I didn’t get a chance to watch Obama’s press conference live, but judging from the Twitter, I assumed that he had really screwed the pooch (this is a pretty representative sample). When I was finally able to watch the damn thing, I failed to see the FAIL. His message and reality lined up pretty closely: Republicans are completely wedded to tax increases for the rich, they held unemployment benefits hostage, not extending unemployment benefits in the worst recession in generations would be a tragedy, so Democrats compromised on the tax cut extension. Then, he issued an extremely mild rebuke to some members of the left wing of his party.
That, more than anything, seems to have upset the “professional left”. I know that phrase carries a lot of baggage, so I’m open to other suggestions for the shitheads who power stories like this primary challenge thumbsucker in today’s Times.
It is beyond parody that these idiots can experience the last two years of legislative gridlock and conclude that the proper response is to launch a primary challenge in 2012. You don’t have to be an O-bot to see that the biggest challenge to progressivism in this country is the Senate. Though it’s always given rural, conservative states a bigger voice in Congress, the aggressive use of the filibuster has turned it into the place where progressive legislation goes to die.
Most of the drama we experienced in the 111th Congress is directly related to the anachronistic rules of the Senate. If progressives need a windmill to tilt at, why not pick filibuster reform? Is it because it would take time, patience, subtlety and political cunning?
amk
But mom, ranting & raving in blogs and twitter is much more fun and depressing at the same time.
Ija
It just doesn’t seem possible that the Senate would reform itself. It’s hard to get people excited about a cause that seems so hopeless. At least with primarying (is that a word?) Obama, people can delude themselves into thinking they are doing something productive.
jon
Based on the Senators up for a vote in 2012, now might not be a good time to change the rules. We might want to have the 40-vote gridlock power in a few years, so that President Wingnut doesn’t get his (or her) agenda enacted.
Yes it’s been abused, but think of the consequences if the shoes are on the other stomping feet.
joe from Lowell
For the same reason that the voting public blamed the lousy economy on the Democrats, and the lefties blame Obama for Gitmo still being open: because politics makes a lot more sense to a lot people if they can anthropomorphize the whole complicated system into the person of the president.
TheMightyTrowel
I’m glad someone else saw the sanity in that presser. I thought that maybe being out of the country – and thus removed from the immediate fray – might have given me a little space to breathe and see reason. Glad to see some people in the US are getting the message too.
Anyone else think twitter is the worst thing to happen to politics/news reporting since Murdoch founded Fox News?
amk
uugghh. clicked the times linky and surprise, surprise it’s matt bai, who had the honor of making to the top 30 hacks by salon, concern trolling about Obama. And who does he ‘cite’ ? Other worthless hacks like adam green and cenk fucking uygur ?
joe from Lowell
@jon:
First, withe 2012 electorate looking more like 2008 and less like 2010 – that is, like a presidential-year electorate – I think the Democrats will do just fine in that election.
Second, you’re thinking too short-term. Look at what the filibuster has done for the past 80 or so years. How much harm has it done to progress, vs. the handful of times it’s been useful? The filibuster has long been a tool to block progress, and if we get the chance to eliminate or amend it, we’d be crazy to pass it up because of some short-term political considerations.
Ija
From the NYT article:
I don’t suppose this will cause them to rethink this whole primary business.
Ben
Didn’t see the fail? Did you watch or read the same one I did?
Anyone who says “Well, look, I’ve got a whole bunch of lines in the sand” just doesn’t get the whole lines-in-the-sand thing.
Obama gratuitously bashed his base after serving a crap sandwich. And for what?
This post repeats the same mistake: demonizing and belittling people who want to support the president but have good policy reasons to oppose the deal.
If you don’t see the fail, well you’ve got company at 1600 Pennsylvania Ave., but I’m not sure that’s anything to brag about.
joe from Lowell
I’m sure that African-American voters (who can claim the mantle of “the Democratic base” a whole hell of a lot credibly than the pseudo-socialists who keep flirting with the Green Party and dropping out altogether) would just be thrilled to spend the next couple of decades voting for white left-wingers after one primaried the first black president.
There’s a plan for achieving a progressive agenda.
Ija
Wait, was Johnson primaried? I thought he decided not to seek relection in 68?
scarshapedstar
Plenty of us are. Rachel Maddow has done dozens of segments on the subject. I’ve bugged two senators about it (hey, I’ve had finals.) Josh Marshall posted a decent fix the other day (instead of 60 votes for cloture, it should require 40 votes against!) I agree, Some Guy On A Blog Somewhere isn’t doing enough to help, though.
Thing is, though: if Harry Reid wanted to reform the filibuster, he would have done it two years ago, when they still had a majority in the House.
The Democrats are afraid of what will happen if they fix the filibuster and lose the Senate in 2012. I think this is a very poor political calculation, but what else is new?
