If you haven’t already, I recommend you read Mistermix’s analysis of the Republican strategery:
As Tim F. posted earlier, Ezra Klein thinks that Obama’s a bad poker player. He may be right, but the analogy isn’t helpful. Poker is a win/lose game. Negotiation is a win/win game, because both parties get something when a deal is struck. Republicans aren’t playing poker or negotiating. They are playing another game, call it “You Must Lose”. They’re happy with win/lose, if they win, but they’ll tolerate lose/lose as long as Obama loses.
The only analogy that springs to mind when I look at the Republicans’ recent behavior is a bad divorce. Think of a situation where Lisa and Bob are getting a divorce, and Bob is so hell-bent on hurting Lisa that he doesn’t care about their kids or their bank account. Bob will deploy a hundred variations on the same tactic: put the Lisa in a bind where she has to choose between damaging the children and losing money. Lisa will lose money almost every time in order to save the children.
In this situation, capitulation is inevitable, the only question is what form it will take.
He’s right, of course, and the worst thing about it is that it works. If you really don’t care about anything other than making the “other side” suffer, this is the way to go. By making sure the Obama administration achieves no victories, it also demoralizes the base and puts us at each other’s throats. Insert Big Lebowski nihilist quote here.
EdTheRed
Fuck me. I mean, say what you like about the tenets of National Socialism, Dude, at least it’s an ethos
Oscar Leroy
Absolutely right, but let’s be honest: Obama is no better at this game than he is at any other. “Gee, maybe if I say I didn’t reach across enough, they will ease up on me!” is as much of a failure strategy as showing your cards to everyone before they bet.
EdTheRed
Stupid moderation filter…
PG Version:
[Radio edit] me. I mean, say what you like about the tenets of National Socialism, Dude, at least it’s an ethos
Redshirt
It is a great strategy, if this were a game. Unfortunately, its our country, and the biggest player in the game. Thus, these nihilists are not only directly impacting us, but everyone in this world, via this game.
The only way to win such a game, usually, is not to play – or change the rules.
cermet
Are you implying that Obama is their bitch?
New Yorker
And this IS all they care about. The entire strategic goal of the right these days is pissing off “the lib’ruls”. That’s the unifying theme of Palin, FOX, wingnut talk radio, etc. etc.
Say whatever you want about Reagan or Buckley or Milton Friedman, but I think those men actually believed in something to be put forward. Today’s right puts nothing forward, it exists only to piss off the lib’ruls.
There, I managed to not make a Lebowski joke.
MNPundit
And you, you big loveable lug of a John Cole, haven’t contributed to that in slightest.
Anyhow, this is not surprising. Obama certainly could have done better at making this strategy costly for the GOP.
But I now have that attitude that it’s better to let it burn than capitulate to the GOP. They are so horrible, so dangerous for the entire planet, to entire fucking human race, that all out war is our only option. Destroying the GOP even if we ourselves are destroyed, needs to be our task.
New Yorker
And yes, Obama is suffering from the same battered-wife syndrome as Clinton did. They just don’t get it. To borrow a popular wingnut babbling point, Obama is Neville Chamberlain.
Roger Moore
I don’t think the Republicans have shown enough intellectual activity to qualify as nihilists. They’re more of vandals, who want to destroy effective government. That’s why they have no compunctions about blocking important legislation. Their long-term goal is to make sure that government can’t do anything, so blocking it from doing anything in the short term is already a win.
freelancer
Give me the ringer, Dude.
Xantar
I see a lot of people calling for “fighting” and “war” and other such action words, and I’m genuinely curious: what does that mean?
I’m not being rhetorical here. I really want to know. Should I start bombing CNN headquarters until they break out of their “one side says…the other side says…” manner of reporting? Should I assassinate John Boehner? Should I encourage my Democratic representatives to quit and go home to leave the whole mess to the Republicans to sort out?
I’m serious. What do you guys want to do?
eemom
ferfuckSAKE.
We got John No-Boner out there spluttering in orange rage at the “chicken crap” Pelosi just pulled on his clueless ass — and y’all want to revisit this “Obama sucks as a p*ker player shit?”
I’m beginning to suspect the worst…..
General Stuck
Ezra is right on this aspect of his post. And it depends on the method of execution of the hostage, on how much, if any is capitulated on. And also the terms of payment in what denominations.
If the wingers go the simple government shutdown route, then from past failures with this method, see Newt’s debacle in the 90’s, then Obama and dems might well call their bluff, and let such a shutdown proceed. But if they bring out clown cannon doomsday device, by letting the US default on it’s debts, and are will to go this evil and very dangerous path, then capitulation will likely occur at the 11th hour.
And depends what they demand as ransom, if it is to gut HCR, or more broadly, The New Deal structure itself, they will have to be willing to actually burn down the country and take the world economies with it, in a likely chain reaction. If they will accept things that are sane to compromise on, then they might get that. Something like moving up the opt out date for states on HCR, or other modest spending cuts here and there.
But I am but a humble Obot servant in big game of life.
Joe Beese
No victories?
Wasn’t passing Obamacare supposed to be a historic triumph?
And don’t forget the Lily Ledbetter Act!
Zifnab
It works so long as the mom keeps thinking sacrificing her money for her kids will benefit her kids. Obama wants to cave on Unemployment because he thinks it will help the unemployed. He wanted to cave on health care because he thought it would benefit the uninsured. He is ready to cave on immigration and global warming because he thinks he’ll win enough to make the nation a slightly better place.
In the short term, he’s right. In the long term he’s dead wrong.
If Republicans take the White House in 2012 (it’s going to be almost impossible to keep the Senate, given the playing field), HCR will get repealed. Guaranteed. 2 years before it even takes effect it will be gone.
If the Republicans cede unemployment in exchange for massive tax cuts today, they will never cede on it again. And then it will be gone.
If the Republicans were crazy enough to touch global warming or immigration, any progressive reform would be rolled back the moment the GOP reclaims the power to roll it all back.
Obama doesn’t need to win legislation. He needs to win elections. Because the GOP is dead set on dismantling every progressive reform of the last 80 years. Losing the majority in the House hurt. Another ’02-’05 would kill us.
Teak111
The SOTU address should be pretty interesting this year. I hope Obama uses it to signal an new, more aggressive strategy. Until then, I’m patient. Dude is smart. We shall see.
Downpuppy
The problem is the the Democrats aren’t really in it for their beliefs either. They want to basically give the country to the same oligarchs as the Republicans, they just want to do it by negotiating down from something that looks reasonable.
If they* actually wanted what they said they wanted, they could have just gone for it.
*Yes, there is a difference between Kucinich & Nelson. All I’m saying is that there are a lot of reps whose words may be Kucinich, but their wallets are Evan Bayh.
Stooleo
Seems more like a suicide pact than an ugly divorce.
Suck It Up!
@Zifnab:
please provide a quote to back this up otherwise I think you are confusing Obama with Juan Williams.
dr. bloor
Digby linked to a piece re: how this is a broader reflection of parliamentary parties emerging in a presidential system. It’s not just Boehner and McConnell; the rules of the game and the system are changing.
General Stuck
@Stooleo:
murder suicide
Zifnab
@General Stuck:
Do you know how many Americans are sitting on US Treasuries right now? How much Wall Street bankers and professional Billionaires have sunk into the “safest asset in the world”? If the Republicans were to pull the trigger on default, they’d have half of the top 1% of America ready to tear out their throats. Na-ga-na-ha-pen.
Basic government shutdown doesn’t hurt the mega-rich nearly as much as it hurts the folks getting unemployment or Medicare. But that would throw the middle class Tea Party into fits.
