also cuts to the true core of conservative passionate resentment and obstructionism against Obama and everything they think he stands for. They truly believed during the apex of the Bush Administration’s power, when they had slender but solid working majorities in Congress, that full realization of the conservative Reaganite vision of the US was within achievable reach, including near-complete dismantlement of the New Deal and enormous scaling-back of the regulatory apparatus, in short completely dismantle FDR, LBJ, and their legacy. Obama represents to them a dire threat (with health care reform, financial regulation, and so on) to irreversibly solidify and extend that legacy such that within a decade or two, the United States will closely resemble a European social democracy, like Germany or (in their worst nightmares) like one of the Scandinavian countries or the Netherlands, with San Francisco standing in for Amsterdam.
Now having spent some time in Denmark (a far more socialistic country with high taxes/generous public infrastructure and benefits, and they’re ardent enviros too)…I’d say dreams of evolution of the US to being more like Scandinavia a are closer to a wet erotic dream than a nightmare. Despite living in a flat, prevailingly chilly, cloudy place with limited daylight and extremely long nights at least four months of the year, Denmark is one of the happiest and most prosperous places on the planet. The problem for conservatives is that the prosperity is concentrated far heavier in the middle class and far less in a wealthy elite (though there’s plenty of them, too just not nearly as many or as disproportionately wealthy as a hard-core conservative Social Darwinian thinks there ought to be).
Back to Krauthammer: He is right here; if Obama succeeds, even with what he’s succeeded in getting passed so far (with all the shortcomings from what progressives ardently wanted), he will have made it extremely difficult for any future GOP Administration to ever come anywhere remotely close to returning the country to a Reaganite vision of the role of federal government. At best, future GOP administrations could take the tack of the Bush administration and be spectacularly incompetent, deliberately feckless, corrupt, fiscally irresponsible administrators. But that’s not the same as being able to dismantle the fundamental structure at all.
Allan
@joe from Lowell: A PUMA quote always contains the trope “shoved down our throats.”
Bobby Thomson
@General Stuck:
Yeah, that’s why people are trying to get supermajorities to repeal such public laws as DOMA and DADT. Oh, wait, no they aren’t – because there is a Democratic president who would not veto the repeal bill.
Belligerent ignorance mixed with Manichean questioning of loyalty. You know, when Junior Bush pulled that shit it really pissed me off. Coming from the likes of you it’s just pathetic.
General Stuck
@Bobby Thomson: Moron. Congress repeals bills, a presnit cannot veto a 2/3 vote to repeal a standing law.
Allan
@mclaren:
Tell that to Alice Palmer.
Corner Stone
I hereby declare this blog and all its inhabitants to be the rightful possessions of PUMA!!
And if you want to see the Underverse you will follow the firebagger to your left where we will line you up and do something weird to you with a needle in the neck or something. It’s hard to tell what exactly, but it seems to leave a mark there.
General Stuck
@General Stuck:
I should add however, that the wingnuts, if they captured both the House and Senate, could attempt to pass bills or amendments that could gut the HCR bill, or the funding to implement and carry out it’s mandates, but it would still have to get 60 votes in the Senate, and assume that Obama would not veto such a measure. If you believe either of those scenarios is remotely possible, then you are an idiot of the first order.
Bobby Thomson
@General Stuck:
And you double down on your stupidity.
Republicans need 2/3 to repeal only if they need enough votes to override a veto. No one suggested a president could veto a 2/3 override. You, however, suggested that any repeal of existing legislation required a 2/3 vote. That is incorrect.
Assuming that Republicans got the 60 votes to make it past a filibuster (with actual Rs, plus Lieberman, plus enough of the usual suspects after putting the screws to them), there is about a 45% chance they could put enough pressure on the president (“Heed the will of the people!” “Why does Obama hate democracy?” “Why is the president standing in the way of this bipartisan effort?” etc., etc.) so that he wouldn’t veto. It’s more likely than not that he wouldn’t, having gone to all the trouble of getting the legislation enacted in the first place. But there is a pattern.
General Stuck
@Bobby Thomson: We were, and my response to the Kt comment referenced actual repeal of a law, that takes 2/3 majority and is by definition veto proof.