And since when does anyone give a fuck what windmill we tilt at? Public option? DADT? If we push for filibuster reform, Joe Lieberman will filibuster filibuster reform.
joe from Lowell
I do have to chuckle at the people who keep dragging the president through the dirt acting shocked – shocked! – when he dares to say anything bad about them.
Glass chins, every single one of ’em.
Jeff
Primary? nahgannahappan. There is no one on the left with the means or the stature to do it. Feingold lost his seat so he’s out, Kucinich’s increasingly quixotic candidacies are becoming punch lines, like the Harold Stassen of the 21st century. Jerry Brown –not interested.
The only person who might primary Obama is conservadem and professional douchebag Evan Bayh. He has the money, and the proximity to Iowa– but even he would have to hope for a hail-mary one-shot knockout in Iowa. Which I think is unlikely.
Which is why Obama is being Obama. He knows he has no threat from the left — so he can lecture it. And he also has decided to go the tried and true Clintonite Triangulation strategy to inoculate himself from the threat of the Bayh Flu.
It may be frustrating to watch– but it is understandable.
And I could live with it for six more years, considering the alternatives.
stuckinred
Are you serious? The fucking world is coming to an end!
run away run away
amk
@Ija:
There is a reason that bai boy made it to that top30 list.
Ija
@amk:
Wait, no, just checked with Wikipedia, Johnson did enter the New Hampshire primary. He withdrew from the race after poor showing in that primary. If Wikipedia is to be believed, Bai is right after all.
I did not know this. I always thought Johnson never even run. I feel stupid now.
Ben
Jeff, you might be right about a primary challenge, but you seem to have forgotten the general election. You might remember from oh, last month, that there’s this other party out there, and that it kinda held to have people in your corner on Election Day.
Odie Hugh Manatee
The modern professional left likes to stick to the internet for activism although they are trying to make inroads into the M$M, thus they pretty much live in a type of bubble that they claim others are living in. They are much like the right in their circlejerkiness, righteousness and divisiveness. As far as they are concerned, the more outrage that can be generated on the internet, the better.
It’s a poor way to communicate but you can’t tell them that. They know everything and are never wrong. Ask them.
David
Shh! Don’t Tell the Wingnuts Obama Didn’t Get Humiliated!
http://nomoremister.blogspot.com/2010/12/shh-dont-tell-wingnuts-obama-didnt-get.html
Cataphract
I knew that NY Times link would be a Matt Bai article.
John S.
No, but you DO have to be in touch with reality. And judging by the chorus of ninnies here that scream about the bully pulpit, better negotiating, reconciliation (which can’t even be used) and other non-solutions to the problem, we know that they can’t let facts get in the way of a good whine.
These are the same people that droned on during HCR about the magical Mr. Smith Goes to Washington filibuster long after it had been repeatedly pointed out that it doesn’t work like that, and insisted there were somehow enough votes to get the public option passed through the Senate despite the fact that there were never 60 or even 50 votes to be had.
amk
@Ija: One NH does not primary make a.
amk
This times edit is surprisingly good.
http://www.nytimes.com/2010/12/08/opinion/08wed1.html
Napoleon
I will offer a bit of a defense regarding at least making noise about a primary challange. I think it puts pressure on the entire Dem establishment to do something about reforming the Senate to actually get things done, in addition to pressure on Obama to grow a pair.
scarshapedstar
@jon:
I’m quite familiar with this calculus. However.
Currently, the Democrats control neither house of Congress. There is no such thing as a Senate majority anymore. Thus, the only person with the ability to pass any legislation is John Boehner. And then Obama gets to negotiate with Mitch McConnell.
I think this is some bullshit. How about we fix the filibuster, and tell Mitch to go piss up a rope, because that’s the only reason anyone pays attention to him. Fix the filibuster, pass decent legislation through the Senate for the first time in four years, and then John Boehner becomes the lightning rod. Instead of an ever-shifting scapegoat e.g. Landrieu filibusters one day, then Lieberman, then Bayh, then Nelson, then…
brantl
“Yes it’s been abused, but think of the consequences if the shoes are on the other stomping feet. ” But you never before had a side that was willing to be a rabid, insane Horatius at the bridge, like the rethugs are now willing to be; (Or are they? No one’s actually tested them yet.
scarshapedstar
@John S.:
Only because Harry Reid, in his infinite wisdom, decided that those would be the rules for the most important session of his career.
Sometimes you have to make votes. They don’t just fall like manna from heaven.
Suck It Up!
yes.
Senator Merkley has his own plan and I am curious to see how much support it gets from the left and from other Democrats in Congress.