Obama needs to call the Republicans’ bluff for two big reasons. First, because it would hurt Republicans far more than Democrats. And second, because it would remind people exactly what another fully Republican lead government would look like.
RNoman
Hm.
The wife & I have acquaintences whose divorce is proceeding exactly EXACTLY as this analogy describes. “John” is doing all he can to crush “Martha”.
“John” is also a spoiled, wealthy scion of a very successful family business, and a one of the most dick-ish Rush-lovin’ Obama-hatin’, hippie-punchin’ GOPers I’ve ever met.
Coincidence?
Fuck! A Duck
Recent Bullet Point seen on CNN: “Santorum hitting the early primary states”
Ewwwwwwww!
BTD
I don’t buy it. At least not on the Bush tax cuts issue.
mistermix posits that it is about the START treaty but there is no evidence of that. But throw it in and throw in UI benefits as well if you like.
Is extending the Bush tax cuts for the wealthy worth this tradeoff?
Imo no. But here’s the thing, make the GOP make the offer. And that requires resolve. It requires saying this far and no further.
This is frankly as simple as it gets. Everyone has bargained in their lives. This is another bargaining session.
At one point Biehner said of course he’d pass the middle class tax cuts if that is all he could get. After that, Dems started negotiating against themselves.
You and mix want this to be only about GOP nihilism, but it is mostly about, at least on the tax issue, Dem incompetence and lack of resolve.
FlipYrWhig
@Oscar Leroy:
Talk of “bipartisanship” and openness to negotiation is not a strategy for dealing with Republicans, it’s a strategy for dealing with the public. Liberals hate it, conservatives mock it, but people who don’t pay that much attention to politics always say they want it. IMHO it makes more sense to see the whole strategy that gets tagged “preemptive compromise” or “capitulation” or, now, “bad p0ker” by critics as something that’s being performed for the benefit of _people who aren’t at the table._
You can say “but it isn’t working, it isn’t winning over the people you’re telling me it’s supposed to appeal to, and it’s managing to piss off a lot of people who might otherwise be on his side.” And we can talk about that, and you might even be right.
One thing’s for sure: it’d be a more useful conversation than “why can’t he negotiate properly.” There’s no way to negotiate properly with people who don’t negotiate.
Rhoda
Come January we are in a different world and I don’t think most people recognize that at all.
Right now, the administration is focused on tying up as many lose ends as they can and the three things they want is to put the tax issue off the table until 2012 because they don’t want to have a Republican house holding this issue over them, they want to pass START because it won’t happen next year, and they want to end DADT. They got to do a deal on all three not just one; that’s how the senate works.
But the State of the Union gives them a natural reset. At that point, there only leverage is the budget the President sends. He’ll send a liberal budget; he has the last two years. And then he’ll draw contrasts from jump. He won’t worry over the senate because the action will all be in the House. (This is why Mitch McConnell is pissed since as a Minority Leader he’s not in the game and his team actually has players on the field/skin in the game, whatever, so he’s in a situation he can’t control.)
This is ending messy and everyone is jumping on the President; but I have hope for the next two years. And I don’t work in Govt. so I don’t have to deal with fears of a shutdown, thank god.
Zifnab
@Suck It Up!:
http://abcnews.go.com/Politics/unemployment-benefits-tax-cuts-divide-republicans-democrats/story?id=12294463
Not passing unemployment would do horrendous damage to the economy and the lower class. Did you really need me to spell that out?
But that doesn’t mean capitulation is the right move. We’re talking about 3 million unemployed today, versus God knows how many when the GOP puts a gun to their heads on the next issue.
FlipYrWhig
Here’s my card-game fable:
_The Way of the World_.
William Congreve, 1700.
ACT I, SCENE I.
A Chocolate-house.
MIRABELL and FAINALL rising from cards.
MIRABELL
You are a fortunate man, Mr. Fainall.
FAINALL
Have we done?
MIRABELL
What you please. I’ll play on to entertain you.
Aet
The never-go-negative political philosophy is very admirable, but you have to take great care that it doesn’t turn into appeasement. You have to balance the idealism towards the future with a frankness towards the past. You have to be ready to name names, to point the finger and say, “Those people have wronged us all. I will always be open to compromise, but those people have wronged us all.” You need to simultaneously project that you _will_ act with principle, while they _have_ not.
And the Dems don’t do that. They rely on the media and their supporters to fight the Memory Hole on their behalf.
LikeableInMyOwnWay
Wow, only two long miserable years into this pre-announced scheme and already you guys have blown their cover.
Good work.
BTD
@Xantar:
Actually,on the tax issue, it is pretty simple. The President (and Speaker Pelosi and Leader Reid) should say we are not passing a bill that cuts taxes for the rich. Period.
That does not require you or they to yell at anybody or even use the bully pulpit.
There is no “60 votes” requirement on this one.
cmorenc
@Xanatar:
It means that at some point, like immediately, Obama has to forcefully take a principled stance and forcefully use the bully pulpit to take it to the American people, damn the risks of being painted as an “angry black man”. It’s about TIME that Obama takes a page from Samuel Jackson’s magnificent act in the restaurant in “Pulp Fiction” where a pair of punks is committing an armed holdup of the entire patronage of the place. It’s about time for Obama to pull out a wallet with “Bad Motherfucker” emblazoned boldly thereon, and intimidatingly walk the punks down to size with sheer presence and forceful explaining of the situation.
WyldPirate
@cermet:
Hah. That’s prison bitch. Let’s get it right.
BTD
@Zifnab:
Exactly. On every issue, the GOP can blackmail y6ou if you let them.
Here is an issue where Dems do not have to line up votes, poiund the bully pulp[it or do anything.
Indeed, all they have to do is say no. Quietly, loudly any way you like.
Mike Goetz
Everybody here is lose-lose too. You don’t care what liberal priorities have to sacrificed, as long as wealthier people lose their tax cuts.
BTD
@FlipYrWhig:
Yes indeedy, it worked great for the 2010 election.
You know, people say a lot of things. What politicians need to worry about is what makes them vote. Preferably for you.
Vince CA
I didn’t like the Big Lebowski. I wish the world would collectively realize that it’s a bad movie and doesn’t deserve the cult acclaim that it has. Also, Obama’s playing for the otherside, too. Also.
Stooleo
Before the Obama obituary is written, here is some good news.
BTD
@Mike Goetz:
This is actually a wonderful example of how people disconnect tax policy from fiscal policy. If you do not tax the wealthy, then you do not have money for the programs to help people who need it.
To provide an example, if the tax policy is not put in order, one of the first casualties will be the Medicaid expansion in 2014.
Mike Goetz
@cmorenc:
Jesus, what a child. “Pulp Fiction”. Christ.
Triassic Sands
I think lose/lose is a flawed analysis. The Republicans care about power. Their actions are designed to put them back in power — a win. So, while there may be a tactical element of lose/lose, the strategy is designed to result in win/lose — with them, and only them, winning. That means a Republican back in the White House in 2013 and Republican majorities in both houses.
The bad divorce analogy is also misguided. The kind of insanity that the Republicans have embraced over the last three decades is not one in which they don’t care what happens to them as long as Democrats lose. In a bad divorce, both spouses may be willing to utterly destroy each other as well as their common wealth.
American electoral politics are nothing like a marriage or divorce. The “lesser evil” still wins, no matter how evil the voters think the lesser evil is. In the 2010 elections it appears that Republicans were held in even lower esteem than Democrats, but still managed a big electoral win, because unlike divorce where both sides can be financially and psychologically ruined, electoral politics always has a winner — someone gets to hold office. One of the reasons at least some of us believe the Republicans have become lunatics is that they seem to believe that all that matters is that they are in charge, no matter how trashed they leave the country on their way to dominance.
