For my tastes, Tbogg doesn’t quite get across here what it feels like to be a liberal Democrat in the age of Obama. This version hits a bit closer to the mark.
“Hey, John. I noticed that you got a new lawnmower but you didn’t toss the old one. I could use it if it’s just taking up space in your garage. If you want I can pay something for it.”
“I don’t really want to sell it, Barack, but I might let it go for $50 if you give me some money to think about it. Say, five bucks.”
“Sure! Here’s eight. Can I give you fifty bucks now?”
“Mmmm, no. I might sell it for eighty, but you have to give me another eight first.”
“Okay! How about now?”
“Maybe we got off on the wrong foot. Here’s ten bucks.”
“Hey! Smith! You see this guy threaten me? Get off my lawn, you sumbitch! I’m getting my gun.”
Now this is a post WyldPirate and Joe Beese can get behind!
I am glad you returned to feed the Obama fail trolls, the little motherfuckers have been wrecking the place and need some fresh meat. This is theirs, and I guess your thread.
I’m pretty sure Obama would give them his brand new lawnmower and throw in some $$$ just to make sure they didn’t say something bad about him later.
Fixed that for ya.
OT; Interpol issued arrest warrant for Assange,CNN.
Trolling troll threads is sad.
Since Interpol is a puppet of the Obama police state, well……
Actually, I think Tom Tomorrow nails it here.
Yes, but my power steering went out today.
Suck It Up!
Yeah, Obama should take lessons from Liberals. They really know how to get legislation passed. They know how to maintain majorities.
The thing that makes me crazy is they’re such one-note-johnnies. Great googly creeping god, does that single thought pinging around in their craniums not get lonely?
We all have our differences ’round here, but it usually takes a while to descend into name-calling rants, we don’t start that way every time we metaphorically walk into a room.
And if everyone here is such bad company, it makes you wonder what psychological itch they’re trying scratch by tethering themselves so emphatically to every single thread.
Liberals wait for crumbs from table center.
As we all know, President John Edwards would’ve gotten single payer passed because they wouldn’t be able to SHUT HIM UP
Obama needs to start banging some fat chicks if he wants the Left to respect him. If he nailed some intern, there’s no sin (DADT, NAFTA, Iraq War) the Firebaggers won’t forgive.
@Suck It Up!:
Highly skilled at pleasing the electorate as well.
And messaging. Don’t forget messaging.
@Suck It Up!:
Funny thing, I’d say the only place with a reasonably sizable liberal/progressive contingent (in relative terms at least) with actual power/leadership is…the House. That did pretty damn well as far as actually passing shit and maintaining governable majorities. But yay for assholes running away from Pelosi while 2 year long smears made her into the Queen Evil Bitch of the World. Fat lot of help that did everyone.
not as sad as calling for Daddy when the kitchen gets hot.
Tim F., I hope you know you’ve consigned tbogg to firebagger hell.
They used to say, “Fuck those firebagging FDL’ers! Except for tbogg there’s no reason I’d ever go there! Why doesn’t that sad hostage escape that pit?!”
But now they won’t toss out that caveat any longer.
@jeffreyw: How can you say no to a face like that?
Tim, Tim, Tim, you freaking liberals just don’t see the big picture. The president has said he’s been remiss these past two years in his bipartisan spirit and reaching across the aisle. He has a plan; he’s going to double down on that stuff. Ergo the winnings must double.
Vegas would love that guy.
@General Stuck: Yep. I’m starting to think I’m really gonna miss this place.
@Suck It Off!: Ahh, feeling picked on? Poor dear.
Is Obama the only person with a liberal voice who can appear on Sunday talk shows??????????????????????? Actually how liberal is Obama? The point still stands though.
What’s this in response to? Because Obama said he should have the Republicans up to the Big House for coffee and cake more often?
“Reaching out” to the Republican leaders doesn’t have to mean anything more than that.
Maybe this is a down-home-church thing. “Reaching out” to people [in that context] doesn’t mean you’re going to give everything away. It means you’re trying to hold a conversation.
That’s what I thought he meant.
And having little luncheons with the Opposition often might just be good governance.
Lawnmower? Shit he never had a lawnmower! He campaigned on having a grass removal device. Only stupid liberals thought that meant he was for a lawnmower.
He might’ve said lawnmower a couple times on video tape but he really meant grass removal device.
Obviously the news media is not going to call a liar, a liar..but can’t someone besides bloggers and Tunch?