Tim O
My biggest problem is that this issue didn’t sneak up on them. Instead of being the QB, being in the game from the beginning of the year, and pounding away at the opponent; he was the defensive coordinator walking around behind the bench trying not to lose.
You can’t blame the kicker who missed a field goal at the end of the game, when the entire team wasn’t working as an offensive machine for four quarters.
Running from healthcare, not clearly, proudly, articulating the successes of this past two years and allowing the narrative to be set by the GOP a-holes was as key a failure as anything else.
The game didn’t start last week, it should have started the day after healthcare was passed.
A little Audacity anyone? Axelrod was on Morning Joe agreeing with Joe that tax cuts are going to solves everything. I know he didn’t mean it the way he said it, but his argument was tepid, and didn’t say “Tax cuts to the middle class can be stimulative but experts show that the rich are banking the money not creating jobs!”
Wasn’t that easy? I didn’t even go to college.
LGRooney
I woke up yesterday to news of the compromise and was ranting and raving like an old man discovering someone swiped his newspaper. After I had a chance to read the transcript of Obama’s speech and presser, I was felt much less let down and more respect for his position on things. I still will rant about mistakes made over the past two years but perhaps he will realize the value in getting out in front of an issue and using his rhetorical abilities more to show his worth as a leader instead of working in the background.
WarMunchkin
I think the focus of the leftosphere has been on fundraising and politics, when it should be on persuasion and electoral shift. Yes, the think tanks and ActBlue and media appearances are useful, but they’re not really doing all that much when most of the country buys into the premises and ideas of the Republican Party, even if on specific policies we have a plurality.
Tim O
Oh, and Jim Cramer loooooves this plan, also too.
Suck It Up!
@scarshapedstar:
I believe that Harry Reid wants filibuster reform. I know for a fact, however, that Russ Feingold does not. So if someone like Feingold didn’t want it, I can probably guess that a lot of Senate Democrats to the right of him didn’t want it either.
Hugh
I seriously doubt there will be a primary challenge. And yes the term “professional left” is pretty dumb. It doesn’t mean anything. I roll my eyes whenever I see it used.
JGabriel
mistermix:
Punditry Left or Leftarians.
They don’t really represent the left, but, like right wing pundits and libertarians, they still think they’re the center of the story.
.
rickstersherpa
@joe from Lowell: It all depends on the economy. If 2011–2012 sees a steady, if slow fall in unemployment and a pick-up in economic growth and some rise in median income and real wages, then the President will be reelected and the Democrats, despite a tough playing field in places like Missouri and Virginia, may well keep the Senate.
Being old, I have seen this current circular firing squad by liberals and Democrats before (1968-69, 1972, 1979-80, 1984, 1988, and 1994-95). And I can fault both the left and the administration. Again it so much more comfortable to stay within our tribe and throw bricks at each other for not magically overcoming the fact that although we liberals see our positions poll well, liberals themselves are actively hated by 40% of the electorate and not particularly trusted by another 20%. With that middle 20% the job is usually to convince them is that we won’t be as bad as the other guys.
Very few of these tyros (and some are just the left-wing equivalent of grifters like Coulter, Hannity, Limbaugh, Viguirie, Rove, etc.) are doing what Digby and Bob Somerby (the Daily Howler) have done on their blogs and dig into why people in the last election voted the way they did. (In part because the economy is still sucks for employment, wages, and house prices, and in part because the Administration’s use of Medicare reductions to fund health care reform (rather than just adding 1% to the payroll tax) made senior very fearful that they will see a cut back in care directly because of health care reform (and with more and more doctors declining take Medicare patients because of insufficient reimbursement, its something seniors actually experience. This allowed a bunch of Tea Party types to run as defenders of Medicare (while at the same time saying they will slash the budget and spending – how is that ofr irony).
I do blame the administration, still deeply enthralled to the Rubinomic school of political economy on its response to the economic crisis. Obama is still a bankster President by conviction. But a primary challenge is still absurd, in part because most of the plausible challengers are just as much enthralled to the current oligarchy. I do worry that he as drank very deeply of the Village well and believes he has to throw Social Security under the bus to appease the bond gods. That said, he is still as liberal a President as we are likely to see elected in 2012. And considering the Republican alternatives, I can imagine worse conditions.
I expect once the Republican atrocities start in January, the left will start focusing on their real enemies and not their allies, even if they are mere allies of convenience. The tax compromise/stealth stimulus is an occasion where good politics and good policy (not perfect policy or the best policy, but better than the alternative policy) aligned. The economy needs all the boost it can get now, and does not need an onset of Fiscal austerity by the Federal Government in January. This compromise accomplishes that goal, and if the economy improves, the fortunes of the Democrats as the “in” party in the White House and Senate will improve.
guster
Please keep all open flames away from that man. He appears combustible.