And of course, they don’t care who else loses — with the exception of business and the wealthy. Those are the only constituencies the Republicans really care about. The economy, the American people, the middle class, poor people, working people, everyone who isn’t rich or a member of the business elite (by definition wealthy) can be sacrificed in the Republican strategy. But they aren’t willing to sacrifice the wealthy or major business interests no matter what favoring them does to the rest of society.
That’s why the lose/lose scenario doesn’t work. Through thick and thin the only groups the Republicans never abandon are the wealthy and big business. They are a vital part of the Republican strategy — tactical victims don’t really matter — and in the end the goal is nothing less than Republican domination of all three branches. The third branch, the judiciary, has become a critical player in the Republican strategy, which is why they toss aside the phony conservative costume and become activists whenever the stakes are big enough — Bush v. Gore, Citizens United, etc.
General Stuck
@Zifnab:
I don’t think a default, or not raising the debt ceiling will happen either, and a year or so ago, even the thought of this being suggested as a winger bargaining strategy. No longer do I place any faith in the sanity of these fuckers, to at least initiate demands or else with this issue. From what I understand, there are some tricky and strict guidelines and dates that need to be met when raising the debt limit, and my point is, while I don’t think they would go through with it, they could fuck it up by accident with such brinkmanship.
As for the government shutdown, I agree dems need to hold tough on that, and not give in under such terms, and go the Clinton route, and let the wingers twist in the wind, like before and get blamed.
These days, I don’t doubt so much GOP threats for such activity, as being necessarily a bluff. They are insane with the fervor as saviors of planets and societies from evil soshulism, or some such. Such people are capable of about anything,
Suck It Up!
@Zifnab:
that is not what I asked you. I am one of the unemployed, I know the stats. but I want to know where you get the idea that Obama thinks ending unemployment helps the unemployed? He has signed every single extension and I didn’t hear any objections from him when max baucus announced that he would try and get a 1 year extension of benefits.
General Stuck
@Rhoda:
THIS
Lolis
Yeah, this was spot on. But the question is what does the White House do about it? They have to come up with a strategy that does not involve giving up without a fight. At some point, understanding the problem is just not enough. We need a president and Democratic leadership that will use what power they have to fight back. For example, at the beginning of the next session Harry Reid can change the Senate rules with 51 votes. There is no excuse for him not to do this. For example, Obama can stop going on TV and saying that McConnell’s blackmail note is not a sign of “bad faith.”
WyldPirate
@Zifnab:
I was screaming this months ago. Months.
I think you are spot on Zifnab. The Republicans work for the plutocracy and they want the government dismantled and out of their way. They don’t give a fuck about anything but wring every dime they can out of the populace and maximizing ROI.
Nothing else matters.
Mike Goetz
@BTD:
I’m talking about right now, DREAM, DADT, unemployment extension, START, none of which will be achieved if Obama indulges in the foot-stamping histrionics that so many children here can’t seem to do without.
Kdrtoona
Shouldn’t this have been a comment. Classic ownership capture.
I am the Walrus, Dude.
WyldPirate
@LikeableInMyOwnWay:
We’re some wicked smaht muthers round here, ;)
Calouste
@dr. bloor:
Nothing wrong with parliamentary parties in a presidential system in itself. The US being a 99% two party system is what is the problem.
If the US had some from of proportional representation and there were 5 or 6 different parties the Republican tactics (and smear ads etc) wouldn’t work because people would vote next time around for a party that they somewhat agree with and actually gets things done.
Citizen Alan
@MNPundit:
That should have been the objective of our dumbass President since day one. Anyone who doesn’t realize that the GOP as it is presently constituted represents an existential threat to the U.S. far greater than a bunch of peasants living in caves on the other side of the planet is deluded.
JC
Mistermix’s analogy was very apt, and brought some clarity for me, rather than this cognitive dissonance of “Obama knows the rethugs won’t play, what is he doing?”, without resorting to ‘he’s a bad negotiator, sellout”, blah blah blah, when factually, there are a lot of facts to point to – health care for one – that show this isn’t the case.
I don’t know why people personalize so much. People hate when Bush started acting as the ‘imperial executive’ – though until 2006, he had 1 1/2 to 2 houses of Congress behind him.
but someone, if Obama ‘is tough’, he can change the structural environment.
I don’t get it, really. Didn’t we all make fun of the ‘Green Lantern theory” that the neocons rolled out, for foreign policy?
And yet, a lot of people seem to believe the Green Lantern theory for Democratic Presidents.
I’ve listed this before, but, once more:
STRUCTURAL ISSUES THAT THE PRESIDENT MUST DEAL WITH
a. Washington wired for Republican control
b. Media wired to always listen to Republicans, and promote their propaganda. It isn’t ‘just happenstance’ that Carter, Clinton, obama, are always tagged in the media as ‘out of touch’.
c. 95% of Republicans are corporate whores, and at least 50% of Democrats are probably the same. The natural inclination is to do what the monied interests want Congress to do. Including cut taxes for the rich.
d. Huge influx of money for lobbying, thanks to Citizen United.
e. 60 vote filibuster, that worked for unprecedented stopping of Obama’s – and the House’s – agenda.
Obama media team has made mistakes. I don’t know why the White House media team, is a pale shadow of what Obama’s campaign media team was. I suspect there is a structural reason for this as well. (Possibly not enough bandwidth, because the media team wanted to help RUN the country, not simply have powerful messages.)
I also don’t understand the strategy on freezing federal pay. It might be that obama believes in it. (and you have to say, given the job security and protected rights, is a fair deal for those of us who are working in the private sector, and have seen our incomes/benefits slashed over these last two years.)
For the most part though, the 60 vote minimum, that has bottled up over 100 bills that were passed in the House – IS THE PROBLEM.
Barry Sanders. Best running back I’ve ever seen. Never was able, given his skills, to get Detroit to the Superbowl.
Both Barack Obama, and Bill Clinton, when I hear either speak, are incredible combinations of intelligence, effective delivery, emotional competence, and seem head and shoulders above other people (who are just as smart but don’t come across nearly as well).
Just look at that House conference with Rethugs. Obama OWNED them. OWNED them. Did this stop people from delivering the House to those same Rethugs?
No.
Because of the economy, and the structural issues above.
Mike Goetz
@General Stuck:
And see, all these gestures to bipartisanship that everybody hates is a way for Obama to split the Establishmentarian Republicans for the true nutters. The government shutdown crisis is where this will bear fruit. But the Romper Room liberals can’t see past their angry fog to notice this.
Suck It Up!
@cmorenc:
@ Xantar: this right here is the garbage that is swirling around in the left’s mind. they thought Obama was fucking Shaft and would go gangsta on those Republican bitches. They are walking around with a stereotype in their heads and they are disappointed that Obama has not acted accordingly.
They are also incapable of confronting Republicans themselves so they expect Obama to do it. Nothing constructive in this type of advice. Someday when they actually grow up and start offering real world solutions, the Dem party might just start listening to them.
Kryptik
Case in point:
I’m trying to read Gibbs’ statement on the vote a bit more charitably than Markos, and hoping that the statement means “get congress to push forward without giving in on the tax cuts for the rich.”
But the cynical realist in me believes Markos is right and this is a sign that the White House has given up on fighting the tax cuts for the rich and want Congress to give up on just going for middle class cuts.
RareSanity
@cmorenc:
That makes for great movie scripts, terrible politics.
Angry black men are only revered on the the silver screen. In real life, they cause “white folks” to get nervous. Then, they are painted as either a thug, “uppity”, or insane.