Just Some Fuckhead
@Corner Stone: Shit, at this point you don’t have to be a firebagger to find Obama disappointing. Ya just gotta be sentient.
Trick question. Sunday talk shows don’t allow liberal voices.
I’m curious. Do plan to keep up with this sewer grade prat fall commenting long term, or is it some stage of a GBCW exit, or something else equally arrested development?
Or is it just a matter of time till the speed wears off and the stash dries up?
anyways, the only thing I need to call up is my truly asshole self from the past on this blog, but you aren’t worth it, to bring that ugly monster out to inflict upon the good folks of BJ . So carry on insane grasshopper. Every asshole eats itself, sooner or later.
Suck It Up!
Whenever I say Liberals or the left, I’m referring to the ones I come across on the internet. I have never complained about libs in Congress because they pull through when they are needed.
It might be interesting for someone to go back to see some recent threads involving Clinton and see the correlation between some of the more visible Firebaggers in here and those who make more Clinton-positive arguments.
If DougJ wants some excitement, he can publish those results. I’ll be waiting with popcorn.
Suck It Up!
huh? why would I feel picked on? was the post about me?
Suck It Off? you’re really not good at this offending stuff are you?
The hurt feelings in this thread are ridiculous. Grow up, Stuck and Suck (and JenJen, but that doesn’t rhyme). O noez, a FPer who isn’t Cole said something not nice about Obama, what are we gonna do?!
This was tame satire. The Onion hits harder on a daily basis…
@Suck It Up!:
Of course it was! Someone said something slightly less than flattering about Obama. Your little tightie whities get bunched something awful when that happens.
It’s like you have a strange version of Tourettes.
I said this is a firebagger thread, just for them and you. what else you want?
@Just Some Fuckhead:
JSF. You need to get to the hospital and have your Obotomy.
You’re clearly not fit to be one of the BJ Kewl Kidz. Get your mind right, son. ;)
@Bob Loblaw: Yep. And when I want satire, I go to the pros. Like The Onion.
And really, my feelings aren’t hurt. It’s more that I’m just growing weary and bored. Big difference; don’t get it twisted.
Suck It Up!
@Corner Stone: @Bob Loblaw:
yawn. see what you want see. I notice no one is refuting my comment. you two have fun playing with yourselves. watch your eyes.
Seems to me you were picking the scab up in post #2 in the this thread, Stuck.
I see you are getting a little hot under the collar and acting like a little whiny bitch, now, though. Bite off a little more than you can chew, huh?
run along old man. You need to stay on the porch with the puppies cause you clearly can’t run with the grown dogs anymore. I don’t want to hurt your feelings. I’ve just been playing with you so far.
apt description – now take your medicine please
@Suck It Up!:
Refute what? I was unaware that “Liberals” (whatever that means to you) had a majority to lose, or have had at any point in the last few decades. Isn’t that the point, that they’re such a marginal force in this country that all they can do is bitch and complain and sabotage?
Also, I would ask what Barack Obama himself knows about maintaining majorities (plural) given recent events, but that would be putting in more thought to this reply than you did to your rather irrelevant contribution in the first place.
I don’t understand why any of you have such kneejerk reactions, good or bad, to any time Obama gets dinged for whatever reason. Like I said, this was pretty tame and noncontroversial satire. Obama sucks as a public negotiator? Yeah, I know, just ask the Israelis or AIG…
Yes Tim F., that about covers it.
What I don’t understand is why any of you whine so fucking much at being challenged from your infernal bullshit. This is a blog, a political blog, and has always been a confrontational one. Maybe your butthurt is from being demonstrated to be wrong with the Obama criticism. Maybe you want and feel entitled to bash Obama cuz it’s fun and fashionable, like on most other liberal blogs. Not here, quit whining and deal with it. Or go somewhere else. You sound nothing more than a slightly more articulate wildypirate.
@Suck It Up!:
You mean like the New Deal, or the Great Society, or civil rights legislation, or Medicare?
Who is this Obama everyone is talking about? Never heard of him.
Well, the federal workers who just saw their pay frozen might disagree.
Wait, I thought those two years were great successes and us assholes didn’t appreciate their greatness enough. So now, the second Great Depression would have been preferable to the horrid specter of partisanship? I know people who like to get whipped that don’t grovel as much.
Did you happen to actually read the post you responded to by writing this? “fail troll” and “little motherfucker” are name-calling where I’m from.
Jim, Foolish Literalist
@Oscar Leroy:Each of which passed in a single vote, and none of these programs took more than two years to pass, right?