Mike Silva
Um, ya, about that super awesome unemployment extension he fought so valiantly to wrest from the Republicans…It’s not much of an extension. But I guess it’s hard to actually ponder the details when you’re in awe of the magnificence of it all.
The ‘extension’ is a continuation of the 4 tiers (providing 99 weeks of benefit in total), in existing law. So, while it is good for all the new lucky duckies that will lose their jobs in the coming year, and those folks that haven’t yet exhausted 99 weeks of benefit, it doesn’t do a thing for the millions of Americans that have already exhausted 99 weeks of benefit. Nor does it even do much for the millions of people that only have a few weeks left. Once those few weeks are gone under this continuation, they are still out in the cold. The President’s supposed negotiation jujitsu didn’t get them 13 more months of checks.
Here’s an example that might be simpler for the moderate mind to understand. Let’s say you’re ‘lucky’ enough to have kept your job so far in the recession, only to become unemployed as of July next year. Well, shit, you’re eligible for 99 weeks, thanks to brilliant negotiation in moderation. Um, actually, no. When that 13 month continuation of current law expires January or February 2012, you are still shit out of luck. The President hasn’t negotiated a guarantee of 99 weeks for all people on the unemployment program. In early 2012 he will still have to fight Republicans to extend the current 4 tier law again, so you can finish out the 99 weeks.
But I know, all those super awesomely stimulative tax cuts which the moderately minded admonish us to be realistic about are going to start a giant flood of new jobs, right? Oh wait, most of those dollars are a continuation of current law too. And those existing tax cuts haven’t generated a flood of jobs thus far. But I know, if I just think positively, wish upon a star, and am proud of our wonderful President’s ability to find common ground between the far right and right’s policy preferences the jobs will come a floodin’ this time!
So yah, I guess that I should be totally thankful for reasonable commentators like you, and our super awesome President that can wax poetic about things like wonderful unemployment extensions moderation has gotten us, and not be pissed off that you and him don’t understand the nuance of the policy you trumpet.
joe from Lowell
@Ben:
Yeah; they’re called moderates. Very useful to have in your corner on election day.
cleek
@Hugh:
of course it does. and it includes many high-profile bloggers, pundits and think-tankers: people who make a living by saying lefty things.
Hugh
@Tim O:
Good comment.
Alex S.
I’ve changed my opinion about that deal after having watched the press conference. My attitude changed from “hostile” to “neutral”, so to say. Judging from my incredibly high horse, I’d say that Obama used to be better. His arguments were not that strong (He only negotiates with terrorists if the hostages are going to get hurt…isn’t that the point of taking hostages?). However, I felt some sympathy for him, because he is in the middle of this bankrupt system and every player in the political game is gunning for his failure and he has got to find a way through, any way. I hope his math is solid on this (as opposed to his math on the size of the stimulus bill). And I wonder if the deal is actually going to pass – in fact, the best case might be that it fails and Obama gets the credit for having tried. The partisans, democrats and republicans, don’t like the deal anyway. But those poor independent souls who dream of bipartisanship and compromise might actually realize that Obama is their man, that Democrats don’t like tax cuts for millionaires, but Republicans want nothing else.
Marc McKenzie
@John S.:
“No, but you DO have to be in touch with reality.”
That is the key.
Obama is in touch with reality as the President–hell, more than his predecessor (whose administration put us in the hole that we’re in). The problem is that many on the Left–at least, a lot of the moaners and groaners–still do not get it. They still do not get that politics is an ugly, brutal game that will involve compromise and that often you may have to give up something to get something. They still do not understand that many Americans have had 30+ years of Republican shit crammed in their ears and that it’s going to take time to clean it all out.
They still do not get that the eight disastrous years of GWB’s rule cannot, and will not, be undone in only two years or even two terms of Obama. They still do not bother to look at the historic achievements made by this guy. Worst of all, they keep shooting at the wrong targets–more ammo expended on Rahm and Geitner and Gates and Clinton than on Boehner, McConnell, and the rest of the Republican jerks.
Look, Obama said numerous times that he welcomes honest, constructive criticism from everyone. Hell, we all need it, and it’s the best type of criticism. What he gets from many on the Left, sadly, is more “F*** you!!!”, and worse, it’s criticism that does not take into account–if it ever did–the reality of America and American politics post-G. W. Bush.
And while Obama is getting hammered by folks who know better, I have to hear in the MSM that Bush is getting a “rebound”. Jesus H. Christ in a chariot-driven sidecar….
(Thanks for that one, Stephen King)
Chris
This. Democrats don’t want to get rid of the filibuster because the next time Republicans have a majority, they could end up unable to block Social Security privatization, Medicare strangulation or whatever the right offers up, which would be a disaster.