Other means of fucking up existing laws you didn’t mention, until I did@General Stuck:
And the idea of Obama, or the congress, not filibustering or vetoing attempts to corrupt a passed HCR bill, fought over for a year, is ludicrous. Go back to the GOS FDL fever swamps with that crap.
General Stuck
@Bobby Thomson:
And the original kt comment referred specifically to the wingnuts winning congress now and “pushing through their repeals, with Obama still president. And that was the context of my comment of them needing a 2/3 majority.
General Stuck
And I still think that a clean “repeal” of an existing law, without any replacement, just wiping that bill/law off the books takes a 2/3 vote in congress without presidential action.
General Stuck
@General Stuck:
Upon further research, I can find no hard evidence that to repeal fully a standing public law, it takes a 2/3 majority vote regardless of presidential veto, or not. So I concede that point to you Thompson, but that still doesn’t change the fact that it is silly to speculate that, first 60 votes could be gotten to beat a senate filibuster anytime soon by the wingnuts, especially since several current senate goopers have rejected an outright repeal, other than a symbolic gesture by the gop, nor that Obama would not veto a repeal action bill he fought for a year over, and also brought back from the dead, the bill after Brown in Mass was elected.
Norwegian Shooter
Slightly shorter quote:
Generalization, strawman, baseless insult. Poutrage (also pot calling kettle) lie and lie.
Much shorter: BS! How is complaining about getting a gag order on Pharma and health insurers in exchange for no public option, no re-importation of drugs and no Medicare bargaining power on drugs “process” and “spin” instead of “results” and “reality”? The deal was made before the “process” and “spin” even began! Nice crack if you can get it.
Next thing you’ll tell me is that complaining that a healthcare executive wrote the Senate HC bill and that the Gang of Six gutted the more liberal ideas is needlessly “process” and “spin”. Call it whatever, but the results and reality at the end of the day sucked.
Hard Left liberals are complaining not because of the process and spin the WH conducted, but that the WH really wanted a bill without a public option. They actually got what they wanted. That’s the poutrageous issue.
Shelton Lankford
@Allison W.: No, we need a new system. Instant runoff would be a change that makes sense. You could use your first choice for the candidate that you really want and second choice for the candidate of the major party that you prefer. That way you could vote for a third party candidate without wasting your vote. Our current system of first past the post ensures that a third party candidate only hurts the candidate who is closest to him ideologically, strengthening the other contender.
FlipYrWhig
@Norwegian Shooter: I think the total assemblage of facts suggests that (1) the Obama administration did in fact want to sideline many of HCR’s fiercest opponents, the ones who teamed up to tank Clinton’s effort; (2) the Obama administration liked the idea of the public option from a policy standpoint but concluded that they didn’t have the votes in the Senate to pull it off (see the Guantanamo detainee issue for a comparison); (3) the Obama administration may not have tried to twist arms to _get_ those votes for the public option because (3a) there were too many arms, (3b) punishing holdouts would make them less cooperative on future parts of the administration’s agenda, (3c) rewarding holdouts started to cause howls of outrage about back-room shenanigans. That sounds to me like the way negotiations work. I don’t think presuming bad faith and skulduggery improves the explanation for why the public option didn’t get into the bill.
My analogy of choice continues to be selling your house when you have already taken a new job in a new city. You obviously want the best offer, but you have limited time. At some point you may have to choose to take less money than you think you deserve, and than you think the house is even worth, to get the whole enterprise over with so you can move on. I think the complaints from the left about the absence of the public option are akin to complaints that you could have saved a ton of money on commissions if you did for-sale-by-owner instead of using an agent; it’s true, but you may not have sold the thing in the first place, leaving you worse off.
Uncle Clarence Thomas
> need to trust Obama’s long game
haw haw haw haw haw
Yes, chirrens, “pie in the sky” is what all y’all really needs mostest of all!
Balloonbaggers prefer to get their reward in heaven, thankyouverymuch!
slightly_peeved
@Norwegian Shooter:
You proved his point. You’re arguing whether health care is good based on the negotiations that occurred, rather than the law that was produced. That’s arguing the process – the negotiations – over the result – the law that was passed.