@Jim, Foolish Literalist:
What are you talking about? No one is arguing about whether or not any particular program passed in a single vote.
I’m referring to the past several weeks. Even in a non-political threads there have been people who just come out slamming nearly everybody, basically a screaming hissy-fit that doesn’t even relate to anything currently being discussed.
Now I’m one of those people who can’t seem to say fuck often enough, and I’m certainly not above a dig or an outright insult. I’m certainly not the goody-two-shoes police. But, man, it just gets exasperating to watch somebody march out of their little clockwork hole and squawk the same thing every hour on the hour. It just turns the comment section into the same shithole the screaming hissy-fit types can wallow in in any back alley of the interwebs.
I’m a live and let live type mostly, and I’ll keep my trap shut the first 50 times somebody repeats the same tired, annoying comment. But on the 51st time I’ll tell them to shut the fuck up, just to stay in practice.
Maybe you’re projecting mightily. You’re the only one getting emotional in this thread. Except for WyldPirate, he’s emotional everywhere. That’s why the two of you are made for each other.
I don’t care if Obama gets made fun of or praised or castigated or idolized or anything. It doesn’t affect me or make me question my values system that I use to analyze things around me. I know, strange concept on the internet.
So when I say that Obama is a lousy public negotiator, it isn’t an attempt to play into other peoples’ silly little tribal games with their ‘obots’ and ‘firebaggers’ and other words they’d be too humiliated to use when speaking in person, it’s because I think he’s a terrible public negotiator. I also happen to believe he’s a very good private negotiator. He’d have to be, he is the President of the United States after all. I just don’t think he messages very well. It’s my suspicion that he resents having to. That’s cool, I’m an asshole in that same way, but my responsibilities in this world are slightly less.
But that’s fine, continue to get angry and persecuted at the world and show us all how hardcore and “confrontational” you are. You think you mean so much to this place (which, need I remind you is a political blog called Balloon Juice, and thus may not be the most noble pursuit), but I’d imagine other posters here are hard pressed to come up with many meaningful interactions they’ve ever had with you in your thousands and thousands of hours logged.
Odie Hugh Manatee
I think that this best expresses the feelings of the Obama Fail crowd.
Makes me laugh every time I see it.
Jim, Foolish Literalist
@Oscar Leroy: actually, lots of people (I don’t know about you specifically) indulge in fantasies about how Obama’s a failure cause he’s not tough like LBJ or smart like FDR, he’s an incrementalist and he compromises and negotiates. All the programs you mentioned were passed in incremental stages, through compromise and negotiation.
I actually saw one PUMA posit that we would have gotten meaningful health care passed if Bill Clinton were in the White House! Fucking adorable.
Jim, Foolish Literalist
On topic: I think Tbogg’s sketch is uncharacteristically weak and Tim F’s just flat. Obama hasn’t been sending thrills up my leg this past week, but I stick to my old saw of the problem being more in the press than in the Republican party, much less Obama.
@Jim, Foolish Literalist:
But Oscar Leroy wasn’t talking about ANY of that, you see? He’s mentioned those things because they’re SYMBOLS for HOW YOU GET STUFF DONE — NOT actual history and policy that happened in a specific way, you doof.
@Jim, Foolish Literalist:
pssst: TBogg posted that cuz Jane told him either an Obama-bash or his balls were gonna be next up on the screen.
You heard it here.
nice try at reverse projection, loblaw. No one here persecutes me, not you, not firebaggers, not anyone. I am not the one whining incessantly about the nature and content of what goes on with this blog. That would be YOU. It is a simple equation, and most of us so called Obots will respond to whatever critique with rational argument, when a rational complaint is filed on Obama or anyone else. And it is not too much to ask, I don’t think for the naysayers to present some genuine evidence to make their case, and in fact have a higher burden of proof than not.
This blog was started by a former republican who switched sides and early on announced the primary purpose of HIS blog was to fight the wingnuts he left and support dems for holding public office rather than repubs. So i do believe it is logical that those who want to critique or outright bash dems, have a good reason to, and be able to argue for it. Rather than it being the blogs default position for attacking democrats.
It pisses me off that you can’t discuss the current administration without the thread breaking down into those who will brook no suggestion that it is not wonderful and those who appear incapable of admitting that not all the problems are Obama’s or that he has done better than Grandpa Walnuts would have.