Filibuster = status quo. Neither of us wants to let it go because neither of us wants to let our piece of the status quo go away. (To be honest, I can’t say I blame them).
Hugh
@cleek:
So is Josh Marshall a part of the professional left? How about Matthew Yglesias? What about Ezra Klein? Ta-Nehisi Coates? John Coal? I believe they all earn their livings from their political writing. Would you include them?
John S.
@scarshapedstar:
Your grasp of reality seems tenuous at best.
1) Go ahead and Google “myth of the filibuster”. The rules that have stood for DECADES prohibit anyone from compelling the filibusterer to do anything. They can just occupy the floor and read the paper. And all the onus to shut it down is on the majority, who must have quorum. The ones filibustering only need 2 people to keep it going. There is plenty to blame Harry Reid for, but how an actual filibuster functions isn’t one of them. He should change the rules, and that is on him, but that’s a different matter altogether.
2) Votes also cannot be created out of whole cloth, just like they don’t rain from the sky. At MOST, there were 40 votes for a public option in the Senate when the petition was circulated. Where do you think the other 10 were going to come from? Nelson x 2, Lieberman, Landrieu, Bayh, etc. were never going to go for it. Ever. Democrats don’t have a caucus like Republicans do. They don’t vote in lockstep, especially on controversial issues. It would take 70 Democrats in the Senate in order for them to pass anything unilaterally given the present rules.
joe from Lowell
@scarshapedstar:
Those have been the rules for decades, and unless you can link to your, or anyone else’s, calls in December 2008/January 2009 to drop the filibuster, I’m not going to blame Harry Reid or anyone else for not foreseeing the unprecedented filibuster abuse from the Republicans this Congress.
In case you don’t remember, they had to make the votes they got, too. You know how you “make” votes most of the time? You compromise, giving opponents something they want, or dropping something they don’t want, in exchange for their votes – an action for which Obama gets an equal ration of shit when he pulls it off.
bcwbcw
In all of this it doesn’t matter to anyone here that the actual deal continues the shift of a huge amount of wealth from the poor to the rich, that those under $20k/yr see a tax increase or that the tax cuts are extended for 2years while (limited) unemployment benefits get 13 months (so we get to do this again soon!) Nor does it matter to anyone here that those cuts, along with the wars are the main reason the government deficit is so huge. Nor does it matter that the Average American family ($50k/yr) hangs on to about $1000 in tax cuts, even those at 250$(after deductions means $300-$400k real income) see $3000, those at $1M get $30000.
No, no, this is a wonderful effort by the bestest president in the whole world and anyone who opposes it is just a mean old snob who doesn’t love the real people.
joe from Lowell
@Tim O:
Obama did this. You know who ran from healthcare, denied the successes of the past two years, and jumbled the Democratic message with so much infighting that the Republicans were able to set the narrative?
His leftist critics.
Comrade Javamanphil
@Tim O:
He must not have over $5 mil in assets yet because at that point he’ll start whining about the death tax being reinstated.
Suck It Up!
@Napoleon:
A primary threat will not force Obama’s hand. Anyone watching the press conference would know that. Neither will it force the Senate to change the rules – honestly I don’t even know you made that connection.
Marc
I’m usually with y’all on this, really.
But it’s possible to support Obama overall and still see that he made a huge mistake with this tax deal.
You want to dare the republicans to go *on record* denying unemployment benefits in a depression.
You want to dare them to raise everyone’s taxes, on record, because they really want special breaks for the rich.
This is basic politics – force your opponents to make difficult votes and defend unpopular decisions.
Instead, Obama gives up on key principles – such as addressing the ballooning inequality in this country – and he does so while deliberately avoiding difficult votes for the Republicans. It’s not just a crime; it’s a mistake.
The front-pagers here would do well to think about how this particular case is *different* from blogosphere freakouts 1-6,758. Because I’m afraid that you lose all credibility when you treat all cases as being the same.
I support Obama most of the time. He’s terribly wrong on this tax deal, it needs to be killed, and he needs to recognize that being a good negotiator (e.g. getting a good deal for your side) is the only thing that’s going to work over the next 2 years. Giving the other side things that you could feasibly get on their own – that’s not a good deal.
And having a series of terrible votes by the Republicans could lead to a very clear set of choices in 2012, with blame very clearly assigned. But that won’t happen if he blurs all of the differences and looks as if he’s responsible for everything.
Suck It Up!
@Napoleon:
A primary threat will not force Obama’s hand. Anyone watching the press conference would know that. Neither will it force the Senate to change the rules – honestly I don’t even know how you made that connection.
Chris
@David:
They’re selling it as “We made Obama cave and it’s another milestone on the road to his destruction” for all it’s worth so they don’t have to explain to their base that they agreed to extend unemployment benefits for 13 months (cause if you think firebaggers are ideologically puritan, try teabaggers).