Never respected.
Just doesn’t work, sorry…
Citizen Alan
@Teak111:
BWAHHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHA
Calouste
@Roger Moore:
__
You’ll find out that the Republicans quite like effective government when it comes to things like transferring wealth from the lower classes to the upper class via tax cuts or no-bid contracts, suppressing the vote etc.
General Stuck
@Kryptik:
You are aware that these negotiations include Van Hollen representing Pelosi? And any deal struck would also include the House leadership, including Nancy. This is a team effort by dems, not just Obama acting for himself.
JC
Mike Goetz
Another example of Green Lantern theory of politics.
On the other hand, sometimes I think there is something true about it though, in negotiations. In a previous post, there was talk about how Rattner played hardball and forced haircuts for bondholders in General Motors.
Certainly, Pelosi standing up for her principles, and working the House Dems, got us the health care we could get. With Obama and Biden working the Senate, and eventually getting a Maine senator to sign on.
eemom
@Citizen Alan:
why don’t you tell us again how Obama will just “bow his head and take it” if some republican shouts out the “n” word at the SOTU, you racist asshole.
Citizen Alan
@FlipYrWhig:
It isn’t working. It’s not wining over the people you claim it’s supposed to appeal to, and it’s enraging the people who Obama expects to vote for him in 2012. I don’t even see how this point can be seriously debated anymore. Obama might as well start printing up campaign posters that say “Obama! The Lesser of Two Evils” because that is the only argument he has presented for his own reelection.
WyldPirate
@Mike Goetz:
Smells like bullshit to me.
Splitting the tiny handful of “Establishmentarian Republicans” remaining does nothing. The nutters amongst them overwhelm sane Rethugs left.
dr. bloor
@Calouste:
Another thing, as Digby points out, is that you can’t call for elections.
I don’t think it’s necessarily a bad thing–one reaction I had was, “what took so long,” although if you’re playing a new game by old rules, you’re screwed. This is going to be about driving wedges, not forging compromises.
Nick
I think this is what is setting many on the left off. I remember arguing in November 2008 that the Republicans would be able to bring Democrats down by being completely obstructionist and it won’t matter what Democrats say or do, the media will be against them and so will at least 45% of the country.
I got mocked. Told “people aren’t going to buy the Republican crap. They’ll see right through it. They’ll punish the GOP for being obstructionists”
they didn’t.
I think a lot of people on the left are in “WTF?” mode. Unable to comprehend what they American people did, they have to blame someone. It HAS to be Obama, it HAS to be the messaging, because if the American people are really as selfish, as vile, as fascist as their voting record says, then the entire progressive agenda just explodes. It relies on people being inherently good. If Americans are not good people, then whats the point.
So in their minds, it has to be something easily fixable.
Nick
@Mike Goetz:
Or conversely as some people have told me, they don’t care if they have to give millionaires a tax cut, they want their liberal priorities accomplished.
thatguy
I just want to understand this, sir. Every time a rug is micturated upon in this fair city, I have to compensate the owner?
Martin
@Teak111: I praying for the shortest SOTU speech in history:
Nick
@Citizen Alan:
Actually, it’s not. it’s enraging the blogsphere, who don’t matter.
His support among his base is still in the 85% range.
DPirate
The democrats just need o find out if Obama is going to run for another term and, if so, then under which party.
JC
Nick
Something like this, at any rate.
It really is hard to process the cognitive dissonance, that’s allowed, or ENCOURAGED, in the mind of the media/average voter.
“Obama is responsible for TARP!” What the eff?
“Obama is a radical fascist/communist!” What the eff??
“Republicans have blocked everything. Elect more of them!!”
What the EFF???
Republicans LIE THROUGH THEIR TEETH about their deficit plans, and what they will do, and aren’t LAUGHED OFF THE STAGE, COMPLETELY DISCREDITED.
WHAT THE GODD*MN HELL???
It really is enough to drive one mad. And, it is.
Citizen Alan
@Mike Goetz:
I will be flabbergasted if even one of these things passes in the lame duck session (maybe a short UE extension in exchange for something outrageous like permanently cutting taxes on the super-rich). More likely, I expect Obama to somehow agree to an across the board tax cut in exchange for a verbal promise to consider this issues at some point in the next two years.
Citizen Alan
@Citizen Alan:
Actually that’s not fair. I suppose it is just barely possible, albeit highly unlikely, that the Dems will pick up enough votes on DADT from the “moderate” Republicans to get past filibuster. It really depends on whether the Log Cabin Republicans step up to the plate, since Obama’s entire strategy for DADT passage right now relies on them.
Nick
@JC:
Americans are not good people. Stop believing they are and it makes it easier. Then you can craft a message around that.
BTD
@Mike Goetz:
LEt’s posit that they will be achieved if the PResident signs on to the Bush tax cuts for the wealthy.
I still think it is a bad idea. I think folks simoply do not get how important tax policy is to actually funding those programs we wanr.
That said, I do not believe for a second that the PResident will get those things anyway as a result of giving in on the Bush tax cuts for the rich.
DREAM Act ain;t passing period.
DADT, we’ll see, but the tax issue is not going to be why. The GOP will fight it till the end. The peel off strategy might work there though, especially with the Pentagon backing repeal.
Debt ceiling will be lifted period. No one wants to shut down the gov’t I would give precisely zero concessions for that.
UI benefits is the one that is the most persuasive emotionally. That said, a 3 month extension is not enough for those tax cuts because you’ll be giving away so much in terms of fiscal policy later.
Martin
@Citizen Alan: You need to provide some evidence for this because I think the evidence is against you.
Polling of registered voters suggests that Obama is not losing ground with the electorate. His approval ratings aren’t stellar, but for a president at this point, they’re actually quite good. Approval of the GOP and their agenda is very poor, and it’s notably worse than for Democrats. Democrats are advancing in almost every case the preferred policy of voters.
2010 was a defeat because the Tea Party got out the vote like has never been seen before on the right in a midterm. They did the same during their primaries. But that’s not a representation of what will happen in 2012. If 2012 draws the same voters as 2008, which is generally likely, Obama will do quite well. If 2012 draws the same voters as 2010, which is generally unlikely, but not impossible, then he’ll have problems.
Part of the problem with gauging these things is that the independent/non-partisan voters are effectively invisible. They have no forums, no news channels, and no agenda to shout about. But they do vote – and they vote in large enough numbers to easily move a presidential election. So right now, we know they’ll have an impact, but we don’t what that impact will be, other than through the kinds of polling that I mention above. We know what the partisans will do if they vote. But honestly, they’re generally not a big variable in general elections other than how they shape the ticket, and sometimes they shape it poorly (O’Donnell).
JC
The one thing that the President CAN do, is ‘just say no’. That’s what the veto pen is for.
I still say, just let Bush’s and the Republicans tax act run it’s course. They built the Tax Act to raise rates back this year, so that is the Republican plan, to raise rates this year, so let that happen, and start a new chapter.
Especially as they will say that Obama is a tax and spender, no matter what.
FlipYrWhig
@Citizen Alan:
Well, the people complaining the loudest are the portion of the public who disapprove of Obama because he isn’t liberal enough, and the past two polls on that I saw pegged that figure at 10-15%. People when polled say consistently that they want to see bipartisanship and compromise–even the Democrats. I’m told repeatedly that people don’t care about bipartisanship, they care about results. When people complain about not seeing results, the explanation they seize upon is… too much partisanship, too much bullheadedness, not enough bipartisanship, not enough compromise.