The comments Obama made at the meeting today really were stupid & we are going to get the entire tax cut package ensuring higher deficits, weaker recovery and GOP crowing about their success. He could at least have made the case for why this is a bad idea and try to foist the blame for the coming shit heap onto the Republicans but he seems not capable.
This is a replay of the health care disaster – give away bargaining chips before you start, get nothing in return & constantly reinforce Republican memes.
@Jim, Foolish Literalist:
Well, you know, Bill Clinton probably could have gotten health care passed back in 1994 if he’d just been willing to throw all of Hillary’s work in the trash and just get behind Dole’s proposal. You now, like Obama did.
I feel like I’m taking crazy pills over here. Just because a person disagrees with an Obama tactic doesn’t make him a firebagger and vice versa vis a vis obotism… What happened to nuance? I’ve been lurking here for years and I’ve never seen the place devolved into such an us vs. them mentality.. not even during the PUMA wars. Jesus. I know I don’t frequently comment but I read most of the comment threads and all the front page (even Kain).. the air is so thick in recent days with accusations of bad faith that it’s getting to be unbreathable.
Well, the consensus genesis of this atmosphere seems to be sometime during the health care debates in 2009. BJ began to encourage people to call their congresspeople directly to pass the bill, which garnered a response from some of the vocal progressive opponents of the health care bill.
Unfortunately, a lot of that rancor stayed behind even as the legislative agenda moved on.
I think it’s gotten worse, which is driving away some of the more decent commenters who, in effect, provided that “nuance”, along with snark.
Jim, Foolish Literalist
@Citizen Alan: So Obama should have held out for the (meaningless) public option, and got nothing? that would have made you happy? (just kidding, I know the closest you people come to “happy” is wallowing in your self-righteous, sterile misery).
@alwhite: This is a replay of the health care disaster –
hmmmm….. Bernie Sanders, Sherrod Brown, Nancy, Pelosi, John Dingell and Barbara Boxer say the health care bill is a good start to solving a long-term problem. Some guy on the internet says it’s a “disaster”. I just don’t know who to trust!
He repeated this a couple of times, and the House leadership, no doubt in consultation with the WH, and you are aware they coordinate stuff, I hope, will only hold a vote on the middle class tax cuts. What did you want him to say, “no, I won’t even discuss it with the wingnuts” or “no negotiation whatsoever”.
That would be stupid politics, and to get all downed out about, being a slave to boilerplate presnit speak and political optics.
Dems hold all the cards right now, until after Jan. 1st, when the Bush tax cuts disappear into the ethers of history. And when the repubs take control of the House, you will see a different Obama on a different playing field. If not, then get back to us. Right now, he is operating as though dems control everything, cause they do.
Perhaps, but not much of that in this thread, hence Oscar’s comment (I assume, perhaps wrongly). Although I have been accused (accurately) of wishing Obama would use the BFFS once in awhile, rather than trying to negotiate/compromise everything, I also realize conditions are a little different from when LBJ was doing it. However, as smart as Obama allegedly is, you’d think he’d start negotiating from an unreasonable position (i.e. one where he’s demanding somewhat more than he’ll bottom-line accept) and move down to a reasonable compromise. I know enough to do that, and I’m not an especially tough negotiator. Instead, he starts out with bare-minimum “demands”, and then appeases Rethugs far more than he needs to or should. $800B stimulus as a starting point, because Geithner/Summers/Rahmbo tell him that more is not politically do-able? And so on and so on etc… Please, save that shit for the Clueless Guild.
Not really, but if it soothes you to think so, be my guest.
You mean you missed that period where Stuck, Mike Kay and eemom self-appointed themselves the David Brookses of BJ sometime early in the PO debate? At least eemom backed off it a bit; Stuck went and had his ‘vacation’ when Cole told him to STFU and he got all butthurt, and Mike….well, I don’t know, but I wasn’t sorry when he went back to whining about the ‘police state’.
Eh, whatever. Stuck doesn’t appear far from a second vacation, so we can get some peace around here.
Jim, Foolish Literalist
@SFAW: Really? No compromise, negotiation or incrementalism in the legislative processes that brought Civil Rights, Medicare, or the New Deal?
If I leave, who will wipe the snot offin yer nose, NS?
That makes sense I suppose.. I just don’t get why a person can’t criticize *some* Obama strategies without being thought of either 1. as wholly rejecting everything about the man or 2. criticizing in bad faith (i.e. trolling).. the reverse also applies, is it possible to defend a controversial Obama policy without being a mindless hero worshipper/authoritarian? I think so. Obama’s human.. he has his good and bad qualities.. from whence comes this urge for neat categorizing? I think Loblaw has it right that this fight comes from tribal instincts getting the best of some.