PJM has two articles on the subject, neither of which mention the extension of benefits. A significant portion of their voters, in fact, will probably never even find out that UEB were extended.
John S.
@joe from lowell:
I should clarify my similar retort regarding changing the filibuster. Ultimately, the job is up to 50 Democrats to change the rules, not just Harry Reid. But as majority leader, Reid does a terrible job signalling this intention and making it out to be a crisis the way Bill Frist did when we had the noocular option.
Belafon (formerly anonevent)
I wrote about this last night on GOS. It’s hard to blame the president for compromising when the Senate failed to do its job. Obama wanted to sign something that kept middle class tax cuts in place. Since he’s not in the Senate, the only tool available to him is compromise. It was Reid’s job to make sure a good bill got through the Senate.
Comrade Javamanphil
@Marc McKenzie:
This.
I am noticing that many people that complained about Bush’s policies AND tactics over the course of his presidency seem to have no problem with using those tactics for their goals. “If only Obama acted more like Bush” is the unspoken refrain. Fine if you believe that but don’t bitch when the other side does it to you too.
And one other point: Bush v Gore. I remember the last time the left decided their guy wasn’t progressive enough. That worked out so well for the country.
joe from Lowell
@bcwbcw:
Bullshit, and bullshit.
PiledhighDeep
While the Repubs are insane a’holes, the Dems are spineless dipshits and as such, they find it much easier to attack another Dem instead of those scary Repubs. Pathetic.
joe from Lowell
@Marc:
You on unemployment?
It looks like you’re willing to fight to the last UI recipient.
I’m not. Priorities.
Suck It Up!
@Marc:
We have had about 3,4,5 extensions of unemployment benefits? and each time Republicans voted against them all. They have been going around the country and on tv proudly saying no more benefits. They have loudly called the unemployed lazy, spoiled and told them they weren’t getting hired because they had bad hygiene. How much more on the record do they need to be?
rickstersherpa
As a general comment and looking ahead, the President is now basically in a position where he can defend and just frustrate the other guys. The House Republicans will have to produce stuff, and from our point of view nothing coming out of the House will be good and all the bad should be pointed out, especially for the way the bad will effect seniors and the middle class. The President and the Senate Democrats can enjoy being obstructionists, defending middle class entitlements, a strategy that worked pretty well for the Republicans the last two years. Then it is hoping that things do pick up and avoid economic crisis over the next two years.
El Tiburon
Is it just me, or is now the time to strengthen the filibuster? Isn’t conventional wisdom that the repugs are going to take the Senate?
And now that some of us Firebaggers are goingto primary Obama leaving snowbilly snooki as our Dancer in Chief, don’t we need some way to stop the insanity?
Although I am sure by then the repugs will introduce legislation declaring the filibuster for themselves only. Then many of you will lament, “well, it’s the best we could hope for. Thank goodness we are so reasonable.”
Marc
Stuff it Joe; we usually agree. I think that the *best way* to aid the unemployed is to make the republicans squirm and make it too uncomfortable to vote against it. That way the unemployment benefits get removed as bargaining chips.
*If* they go on record with ugly votes, then you look at deals. You don’t just let them avoid ugly votes.
What other things that you care about do you give away next once you’ve set this precedent?
Belafon (formerly anonevent)
@Belafon (formerly anonevent): I just noticed you don’t put a link on a word with all capital letters. FYWP. Here it is.
Linda Featheringill
I listened to the Prez this morning. I thought he did well. He was assertive, coherent, clear, and actually rather presidential.
It did my left-leaning heart good to hear an explanation of why he entered negotiations with the Repubs. I didn’t hear anything new but it was good to see that he was willing to give the explanation.
The deal hasn’t been voted into law yet, even in the Senate. And the House is stewing over the compromises so I don’t know what will happen there.
But Obama did okay in my opinion.
Suck It Up!
@Marc:
he did. for two years. they voted no. consistently. they bragged about it and got rewarded for it.
joe from Lowell
Tell us, Marc: when, in the past 2 years, have the Republicans taken any political heat over the damage done by their obstruction?
You think the Republicans, who don’t have a majority in the Senate, would be harmed by the pain caused by their obstruction of the UI extension?
Please, point out one single time when the public’s response to Republican obstruction worked against the Republicans’ political interests?
Gay Veteran
I think Keith Olbermann spoke for a LOT of people last night in his “Special Comment” where he striped the bark off Obama.
Obama is a one term president.
Here’s some great comments left at The Left Coaster:
(1) “…shit, “our” party is happily participating in the ongoing endless war, the erosion of Constitutional rights, the erosion of the safety net, and the erosion of the middle class. And when we point it out we’re lectured to in stern voices that they wouldn’t dream of using on the GOP….”