Since you’re not referring to the law as passed, and saying why it is bad, it is “process”. Terms like a healthcare executive wrote the bill are “spin” if you’ve ever read the bill. Healthcare executives wouldn’t write in 85% of premiums going to care or an end to pre-existing conditions, since both fundamentally change the profit model of the healthcare companies.
Norwegian Shooter
slightly peeved, maybe I made too fine a point on it, especially with the healthcare executive bit, but the Senate bill, and thus the final bill signed by the president, is what I’m complaining about. The substance of the bill, not Obama’s tactics, as Dennis G. suggested. I’m saying Obama got want he wanted, not what he was forced to accept by the 60th Senate vote.
As for the small bore reforms, such as premium percentages and pre-existing conditions, the bill did the absolute minimum to address these. What people ignore is that our health care system is f-cked up – delivering worse outcomes at a much higher cost than the rest of the developed world – and would have continued to get worse if nothing was done. The healthcare industry was smart to accept these reasonable reforms in order to head off a true crisis and enormous anger in a few years that might prompt a Medicare for all type “radical” solution.
General Stuck
@Norwegian Shooter:
Complete bullshit. These are not “small bore reforms” to the country, nor to the insurance companies. And there is not a scale of “absolute minimum”. You either have fixed premium percentage at 85 going to actual health care, or you don’t. Same with having a ban for denial of coverage for pre existing conditions. It exists or it doesn’t.
chaseyourtail
I was so going with Ed Shultz.
Corporate Dog
Doesn’t a ‘meme’ or a ‘frame’ need to have a little more substance to it, before it constitutes a ‘meme’ or a ‘frame’?
Republicans often use the word ‘the’ in conversation. Would you imply that usage of the word ‘the’ belongs squarely in the domain of Republicans?
“I’m disappointed with the President. He’s not listening to me.” doesn’t become a meme, until you follow it up with either, “He needs to show us his long-form birth certificate, and he needs to do it now.” OR “His attorney general has a real blind spot for torture, doesn’t he?”
Only one of those constitutes a “poutrage”.
George
How about because it hasn’t worked? The unemployment rate is through the roof, there are record foreclosures, the environment continues to suffer, there have been no new peace agreements or victories abroad, poverty is increasing. What difference does it make if we keep scoring these “victories”, if it means nothing in terms of the realities that we face on the ground?
FightTheFuture
In your lifetime? Considering that the last 30 years has been very right or right leaning (e.g. Clinton) Presidents, that isn’t saying much.
Obama is similar to a Clinton, a DLC Dem, on his policies and actions, which should be obvious as he appointed Rahm “Mr. NAFTA” Emmanual to his COS and so many other DLC third-way (ie. pro-corporate), ex-CEO’s and Robert Rubin types to his cabinent. The fact that Clinton even pushed for a tax increase on the wealthy to help increase revenues and pay down the debt make Obama even more right than Clinton.
Mike in SLO
@Allison W.: Gee, why not become a pundit? You sound just like them.
Jim G
It’s very disappointing that the President and his administration continue to leave Bush appointees in place, particularly at Justice and Interior.
Will Danz
@Corporate Dog:
Exactly. And this troll-bating bullshit can be played just as easily the other way. It wouldn’t be too hard to find Reagan or Bush- loving quotes from Repubs of years gone by, and apply them to Obama cheerleaders. And hell, just find all the times “liberal” and “progressive” is used as a dirty word these days by Obama fans — pure fuckin’ Fox News. Making dumbass analogies is easy!
But Doug is a SERIOUS, PRAGMATIC blogger, we know. Flogging the highly original term “poutrage” proves this.
Jesus, what a junior high circle jerk.
Tim Ellis
@angler:
You said: “I hope that those dirty rotten baggers at nutroots nut-shun took note when Pelosi and Reid showed up in person to set em straight on who matters and Obama made a video to tell them too. They are now on notice. No one cares about them, (just like Viguerie and that direct mail b.s. that never caught on) and if it takes the entire party leadership going out of their way to tell you so, tough toenails. They will get no respect, none.”
I’m not saying I agree or disagree with the sentiment you’re expressing here; I’m just saying that I think it’s tough to prove that nobody cares about the Netroots by talking about President Obama, Nancy Pelosi, and Harry Reid talking to Netroots. The argument here is that they care so little that they are going to fly across the continent to tell people how little they care.