I know, that’s why I just called your behavior childish and ridiculous.
Tribalism and enmity sell. And politics brings out the very worst in people. While I would prefer that every place I comment at is like Ta-Nehisi Coates’ place in terms of honesty and fairmindedness, the fact is that it is really only capable of maintaining that tone by avoiding 90% of contemporary politics. And by being really pretentious sometimes, so as to make the blog look more intimidating than it really is, but I digress.
It died horribly in a usenet discussion group in 1994.
So instead of giving away a potential chip why not say “lets compromise, we freeze pay, we allow tax cuts on 250k+ die & use the savings to fund further unemployment payments?
How bad was his statement? If I may quote the political genius Dooch Doochson:
Erickson: I think they probably demand more seeing as he folded so easy on this one. Why not?
All you ever do is whine whine whine loblaw. Then whine some more, when punked about your whining. Whine whine whine. It never stops.
Odie Hugh Manatee
Shit, now he’s going to whine about this.
Bad General, BAD!
@General Stuck: Yes, I like pie also. Although I prefer cake.
Really. (Well, not 100% really, but none of those was a “work in progress”, which seems to be the standard rationalization when Obama gets a quarter-loaf instead of half.)
Maybe I’m guilty of selective memory, but I don’t recall major revisions made to any of those programs, except at some point beyond the “vision window”. (For example, Medicare needing more funding might be considered a revision by some [esp. if there’s a major coverage change to address the problem], but the program itself is fairly close to the original. Civil Rights Act? No major changes until recently.)
But for the HCRA to be considered a practical success (as opposed to a legislative “win” for Obama), some significant changes are needed, and I ain’t talking about the severability clause crap of the last day or so.
Look up the history of supreme court decisions wrt civil rights.. the process took decades and was decidedly incremental.
Because he doesn’t have to. And shouldn’t politically. But I know, you want him to say stuff to make internet ideologues feel all warm and fuzzy. I want him to say shit that pleases the most voters, while he does what he and Pelosi are going to do. Make the wingnuts in the House vote no on an extension to the mc tax cuts only. And let all the cuts expire.
It is a pol passion play, theater, kabucky, all for leverage over ill informed voting public who only want the theater to make THEM feel all warm and fuzzy that everyone is getting along swell. You can wring your hands if you want at the words, I will watch what actually happens.
The play will have a new script come Jan, but for now, the last acts of the last two years play themselves out.
The problem with TBogg’s analogy is that he assumes John wants to sell Barack a lawn mower. He doesn’t.
I think it’s more like this:
Barack lives in a classic New England town with a common. He notices the grass is getting long. He thinks, “You know, someone really should do something about that long grass, but it’s too big a project for one guy. Maybe I’ll try to round up some help.”
He goes to his friends Nancy and Harry. Nancy is excited to pitch in. Harry has a lot of questions. What happens if the lawnmower conks out, who’s going to pay for gas, what if a pebble kicks up and breaks someone’s car window… all these things have to be worked out. The grass gets longer and longer. Harry finally gets a plan almost in place, and then it rains. By now it’s totally shaggy.
Barack and Harry and Nancy gas up their lawnmowers and get ready to go.
Then they see Mitch and John standing on the common. Obama says, “Hey, glad to see you! It’s a big job and we could use a couple more guys! Got a lawnmower?” Mitch and John say, “We do, but we’re just gonna sit here and have a picnic.” Barack and Harry and Nancy and Obama say, “OK, I guess you could do that, but we hope you’re done soon.” Mitch and John say, “No, we’re just going to sit here, as long as we feel like it.”
“It’s getting dark and wet”
“You’ll have to use the bathroom at some point.”
“Or we could just piss outside.”
“The grass is just going to get longer.”
“Don’t you care about it?”
“Not really, this town sucks and we’re bored. In fact, we brought some broken glass and we’re gonna spread that around too.”
“Why would you do that?”
“OK, what can we do to make you go away?”
“We’ll tell you when we hear it.”
It goes on like this for days. Bribes don’t help, threats don’t help, Mitch and John just sit there.
Finally Barack and Nancy and Harry get tired of it. “We’re just going to take our mowers and work around them. We’ll cut as much as we can.” They get about two-thirds of the grass mowed, as Mitch and John sit on a blanket throwing rocks at them and mooning them. Every once in a while the town weird kids, Ben, Joe, and Blanche, run up and unhook the spark plugs. By the end, it still looks like hell, but it’s better.