(2) “I’ve looked again at the Social Security tax holiday and it’s even a more clever, underhanded trick than it first appears.
So, imagine it’s 20 months from now and the “tax holiday” is due to expire. You can see this dialog in the press:
Q: The SS “tax holiday” is due to expire, what will you do about it?
A: Well, the economy is still in the pits, so we can’t raise taxes, so we’ll have to extend it.
Q: But what about your budget deficit promises?
A: Well, we’ll have to slash social security benefits, but not on the old folks who already get it and reliably vote GOP out of racist fears spread by Fox, instead on the suckers who are still 10 years or more from getting it.
Q: But social security isn’t in bad shape, there is the trust fund …
A There is no trust fund, that is a myth ….
Q: But it’s not, back in 1983 Greenspan …
A: Look, SS is NOT funded from its own tax anymore, it now gets general revenue funds, and we can’t afford to keep doing it.
Q: but ….
Trust me. This tax holiday is going to be used as the premise to shift social security to a general fund program and let the GOP raid the trust fund we’ve been paying into for 37 years.
Obama: you are evil. Perhaps unintentionally so, but the results of your actions are going to hurt millions more than they will help.”
(3) “December 7, 2010. A day that will live in infamy.
For 2 years the White House Press Corpse has been desperately trying to get “No Drama” Obama to get emotional about something. To get him to show some passion. Well, today he did it.
He finally unleashed his pent up fury, displaying that he in fact is not an automaton, that he, too, can hurt and bleed. That when his enemy pushes him too far, that he too will strike back with anger.
And the White House Press Corpse loved it. The Washington punditry ate it up. Because, after two years of wondering what Obama really stood for, now they knew. He was just like them. He shared their common goals. And most importantly, his enemy was the same as theirs.
The left.”
(4) “I’ve seen a lot of commentary that shows how badly Obama is splitting his own party due to his indecision and capitulation. Most importantly, his african-american base is fracturing between those who are Obama supporters to the end, and see all the attacks as racism (and who can deny that heated anti-black racism is at a peak right now) and those who see Obama has having sold out his supporters for personal gain.
It’s ugly. Very ugly.”
Ija
@Suck It Up!:
Maybe as the economy gets worse and unemployment rises, people would stop thinking of the unemployed as a despised minority who deserve bad things to happen to them. Heck, maybe the whole country need to be unemployed before people would see Republicans for what they are.
It’s amazing how much Republicans get away with. I’m torn between Democrats are too dumb or the whole country is too dumb and deserve the bad things that is going to happen to us.
joe from Lowell
@Marc:
Doesn’t work. There’s a Democrat in the White House, the Democrats have a majority in Congress, the political fallout accrues to the Democrats.
You’re thinking like someone in the opposition. Governing parties and coalitions are held responsible for governing.
Tim O
@joe from lowell Because Prez Obama treated the Public Option in the same way? When you plan your strategy for negotiation of any deal, do you start throwing out your ideal outcome first because some moderate somewhere says, “Ooooh I don’t know the opposition will NEVER go for that!” So you start chopping away at your own side?
Never mind that you have the Bully pulpit in your toolbox. I don’t think anyone would argue that it has no value at all. That ratfuck Reagan used it like a Jedi with a light saber. He set this whole mess in motion using it.
So the next big fight you have, tax cuts for the top 1%, where vast majorities of Americans agree with you, and you use the same strategy? Your opponent doesn’t even have to negotiate. They can sit back and watch you negotiate away your position all by yourself.
If that’s what you call a negotiation, I’ve got a car that I’d love to sell you! I didn’t really want to sell it but I’ll get enough from you to buy a better one.
joe from Lowell
Thanks.
I needed a good laugh this morning.
“Obama is a one-term president…because of what people on The Left Coaster think!”
One termer, just like Clinton, right?
scarshapedstar
@John S.:
I’m not an idiot. I know full well the ‘gentlemen’s agreement’ that gave us the sham filibuster we have now. I don’t know how I gave you any other impression, or what you thought I meant when I said that it should take 40 votes to deny cloture instead of 60 votes to invoke it, etc etc etc.
That said, Senate Rules are actually voted on every two years. All it takes to change them is the stroke of a pen and a simple majority. By convention, this does not usually happen, but when the unwritten rules of the Senate are broken, the written rules can and should change in response.
Marc
@joe from Lowell:
That’s a real problem, but quite frankly a lot of it comes from Obama. He doesn’t talk about “republicans obstructing”, he talks about “washington being broken.” I hope that a repudiation of Obama on this will lead to him adopting more effective tactics, because God knows he’s going to need them.
Look, I’ve spent thirty years watching as this country got more and more unequal; as the rich stack their loot to the ceilings. They’re doing very well in this economy. And the one thing that really seems to matter for making this a more just place is a progressive tax code. It has a very powerful and very long term impact on social equity. It’s important.