Yes, it is dumb, and it solidifies the Republican strategy we all have noticed since 2008–and Obama knows it too, and makes speeches about it–which is to block everything, force Democrats to go it alone, then point fingers for how they were so mean and partisan and rammed things down all of our throats. David Broder was still talking like that _today_. To. Fucking. Day.
Anyway, I think that this premise that Obama is _suffering_ by this course–always talking about sitting down, working together, etc.–only really applies to people like us. His standing is suffering among people like us. But, you know, there aren’t many people like us. There are many more people who like the sound of that “bipartisan compromise.” They’re not that plugged-in and they adhere to conventional wisdom. And they are legion. And IMHO that’s the audience for many of the things Obama does.
It does make for worse policy and more stories about process and legislation and the shadow-play of personalities in the Congress. That’s a problem for political junkies on the left. It’s not much of a problem for people who care more about the idea that the president is a reasonable guy with an even keel than they do about any piece of actual legislation or regulation.
Anyway, I think that this is a much more interesting way to talk about what’s going on than another round of discussion on the subject of why Obama doesn’t understand that Republicans just want to spit in his eye. He understands that. He has decided to handle that by turning the other cheek and always being even-tempered and never ruling out that the next discussion might be a breakthrough. Not because he doesn’t want to kick Ben Nelson and Mitch McConnell right in the teeth, but because he thinks he benefits more from letting it all roll off. Maybe it’s a cynical thing, like he believes reelection hinges more on personality than on policy. Maybe it’s a constitutional thing, like he believes on principle that presidents aren’t supposed to buffalo the legislative branch. Maybe it’s starry-eyed nonsense.
But whatever it is, my point is that it’s conscious, and it has a logic to it, and when we talk about it, we should talk about whether its logic pays off (not just to us and people like us, but to the huge swath of people to the right of us and who pay less attention than we do) rather than why it’s so mystifying and inexplicable and probably has to do with wussiness.
Triassic Sands
@Nick:
All voters are not created equal.
Relatively small numbers of voters do matter. The people I know who are most upset with Obama are also the people who did the most for him in 2008 — volunteered, donated, etc. They cared the most, worked the hardest, and probably expected the most. They are also likely to be hanging out in the blogosphere. If Obama holds all the passive voters and loses significant numbers of activists, he will likely be in serious trouble.
Citizen Alan
@eemom:
Sigh? Obama won’t stand up for himself or his supporters against people who hysterically deny both his patriotism and his very citizenship, who mock and dehumanize him routinely, and who often cross over from dog whistles to overtly racist remarks (he was called both “uppity” and “that boy” by sitting Republican congressmen during the campaign). And when I note his continual refusal to stand up for himself or his supporters, I’m the racist asshole. I’m not the one who, in a comment on this very post, suggested that Obama dare not ever show anger or impatience in any form because it would scare the white folks. My anger and disappointment for Obama have nothing to do with is race. Cowardice knows no skin color.
MBunge
@Nick: Or conversely as some people have told me, they don’t care if they have to give millionaires a tax cut, they want their liberal priorities accomplished.
If letting millionaires keep their tax cut, along with everybody else, is the price of getting DREAM, DADT, START and extended unemployment benefits…how is that not a good deal?
Mike
MBunge
@Citizen Alan: Sigh? Obama won’t stand up for himself or his supporters
What does that even mean? Do you want him to give a state of the union that sounds like Keith Olbermann?
Mike
Elie
@New Yorker:
I don’t think that the right needs much of a strategy since the “left” will finish off what they don’t cover.
I am completely demoralized and wonder what is next. Yes, I am questioning Obama’s leadership, but also the left progressives who seem almost as bent as the right in destroying any hope for success for this administration. Is this the way we want to go? I am not being sarcastic — I am actually asking: Is the left’s/progressives current “feet to the fire” or whatever strategy what we want to be doing? Sure, we want results, progress etc. But is what we are doing now going to get us there or give us Sara Palin and the like?
Some have more or less given up not only on this administration but the sense that we have anything in front of us beyond a fascist dictatorship. (not on this thread necessarily, just comments and posts on this and other sites).
What are we doing?
JC
Not gonna happen though. No more Nadervilles.
When presidential candidate Palin comes a’calling, activists are going to sit that out?
I don’t think so! :)
Don
I’m perfectly willing to think this is a stupid move, capitulating without getting anything in return.
But, if I had to come up with a positive explanation, I’d wonder whether this isn’t a hail-mary effort at getting the closest thing to a stimulus they’ll manage with the new congress.
While the R attitude about deficits (bad, unless it’s tax cuts then it’s okay!) is hypocritical, it’s predictable. Perhaps the Obama administration thinks this is the only way they can get any more money unlimbered.
And really, we all know that 2012 is going to be about the economy. If the Obama administration thinks there needs to be stimulus and this is the closest thing they’ll get to it then maybe they’re plotting survival here.
Or they’re just fucking stupid. I’m okay with either explanation.
FlipYrWhig
@JC:
I don’t think that’s what people think, though. They think, “Congress can’t get its act together, and there’s too much finger-pointing and not enough attempting to find common ground.” Note that after the Congressional leadership “summit” even the Republicans were saying nicey-nice things about working together and finding common ground. They talk that way because they know that people who only watch the evening news like the sound of it. If they didn’t believe that, Republicans would say, “We were just in a meeting, and the president told us a lot of nonsense we’re not going to put up with anymore.” They never do say that. Because… people like to hear the language of bipartisan cooperation, so they fling it around like a slop bucket for the hogs.
Nick
@Citizen Alan:
Except, you know, when he does.
http://www.mediaite.com/tv/obama-to-house-republicans-demonizing-me-does-the-nation-no-good/
Seriously guys, if you want a war with Republicans, go fight a war, go kill some, because that’s what you do in a war. Otherwise, accept the fact they’re half the fucking country and move on.
Sasha
@Citizen Alan:
“No Drama” Obama. Remember?
That means that he doesn’t start drama, and he doesn’t get sucked into someone else’s attempt to start drama.
He’s often the only grown-up in a room of attention-seeking spoiled brats, and for that I thank him.
Tsulagi
Yep, R-baggers have the Ds well trained. And since they’ve allowed it to work the past years, that’s what they will see each and every time, and it will get worse.
Kind of reminds me at home of the couple of episodes of Super Nanny we’ve watched. You see a situation where the result of really smart parents continually capitulating while rewarding extremely bratty behavior have made a living hell in the home. The brats run the place. Generally with clueless parents saying they have no choice, there is nothing they can do. Sound familiar?
My two kids have gotten a real laugh when we’ve watched it. They think it’s hilarious. Little shits have told us essentially “see how good you got it?!” They also can’t believe the parents are that dumb.
Ds need to call in Super Nanny because they obviously don’t have a clue.
Elie
@Citizen Alan:
And here is our dilemma with you, Alan.
A person who basically supports a leader, is not so willing to tear him/her/them down as you are. Got too much at stake, takes too much to pick em and go through the processs
Your words are loaded — they hit like fists. That is their intent. To abuse, rather than show valid concern and disagreement with policy or strategy. You purposely want to not only diminish Obama — you more insiduously, and importantly want to diminish and make progressives weaker and demoralized,
That is your purpose for being and commenting here. If you are a valid, bona fide real person progressive, with honesty and integrity and maturity — you will cop to your negative, bullshit. If you are a republican or a conservative, great, but cop to it, ok?
My guess is you are a tool for other interests…
Citizen Alan
@FlipYrWhig:
You know the saddest thing to me? That these are all completely valid points. I expect Obama to tack right in the next two years, find some “common ground” with the GOP, and then cruise to reelection against the Republican nominee even as the GOP takes the Senate. Then, he can spend 2012-2016 running the nation the way he really wants to — as a moderate Republican.