Then Markos and Jane drive by. “Why is a third of the common covered with long grass and broken glass? Why can’t Barack do anything right? He should have used the Bully Mower instead of sitting around like a non-lawn-mowing wuss.”
I’m willing to suspend disbelief to see if this is in fact what the dems are up to. If we see concession on the part of Repukes on say jobless benefits, DADT, maybe actually agree to accept $1million instead of $250K on tax cut off level, etc. It’s a clear test. I am no expert on political calculation, and the dems may not have all the cards, but it looks to me that they have most of them and should be able to win on this one. If not we really are in Alice’s Wonderland: a complete Democratic government can’t even win one (even politcal advantage, if not actual legislation) where they have such an advantage.
How about the fact that they were all passed at least forty years ago when the political consensus was about 180 degrees from where it is now? Because I’m pretty sure that the person you’re replying to was talking about liberals who are both alive and still in politics.
Start by reviewing what kinds of jobs weren’t originally included in Social Security.
(The kind women and black people had.)
@Jim, Foolish Literalist:
As a supporter of the health insurance reforms, I would advise not relying on Dingell as an authority on the subject. I’m not sure that guy could even operate the online insurance exchanges the bill creates.
No, you’re wrong. If we take the PPACA, for example, it’s pretty obvious that a quarter of the bill revolves entirely on making Medicaid work as it was spiritually intended to and provide coverage to the “working poor” despite red state’s machinations and road blocks and other legal obstructions of the past. It’s pretty much the textbook example of progressive improvement of the safety net, and it’s a real shame that the administration didn’t carry this thinking over to other aspects of the welfare state when they had the opportunity.
If Pelosi agrees now, to also vote for an extension to the rich tax cuts, and the senate does, and Obama signs such a bill, then I will agree it was a dem clusterfuck. But I see no sign Pelosi is about to do any such thing, and she runs the House.
If you closely read Obama’s actual quotes, he says nothing about a “compromise”. That is all fill in by Reuter’s.
Fandom wank. I know ya’ll like to think politics forums are more substantial or something, but they are not immune from the things that infects dens of geekery in the interwebs.
For ex: progressive health care reform is a TV series that has a fan community, and the public option was a division of said fandom. Some people think that the new writers bring something to the series despite the absence of PO, but PO subdivision wants to deny the existence of the current season because of this.
It’s all pretty pointless considering most of the real world doesn’t really know or care about this intra-fandom argument, but that can be hard to see when you have too many people who are physically incapable of tearing themselves away from the keyboard for a day or two to get some perspective.
@General Stuck: My alert systems have really been on panic mode when I started hearing “temporary extension for two years.” That is tantamount to making the Bush tax cuts permanent. This is the “shit and git stage” so stay tuned.
We’ll grade the papers after the test.
Your clueless and Obama is punked on the tax cuts.
The tax cuts will pass the House, perhaps w/o the whole shebang initially. The votes aren’t there in the Senate EVEN NOW in the lame duck session to pass the middle-income only cuts.
*It goes back to the House for wheeling dealing and BS. They cuts are extended for everyone for 1 possibly, 2 years probably. The best Dems get is get the Rethugs to trade UI benefits extension for two year extension of the cuts for every income level.
It goes to the Senate and passes. Rethugs get to crow about tax cuts. Two years from now, they hang it around Obama’s neck that he didn’t cut the deficit enough–that he’s a “tax and spend liberal.
In 2012, the Rethugs take full control of the Senate by a 8-10 vote margin. The only way Obama is re-elected is if Palin runs or some third party candidate splits the Rethug vote.
What of the media? Perhaps the local news consumer advocate arrives at the scene, keeps the camera zoomed in on the unkempt portion and frames the story as John and Mitch bravely resisting Barry’s bad park management scheme.. as evidenced by the uneven results.
The test is over. The votes aren’t in the Sentate to do middle class only cuts.
Actually, your memory is just extremely porous.
If we just take the Civil Rights Act by itself as an example, you have to start by acknowledging the fact that the very existence of a civil rights act itself was serving as a revision to centuries upon centuries of slavery and institutionalized racism.
Leaving all that aside, you have to acknowledge that a reference to the Civil Rights Act actually isn’t very specific (despite it being an effective shorthand reference), since there have been quite a few of them.