I just find the logic there a little hard to follow.
Sheila
I always thought of true progressivism as a long-term commitment to eradicating social injustice, poverty, ignorance, war, etc. rather than an obsession with ephemeral details, so I in no way see the frustrati as progressives. Progressivism begins at home, with the way one lives one’s life, with compassion, kindness, fairness and as much thoughtfulness as possible. In politics, it must be built up from the ground, not begun at the top of a bloated and corrupt political system that is not questioned by the majority of the citizens. If we want the country to become more progressive, we must attempt to change the system and encourage fine progressive local candidates so they can gain a foothold in the system we would like to see changed. Shrieking about firing Sherrod for days on end has nothing to do with progressive politics. There are far larger issues to confront (check out “The Food Bubble” in the July issue of Harper’s) and they are lost in the nitpicking that passes for “leftwing criticism” to many.
sherifffruitfly
The only real question is: who hates Obama more – republicans or “true progressives”?
Sean
Congrats – this has become the topic of a diary at the GOS: http://www.dailykos.com/story/2010/7/27/152731/629
JB Sheehy
Reagan had a Democratic Majority’s in the House AND Senate to contend with and still got most of what he wanted. Obama has Democratic Majoity’s in house and senate and still cant get what he says he wants passed and must continually plead with the Republican MINORITY to pass watered down bills ie Health Care, Finance Reform, Energy, Immigration, etc etc etc. So spare us the David Broder/Joe Klein pundit bullshit please.
Norwegian Shooter
@General Stuck: Okay, I pick the wrong terms in comment boxes. “small bore” was stupid. But you miss my point about “absolute minimum”. I’m saying that some reform of health care after the 2008 election results was inevitable. Given that scenario, the final bill had the least number and strength of reforms possible.
For instance, letting Medicare negotiate drug prices was an achievable reform. The politics of it are unassailable. But Obama gave it away without trying. I’m saying that isn’t screwed up tactics or strategy, but what Obama wanted in the first place.
Whatever you think about Obama, Rahm and Pete Rouse, they aren’t dumb and they know a thing or two about politics. If there was any evidence that Obama wanted stronger reforms, I would gladly give him the benefit of the doubt. But there isn’t any.
emmitt mak
This is the dumbest article I have ever read on Baloon Juice, hands down. Usually smart, today, plain old dumb…
thetruth
Hate to disappoint you Dennis G, (actually not really, bursting your “pragmatism” bubble is enjoyable), but critics of Obama on the left are holding him accountable from a rational, reality-based perspective.
The pouting I see is from the self-styled “pragmatists” in the center. You know, the ones propping up the corporatists and DLCers who are quite content to continue letting industry and casino bankers rip everyone off as long as they can scorecard empty, phyrric victories. They’re crying in their deflating poll numbers because the left isn’t sufficiently enamoured with fig leaves and sham reform.
It certainly is entertaining watching delusional pseudo-pragmatists parade around with puffed out chests bearing their health care merit badges, as they basically slap another tax on the middle/poor classes in the form of the mandate with no PO.
Mmm yeah, you’ve sure accomplished a lot. Guess that’s why even health care lobbyists openly claimed “We won.”
Mo's Bike Shop
Ah yes, remember how the right came out for GHWBush’s second term?
And they made sure their rhetoric was always a step or two behind their leader, the president?
And they’ve stood up for Bush Jr.?
Majiqman
@burnspbesq:
So, when is that then? By which I mean the right time for the next step in your incrementalism… another 70 odd years I imagine?
Which why it might of made sense for him to FIGHT for a campaign promise that was also a once in a lifetime opportunity. We understand the separation of powers and that he might of failed. He didn’t even try. Oh, and what was FDR’s majority in congress again?
Dan Johnson-Weinberger
This is a bit of a thread-jack, but I agree with the assessment that Obama has been a progressive champion, and if you think it would help get some Obama voters back voting in November 2010 to spread the message, consider buying a T-shirt with that message of Get Barack’s Back — Vote Dem in 2010.
My friend and I made up a no-profit (to us) site through printfection at http://www.GetBaracksBack.com but feel free to take that message and make up your own shirts, bumper stickers, etc.
Barack is our guy. And the best way we can get his back is by electing Dems in November (especially progressive Dems).