What I don’t understand, and what makes me sad, is why people think I should be happy about such an outcome or even anything less than furious. If, as commentors are eager to remind me, this is a center-right nation in which liberals and progressives are essentially such a despised minority, if our only hope for halfway sane representation is through a Reaganite who gives lip service at best to our hopes when he doesn’t dismiss them completely, and if we progressives and liberals must vote for this Reaganite because the alternative is some crazy John Bircher, then answer me one question:
Why shouldn’t I do whatever it takes to get the hell out of this dying hell-nation while I still can?
Nick
@Triassic Sands: Meet more people.
Nick
@Citizen Alan:
you think we’re HAPPY about this country being a center-right nation of bloodthirsty selfish creeps?
Nick
@Citizen Alan:
you think we’re HAPPY about this country being a center-right nation of bloodthirsty selfish creeps?
Nick
@Tsulagi:
Why does the left keep finding idiotic analogies that aren’t even close to accurate.
Republicans are not bratty children, they’re probably more like abusive parents.
Rick Taylor
UI @BTD:
__
I’m also hearing there are tax cuts that were part of the stimulus that really ought to be renewed that are part of this. I’m beginning reluctantly to think that maybe it is necessary to make some sort of deal. But if that’s so, it seems this is due to the Democrats delaying addressing this matter until the Republicans were in a position where they could effectively hold them hostage.
Triassic Sands
@JC:
Perhaps, you misunderstood.
Of course most, if not all, activists will VOTE for him. That isn’t the question. Will they work for him and donate money like they did in 2008? That is much more doubtful. In fact, I’d say it is already very unlikely — barring some kind of significant change in Obama between now and the election.
Omnes Omnibus
@Citizen Alan: Okay, so someone drops the n-word at Obama during the SOTU, how would you suggest Obama respond?
Suck It Up!
OT sort of/FYI
NY Daily News Front Page: GOP to City Jobless: DROP DEAD!
More like this please.
http://www.nydailynews.com/news/galleries/daily_news_front_page_covers/daily_news_front_page_covers.html
on the other hand I was watching the local news and all the anchor said was a that “a divided congress failed to pass unemployment extensions” – ugh.
Nick
@Triassic Sands:
They were never going to. It’s impossible for there to be the same level of enthusiasm for an incumbent because he or she is inevitably going to disappoint some part of the coalition that elected him or her, especially someone with as broad a coalition as Obama.
Citizen Alan
@Elie:
Well thank you at least acknowledging your belief that good little soldiers must never talk bad about “the leader.” Totally different from the loyal Bushies, totally.
You actually think I am a stealth conservative because I am angry that Obama is a conducting himself like a moderate Republican and because he so conflict averse that he squandered the largest Dem majority in 70 years on Bob Dole’s health care plan?
Jose Padilla
The central organizing principle of the modern Republican party is hatred of the Federal government (except for the military). Therefore, anything that can be down to damage or even destroy the Federal government (except for the military) is to be pursued.
The Grand Panjandrum
Bitch about Obama all you want. But the people who actually have to vote on the middle class tax cuts are going to do just that. Pelosi got a separate vote on the tax cut and it looks like Reid is going to force the issue on a separate vote in a similar fashion. So much for capitulation. Obama can’t decide that. Pelosi and Reid can.
Omnes Omnibus
@Citizen Alan: Excellent twisting of words there.
Tsulagi
@Nick: You crack me up being cluelessly well trained too. Ask any R/teabagger who they need to stand strong against, who relentlessly drags down the country: It’s the “left.” Ask any Obot and you’ll get the same bogeyman. How very bipartisany of you.
Nick
@Tsulagi:
I’m sorry, did i say we need to stand strong against the left? Why don’t you stop putting words in other people’s mouths and shove them up your ass instead.
Citizen Alan
I’m sure Ellie, Nick and plenty of others will be pleased to hear this — I’m taking a break from all this crap. Within the last hour I have been accused of being a racist because I am angrier about racism directed towards our President than our President himself seems to be, and I have been accused of being a conservative agitator (what was the term the Freepers used for folks who didn’t tow the party line? Disrupters, wasn’t it?) because I am not sufficiently servile to our President, who is, after Bill Clinton, shaping up to be the second best Republican president of my lifetime.
So I’m taking a break! I hereby promise that I won’t post here again until after the lame duck session is over. Then we’ll see what passed, what didn’t, and what He Who Must Be Adored has had to say about it all.
Good night and good luck. Oh, and Cole? More Lily pictures, please. They’re one of the few things that brighten my otherwise dreary days.
Nick
@Citizen Alan:
Does it matter? Whatever gets passed, you’re just going to find some way of criticizing “he who must be adored” anyway. He can get everything you want done, you just wouldn’t say anything about it, because God forbid he should get credit for something.
Elie
@Citizen Alan:
No. I asked you what you were. You did not answer.
Listen, I feel some of your anger and frustration. But your loaded words hurt us and Obama is not reading what you post here.
If indeed, you are a demoralized liberal or the like — do you have to attack me? Better, can’t you listen and fine tune your thoughts and comments since, presumably, your goal is to get all of us aboard to make things progressively better? Do you need to knock my teeth out and black my eyes to make a point about your dissatisfaction with Obama? Better yet, what do you want to say, to bring us progressives, affirmatively and positively along to your point of view — to success in what we want to accomplish?
NR
@Nick:
Source.
Tsulagi
@Nick: Given your ass fetish, I’m betting the odds are you’re a triple wetsuit, double dildo kind of guy. Tell me I’m wrong.
Elie
@Citizen Alan:
Pussy, pussy, pussy… ran you off!
VERY THIN SKIN….
Its all about you, right?
We are just asking you to be mindful of the meaning and impact of your words — ON US, fuckhead…on US
MikeMc
Aren’t the Dems in a pretty serious bind here? If the Dems can’t get the votes in the senate then tax rates spike for everyone. Neither side looks very good, of course, but then when the republicans take over the house won’t they just pass the tax cuts they want. They’re going to look like saviors. They’re going to be able to say that they got everyone in the country a tax cut. And everyone in this country who doesn’t follow this debate will believe it. I’ll bet 95% of this country doesn’t even know this is being debated. I know that polling shows a solid majority of Americans wouldn’t mind if the rich paid more in taxes. However, that doesn’t mean they’re willing to wager their own tax increase on it. If the Dems win this it will barely register because only 2% of population will notice. For the other 98% everything will be the same. On the other hand, if the Bush tax cuts sunset then 100% of the people will notice. I think they’re gonna be a little more than pissed! This is a dangerous game.
JC
Tsulagi,
So when he tells you, are you going to be buying the beers and the room? :)
NR
@The Grand Panjandrum: Good for Pelosi and the House Dems. But meanwhile, Obama just cut their legs out from under them. Here’s Gibbs:
Shorter Gibbs: You don’t even have to play out the hand. We’ll just fold right now and save you the trouble.
salacious crumb
this is what happens when you fuck a tea bagger in the ass.
General Stuck
@NR:
There is nothing you will not twist or impute into Obama hatefail, it is something akin to farce of nature. jeebus f christ
Tsulagi
@JC:
Sure. Some like to people watch. Sometimes for laughs I like to watch a subset…idiots.
DaBomb
@FlipYrWhig: You said that more eloquently than I ever could.
That’s I all I pushed yesterday on other blogs the idea that the Bipartisanship isn’t for us, it’s for those indie voters who went for Obama in high numbers. It’s optics.
I didn’t understand anger with the vote coming up today. We still don’t know the outcome.
General Stuck
@DaBomb:
Mr Whig does put together a nice rant, don’t he?