There was the Civil Rights Act of 1957–designed to ensure that all black Americans could exercise their right to vote–which was infamously filibustered by the esteem gentleman from South Carolina, Democratic Senator Strom Thurmond. Then we moved on to the Civil Rights Act of 1960, which “established federal inspection of local voter registration polls and introduced penalties for anyone who obstructed someone’s attempt to register to vote or actually vote.” And then, of course, there was the landmark Civil Rights Act of 1964, focused on outlawing discrimination and segregation. Oh, and the “hey, by the way…” Voting Rights Act of 1965, which actually outlawed all the discriminatory practices that prevented black Americans from exercising their right to vote.
So, again, leaving aside the whole slavery/Jim Crow era stuff, we are talking about a legislative period that spanned almost a decade and saw three different people in the role of POTUS.
This is something that should be patently obvious to people on the Left.
What happens if Obama says, “Fine. Sit there. But this shit needs cutting and I plan to do it. Hope you enjoy steak tartar.”
edited a lil
Please put down the crack pipe.
not to mention that Howard Fine Man, hacktus emeritus, who everybody was gleefully pointing and giggling at when he appeared on the Salon list last week, was spouting the exact same smug-ass “Oh he’ll cave…….believe me he’ll cave” line on Olbermann tonight that all of our, uh, free thinking “progressives” here are espousing.
I guess politics makes strange hackfellows.
Jesus H. Christ, you guys are amazing.
I start by responding to the sub-thread about LBJ getting various laws/acts/whatevers passed, and you end up conflating SCOTUS decisions, Civil Rights Act of 1957 (usw.), and the rest of civil rights history with the Civil Rights Act of 1964.
I half-expect you to tell me that Medicare was incremental, because Hippocrates started it all, and penicillin was discovered in 1928, and how could I forget about gene therapy?
You want to talk about political currents since Teh Dawn of Time, that’s great, but that wasn’t what I was talking about, and you know it (if you’re being honest with yourselves). And, no, you don’t need to be a mind reader to know what I was writing about.
You want to talk about whether LBJ was an incrementalist, and that the Social Security Act of 1965 was half-a-loaf, then there’s something to discuss.
The Dems have either 20 or 23 seats up for grabs. The Rethugs have 12-13. The economy isn’t going to be that much improved and the electorate will be in a foul fucking mood.
The Rethugs won’t make the same mistake of running complete idiot teatards a second time.
You wanna know why there aren’t the votes in the Senate to pass middle class-only tax cut extension?
The Dem Senators are quite as a mouse on the issue. The only one really kicking up a stink is Bernie Sanders, the f’ing Socialist.
The Dems won’t have the votes to pass the cuts–they are bought and paid for.
Odie Hugh Manatee
Shhh! FDR was a progressive hero!! You aren’t supposed to point out the compromises this progressive hero had to make to get stuff passed.
He gave us ponies. Nuff said!
False argument. Of those 33 seats up, Dems have 21 up, Reps have 10 up, and Sanders and whoever replaces Lieberman. Of those, many of them are done deals for the incumbent, seeing as how more than half of them were won with greater than 60% of the popular vote.
Matter of fact, Roll Call only calls five* Dem states as ‘Tossup’ (*if you count Lieberman as a Dem) and two Rep states the same way. Which doesn’t account for the fact that Dems typically vote better in Presidential year elections, Obama will again pull out large numbers of minorities and youth that didn’t vote in this year’s midterms, and the percentage of Angry White Folks in the election will keep dropping through attrition for two more years.
Long story short, no fucking way on this Earth there’s another Republican wave short of Obama being caught with Ahmaneedadinnerjacket plowing his poopchute, and maybe not even then. Especially not one that’s going to flip that many Senate seats.
You’re assuming (1) a rational electorate, and (2) that things are substantially similar to current conditions. The first one is questionable at best. The second assumption may be borne out, but current events (I mean in a generic sense, not things as they stand today) have a way of changing things drastically.
That being said: I hope you’re right, but I ain’t placing any bets that way just yet.
I am pretty sure that you strolled into this thread and declared that civil rights for black Americans were not legislatively passed “in incremental stages, through compromise and negotiation.”
This is you:
That completely disregards the legislative history of civil rights in this country, which includes everything from the Civil Rights Act in 1866 to the Civil Rights Act of 1964, and includes the fact that minorities and women were initially excluded from the Social Security Act.
Then why don’t you be more specific in how you express your thoughts? Otherwise, you just end up accusing others of “conflating SCOTUS decisions, Civil Rights Act of 1957 (usw.), and the rest of civil rights history with the Civil Rights Act of 1964” when that’s exactly what you so glibly did yourself.