NR
@General Stuck: This is straight-up fail on Obama’s part. No twisting required.
JC
General Stuck,
We’ll have to see – we may have to eat MUCH MUCH CROW here in the next couple weeks. Kos has been quite cynical, and he has some washington players whispering in his ear.
But dear God, I really hope that the tax cuts aren’t simply extended to all.
JC
Tsulagi,
Actually, your little sex putdown towards Nick, was pretty funny – I did chuckle.
But, sometimes I operate on the principle “he who smelt it dealt it”, so how COULD I just let that easy shot go? :)
We have to be careful though. It’s all fun and games to sexually snark in comments, but then we run the risk of DougJ coming in and, well, as we all know, in the subject of snarking, dougJ is PRODIGIOUS, let’s just say.
We really don’t want the humiliation. :)
RinaX
@MikeMc:
I said in another thread yesterday that people only notice when things get taken away from them. You’re right, not too many will care if the Dems succeed outside of the blogs ’cause hey, they’re still getting theirs, but god forbid their taxes go up when they go to file next year, there’ll be hell to pay. Sadly that’s when the majority of people would even become really aware of what’s going on.
General Stuck
@NR:
no it’s not. It’s what he’s been saying all along about wanting keep the mc tax cuts in place, and the wingers have a say on that. Merely sending in some more folks to the negotiations does not equate to folding on anything, or undercutting anyone. All sides are represented, including the House in these talks. So any deal, whatever it is, will be signed off on by the House and Pelosi as well, or there will be no deal, and there is nothing Obama can do about that. obama only has a vote on bills passed, otherwise he is just another player in this, and the least relative, until congress passes a bill, or not.
edit – Christ, some of you are like circling buzzards overhead, looking for any opportunity to feast on Obama’s carcass. sad.
RinaX
@Suck It Up!:
What you said.
General Stuck
@JC:
Kos lost his mind a while ago, and has a monster to feed at the GOS, and I haven’t had crow for awhile. It’s not bad on Rye with a spread of Digon and Arugula.
Martin
@Suck It Up!: Heh, as someone who remembers the original Drop Dead headline, that’s awesome – especially for that rag.
Mnemosyne
@Citizen Alan:
Because to point that out is, what, racist against white folks?
I’m really not getting how you can claim that racism is not a huge factor in the opposition to Obama when you point out that they’re all but using the n-word to address Obama. Democrats lost big this year because racist white people turned out to vote. White people who didn’t vote in 2008 turned out in droves. Old racist white people ran to the polls. In that sense, this election really was all about Obama, and the message from the voters was, “We hate having a black man in the White House.”
And yet the problem is that Obama doesn’t get angry and not, you know, that racist assholes are assholes? Whaa?
JC
General Stuck
Typical godda*n elitist. Crow is only worth eating with mustard and ketchup. I’m going to take my ball and go eat crow with REAL americans.
Mnemosyne
@Citizen Alan:
That seriously is one of the most fucked-up things you’ve ever written, dude. You’re telling me that a middle-class white guy understands racism better than Obama, so therefore the problem is that Obama isn’t upset enough about the racist slurs being directed at him?
You wanted Malcolm X, and you got Jackie Robinson, but without Jackie Robinson there would be no Malcolm X. Deal the fuck with it.
General Stuck
This is beautiful. I will steal it.
kay
That’s not too bad, for you-all who are always talking about messaging :)
Messaging.
Which is now my least-favorite word in the world.
Martin
@General Stuck: That really is beautiful.
General Stuck
@Martin:
It is my nomination for comment of the year. hands down
sublime33
I think the poker analogy is good but they forgot one key point. In poker, you have to finish the hand dealt to you in a short period of time. In negotiations, you can walk away from the table and wait for days to see if your opponent will show more cards. Obama has not figured out yet that he should be walking away from the table once in awhile.
cat48
It looks like they may be negotiating more than tax cuts for the rich. Tapper’s update is the only one I’ve seen:
RinaX
@General Stuck:
Oh, hell no, that’s my shit. Editing it into my signature over at the GOS right now. As toxic as it is, I can’t quite quit it yet.
Damn, all of it won’t fit. Got what I could in.
Cacti
@Mnemosyne:
It’s just a variation on the theme that every white liberal with a keyboard (who have never held any office at all) understand politics better than the naive negro who somehow got elected POTUS.
NR
@General Stuck: Right, I keep forgetting. The President is completely powerless, a helpless observer who has no say in anything that happens in Congress. It’s not as if any president has ever been able to exercise any influence at all over Congress in the history of our nation. I don’t know why we expected Obama to be the first.
Midnight Marauder
@Citizen Alan:
Listen, people are coming after you because for yet another day, you continue to post that the first black president of the United States of America would act like a passive, deferent, and defeated man if someone called him a nigger in the middle of the State of the Union. You seriously posed that President Obama would just “bow his head and take it” if someone called him a nigger in the middle of his State of the Union address as though that is a real, legitimate thing that could happen. If you don’t see how blatantly offensive the very suggestion of something like that is, then you are more obtuse than I ever suspected.
It doesn’t have a fucking thing to do with being “sufficiently servile” to the POTUS, and everything to do with denying someone basic human dignity and respect. Don’t try to deflect from your incredible disgusting words by pointing to other racist rhetoric; that’s not the issue here.
I don’t give a shit if you are racist or not. That’s besides the point. The point is that you think President Obama will just act like a resigned patsy in the face of unprecedented racism during the State of the Union, and that’s pretty blatantly offensive.
General Stuck
@cat48:
it was aimed at lower income workers, stolen from the rich according to the lizard brain.
JC
NR,
Really? Are you really equating:
“All sides are represented, including the House in these talks. So any deal, whatever it is, will be signed off on by the House and Pelosi as well, or there will be no deal”
With:
“The President is completely powerless, a helpless observer who has no say in anything that happens in Congress.”
FYI – One is the way bills are passed, the other is a giant flaming strawman.
EDIT: And not in that cool, Nevada desert burning event way.
RinaX
@cat48:
But he don’t know what the fuck he’s doing and is just giving away EVERYTHING for NOTHING omg!!1111!!
General Stuck
@NR:
No, what you are forgetting is that we have separation of powers in this country with 3 co equal branches of government, all with their own version of veto power, and all needing to agree and/or sign off on anything that becomes law.
Bush’s unitary executive bullshit lives on, even in the alleged progressive blogosphere.
cat48
@RinaX:
Looks like the usual suspects (asshats!) “misunderestimated” him AGAIN & I’m sure unemployment comp will be continued. Then he’s off to Hawaii for Xmas. Lucky guy.
Montysano
I came across this quote today by a Russian writer named Dmitri Pisarev, writing about nihilism in the 1800s:
“Hit out right and left, no harm will or can come of it” is pretty much the strategy of today’s GOP.
But you know what? The people have spoken; apparently this is what we want. 40% are just fine with things the way they are, another 30-40% can’t be bothered. What the fuck is Obama supposed to do with that? Fox News and reality teevee now set the general tone of the nation, and We The People own that, not the politicians.
Monty +4
(after a day of soaking in the stupid)
JC
Cat48
My initial instinct is that this is a a$$-covering, moving the goalposts manuever, to prepare people for the cave to extending all the tax cuts.
Certainly, again, given the broad based understanding that the tax cut, the wars, and medical costs, fuel the majority of the deficit increase we’ve seen over the last 10 years, talking about this other stuff seems beside the point.
Happy to be wrong. I’m keeping the ‘Obama and democrats caved’ fury, in my back pocket, to bring out only when it’s beyond a shadow of a doubt.
Suck It Up!
@cat48:
Wow! I had no idea. thanks for that.
FlipYrWhig
@NR:
Did you read this part of your source?
When you add those up, you get the very muddy picture below:
Therein lies the dilemma. Placating the Democratic-leaning independents might involve being less liberal, which would aggravate the Democrats who are actually Democrats. Placating the Democrats who are actually Democrats might involve being more liberal, which would aggravate the Democratic-leaning independents.
Your survey is interesting but shows things other than and in addition to the discontent of “the base.”
FlipYrWhig
@JC:
Could be. But if it leverages the extension of the upper-income tax cuts into Stim II, that’s an interesting play.
Karen
In other words, Obama is the bitch or, what was that term, the empty suit because he knows what’s really important is that the unemployed don’t starve to death? Because he sees no other way than to compromise since he sees things several steps ahead and knows that the goal posts will always be raised so he might as well make the compromise a good one?
But because the country is getting firebombed by the GOP and he wants to stop it by any means possible, Obama is a pussy?
I’ve got news for you.
Don’t you realize the the real endgame here is: “Obama leave office or we’ll kill the country. If you don’t fix the damage we’ll do, we’ll kill your family. Then if you still haven’t fixed the economy we’ve destroyed, we’ll kill you.”
Obama knows it’s a losing game, don’t kid yourself. But is it better for him to bring the knife to the gunfight and maybe the country will survive? Or should he bring the cannon to the gun fight, kill everyone at the fight, then the rest of the country gets a nuclear bomb in retribution.
All this is retribution. The GOP/Tea Party is punishing the country for daring to not vote to make Sarah Palin Queen. The shitty thing is that they still haven’t gotten as low as they plan to.
Sasha
Does anyone here appreciate the fact that Obama and the Dem leadership have the GOP over a barrel?
The GOP has threatened to block all legislation until taxes are resolved. The House Dems pass a tax cut bill that the vast majority of the electorate would be completely happy with. Reid is hinting that he will force a vote in the Senate of same.
What are the GOP’s options?
They can fight/filibuster the bill … and then be plastered as opposing and/or blocking a tax bill that serves everyone because it doesn’t service Wall Street better (as well as go on record for being responsible for the “biggest tax increase in history”).
They can postpone the bill and work on other legislation … and look like fools for backing down (and it won’t stop the fact that a perfectly palatable tax bill sits there, ready to be passed, as the sunset deadline runs out).
They can support the bill … and hand the Democrats a major victory, leading to vicious infighting like when the Dems passed HCR (which might happen anyway if the bill goes to the floor and GOP defectors decide it’s better to support the cuts as is than let all of them expire).
Or they can negotiate and save face.
If Obama and the Dems can get most everything they want passed in the lame duck session (DADT, DREAM, extension of Obama stimulus cuts, START, etc.) in exchange for a two-year extension, allowing the Bush cuts to be an issue for the 2012 election, I would consider that to be a win-win. Dems can tell their supporters they got a bunch of very good progressive stuff passed in the lame duck session, making the 111th Congress one of the truly most productive in history, and the Bush cuts will only last two more years. The GOP can tell their base that the Bush cuts got extended as planned and downplay the rest.
FlipYrWhig
@Sasha:
You’re right in an ideal world, but I’m not sure we live in that world. They filibustered aid for sick 9/11 first responders and for increased funding for small businesses. Time and again they have gotten away with that kind of stuff. They won’t just “be plastered.” Somebody’s going to have to plaster them. The media used to do things like that, but much less so these days. And the way most of these similar moments have played out, the moment the Republicans begin to fight/filibuster the bill, the left blogosphere leaps into action to pillory… Obama and the Democrats for letting Republicans do it.
That’s where the “top-down coordinated messaging strategy” would really pay dividends, if it existed.
But what typically happens is that some maneuver happens, then a few Democratic strategists go on the cable channels to discuss how opinions are split on how wise it is to make a move like this, then the big blogs go apeshit about how the Democrats have really fucked things up this time.
And all the while Fox News tells its audience that the Republicans simply want a tax cut for all Americans, and Republicans call their local Democratic politicians and harangue them and write ignorant letters to the editor for the local paper, and little by little a few Democrats will “feel the heat” from this “controversial decision” and turn against it.
And then the big blogs will say that Obama really should have used the Bully Pulpit [R] or some LBJ-style Arm Twisting [tm], like real leaders do. They’re disappointed this time, more than ever, and they’re the base, so it matters, a lot.
And then the Republicans sip on snifters of brandy in their oxblood leather chairs in the club and think, “We just got away with blocking a tax cut on middle incomes because of how it would be unfair to the poor little rich people. Holy hell are we the luckiest motherfuckers on the planet.”
Sasha
But will the GOP really filibuster a tax bill that the vast majority of the electorate would approve of as polls have suggested time and time again?
It would be very, very hard to completely spin that one away, and I don’t believe the GOP leadership would risk it.
jetan
Wow. Some of you guys really like “sky is falling” mode.
Obama is governing as a moderate, go-along, get-along guy because that’s what he is. Some of you act as though he ran on some kind of George McGovern platform. He’s very conventional and pro-status quo. If you will recall, he in many ways forced Hilary to run to his left.
No one would be doing well right now with unemployment figures as they are. If we show some decent growth next year, and it looks like we may, he and we will be very competitive in 2012. If not, we won’t be. Congress will be hopelessly gridlocked next year no matter what. Ignore the cable folks and the blogocracy…..the only thing worth looking at now, from a purely political standpoint, is the economic situation.
Now, I do understand the well-founded fear that our ship of fools will not steer a good course on, say, regulatory matters where we could actually make a huge difference. I would love to see us butch up on Net Neutrality, for instance. But to say we have had it in the electoral sense is just cable hysteria. I have seen this nonsense once or twice before and it has always been due to human error.
Mnemosyne
@Sasha:
I was listening to NPR on the way home tonight and they spent a lot of time talking about the “symbolic” bill passed by the House today that won’t go anywhere.
I’m not kidding — the word they used was “symbolic.” So, yes, the GOP will get away with it, because they have news outlets claiming that it’s not a real bill anyway, and they’ll keep claiming that even if Reid schedules a vote on it.
Sasha
@Mnemosyne:
But if it actually comes to the Senate floor and the GOP votes against cloture, it’s not symbolic anymore — it’s a filibustered tax cut.
General Stuck
@Mnemosyne:
sad state of affairs, isn’t it?
@Sasha:
in the senate, there can be a cloture vote, or filibuster, to prevent the bill from ever reaching the senate floor to be debated. That is how the wingnuts will kill it before it sees the light of day.
Keith G
@Sasha:
Does anyone here remember that on Nov. 4 2008, we were all rejoicing the mortal wound suffered by the GOP? Does anyone here remember the comparisons to Lincoln and FDR? The GOP seem to be doing just fine for a dead party.
I’m not sure who is over a barrel. I think I might be. It seems to me that Obama is not a leader. He is a survivor. He does not want to lead a movement; he wants to get a few things done. The difficult balance is that sometimes you need to lead great movements to accomplish even small things.
The Birmingham bus boycott was tough pill for the Blacks of that city to swallow. Over 400 days of walking miles and miles just to get to work. They could have bargained for a two year extension, but they didn’t. King was at risk, but he decided to lead anyway.
Imagine if Lincoln had formed a study group and spent 6 months deciding what to do about Ft. Sumter. Imagine if he gave the rebellious states a two year extension to reflect on their mistakes.
Leaders take risks, but often it is the boldness of the risk taking that is their own best ally.
miwome
It’s not fair! She gave up her toe!
A Humble Net Lurker
Ah, the plot thickens.