Look, Oscar was talking about various programs (both general and specific), Jim (@55) mentioned LBJ and FDR, I chimed in about LBJ (@66), Jim (@68) attempted to smack me down (or whatever) by talking about Civil Rights (upper case, implying the Act of 1964) and Medicare – two of LBJ’s key accomplishments, in #76 I talked about Medicare and the Civil Rights Act, i.e. specific accomplishments of the Johnson Admin, you got all philosophical @90 by talking about the history of civil rights (lower case, not to be confused with the CRAof1964), and on and on and on.
Yes, I know that civil rights (lower case) has been a hundreds-of-years process. Yes, I know we’re still not “there”, wherever “there” is in the grand scheme of things. Yes, I know (well, technically, believe) that there will be more Civil Rights Acts. That doesn’t change the fact that the CRA of 64 and Medicare were landmark legislation(s) that took a lot of intestinal fortitude by Johnson to get them passed. They weren’t incremental steps, and they didn’t undergo major overhauls or “improvements” for a significant amount of time after. (If the Civil Rights Act of 1964 had been an incremental step, it it unlikely that the Southern Strategy would have developed as quickly or as strongly as it did.)
This is in contrast to the apparent belief that Obama’s “incrementalist” style is what’s necessary. If he had ever tried ramming through a piece of legislation, after starting from a true left-wing policy position, and failed miserably, I would agree that “incrementalism” is, unfortunately, the way to get things done.
But since he has, almost without exception, started from a center or center-right policy position, we haven’t had the chance to find out, have we?
Not how politics works with passing controversial legislation with a hurricane force headwind like HCR, where the past 100 years, several good dems and one repub president failed with the ramming thing. The most recent was Clinton in 93. It’s largely about momentum in these cases, and also the tender egos of dem senators, that are unlike the wingnut ones who fall in line with a GWB. Doesn’t work with a dem president. Ask Carter, or Clinton, or even FDR. They are serious about separation of powers, and will turn on a dem president in a heartbeat if they think he is bullying them.
Obama tried it a different way, most likely because of past failures of the ramming tactic, and had no room for error with 40 wingnuts not willing to consider any comprehensive reform, and only 58 actual democrats, and two indies to make the crucial sixty votes in the senate. And Joe Lieberman is and was not an Obama supporter, and was outside the dem party and immune from pressure to conform. Obama made some tactical errors along the way, and let the process go on too long, and has admitted this error, but “ramming” thru HCR was not one of them.
Ah yes… watch for the whole of Balloon Juice to go full firebagger, in the next few months. Obama’s that disappointing.
Jim, Foolish Literalist
Nope. We were talking about the New Deal, the Great Society, Medicare, Civil Rights and civil rights (I yield, with an eyeroll, to your precious hair-splitting). You made the rather startling, and stupid, blanket statement that all of these things passed without negotiation, compromise or incrementalism. If there was any attempt at a smackdown, it was in your snotty, and wrong-headed, sweeping statement from #66
Then you changed the terms of the debate, and you’re still wrong.
“Not how politics works” – generally, I agree. My problem is that Obama does not appear to have tried any way other than giving up half the farm before negotiations start.
Jim, Fool –
My, my, my. Upset because I called you on your earlier bullshit, so you figure the best tactic is Rethug-style projection? Outstanding. “Precious”? “Snotty”? I know third graders with better – well, more intelligent, at least – put-downs than what you have been able to muster. And they’ve generally been more attentive to details than you have.
As far as “hair-splitting”: in the future, I’ll try to ensure that, if I use upper case, that I make it clear that it’s for a proper noun, rather than a stylistic affectation, so that the barely-literate (e.g. you) can follow along at home. And just to be sure I don’t make another mistake regarding knowing my audience: “e.g.” means “for example”, not “that is”, since you were probably confused.
Listen, SFB, if you want to continue trying to flame me, that’s your prerogative. But that doesn’t change the fact that you tried slamming Oscar on one of his statements, I pointed out that you might be wrong (crazy, I know), and you went all “Mommy, he’s bein’ mean!! Waah!!” about it, and now you’re trying to have it both ways.
I’m sure you’ll come back with some variation of “I know you are, but what am I?”, but you were and are still wrong, and you know it. Well, actually, you probably can’t comprehend that, but maybe a grown-up (i.e. fourth grader) can explain it to you.
Until then: sod off, dimwit.