I hope that you, and the other folks here, have principles that you won’t give on; things that are not up for a vote and not up for discussion. I recognize that the particulars may vary. For me, voting for special tax breaks for the rich – especially the crippling of inheritance taxes – is a bright line. Opposing them is popular, in accord with Democratic principles, and we have a tactical edge in doing so.
I think this is a winnable fight because we just have to block action, not do things, to make it work; and because the things that Obama wants are actually quite popular with members of both parties. Thus the deep disagreement on this particular issue.
joe from Lowell
@Tim O:
But he didn’t “throw out” the public option at first, remember? That crafty devil, so the story goes, he kept pushing the public option, knowing all along that he was going to bargain it away.
I know, because I read it on the internet.
You’re repeating a myth. Obama “threw away” the upper income tax cuts “at the beginning?” Um, no. Not even close. He conceded them at the end, in exchange for some stuff.
It’s difficult to take seriously a criticism of his negotiation strategy that is so at odds with reality.
Suck It Up!
@Marc:
yes, that would be unemployment benefits and raising taxes on the middle class in a recession.
yes he does. a lot. the problem is his message isn’t amplified by Democrats in congress.
arguingwithsignposts
@Gay Veteran:
Oh, noz. He’s fracturing his base!
Tim O
Having said all that, I think the primary talk is bullshit. I will still vote for Obama. The tax deal works for me, I’m a middle class business owner who doesn’t reach the $250,000 threshold.
Although I also can’t make any equipment purchases to take advantage of the accelerated depreciation because I can’t get credit. (Don’t get me started on Obama and the banks, how about a little Bully action on them)
Obama invoked FDR in saying if you want me to do things for you, “make me”; well we’re fighting tooth and nail and he’s not using that to fullest advantage, that’s all.
scarshapedstar
@joe from Lowell:
Um…
They broke the filibuster record before Obama ever took office. Of course, back then they were just filibustering Nancy Pelosi. Who could have anticipated that throwing a black President into the mix would only encourage them?
A fucking golden retriever could have seen this coming. And I recall telling quite a few people that his agenda would die in the Senate. It did not take Nostradamus to see this coming, and if hardened professional politicians cannot yet draw the connection between “Republicans can” and “Republicans will” then fuck them for not doing their jobs.
Comrade Javamanphil
@Marc:
Yep. He doesn’t talk about it.
Johnny B
I read a lot of commentary on the left about how awful Obama was at the press conference. I get home, watch the event on C-SPAN, and was stunned. Quite frankly, I was impressed with his performance. I guess that I need to turn over my credentials as a progressive, as obviously, I’m just an Obamabot and “part of the problem.”
As I read the angry commentary about Obama being a sell out, it’s clear to me that many on the left don’t realize or can’t accept that most people don’t agree we us. So they engage in all sorts of fantasies about political strategies that could have worked if only Obama tried. I simply don’t see it.
Obama did not create the current financial oligarchy, the existing media monopoly, and the new and improved Republican intransigence. But those forces are running the show, and there is nothing he can do in the short term to stop them. You govern with the oligarchy, monopolies, and political intransigence you have, not the one you wish you had.
Suck It Up!
@joe from Lowell:
when reality doesn’t confirm your beliefs just make shit up. I had a good laugh yesterday as I read a few comments on another site saying that Obama didn’t criticize the Republicans during the entire press conference.
joe from Lowell
@Marc:
Again, you’re making stuff up. He did it here.
He did it here.
He did it here.
We can’t have a discussion when you make up your own facts.
If “We don’t let people go hungry” isn’t one of your core principles, you don’t deserve to call yourself a lefty. I have no respect for so-called progressives who value harming the rich more than helping the poor. Principled enough for you?
John S.
@scarshapedstar:
I don’t think you’re an idiot, and my apologies for being so terse in my response. However this:
I think is a bit simplistic. If you think it is “simple” to get 50 Democrats to change the rules next session, which is essentially ALL of them, you really haven’t been paying attention. There’s nothing simple about getting Democrats to function like Republicans and vote in lockstep on a controversial issue.
joe from Lowell
@scarshapedstar:
So, were you going to link to your own, or any else’s, calls to eliminate the filibuster back in or before January 2009? C’mon, if this isn’t just hindsight, if a golden retriever could have seen this coming, then where are all of those professional leftists who are so much smarter than Harry Reid? Let’s see ’em.
Suuuuuuuuuuuuure you do. And your activism to get the filibuster eliminated – the action you denounced Harry Reid for not taking in January 2010? Tell us, Oh Omniscient One, when did you begin that?
Marc
@joe from Lowell:
No. He repeatedly undercut opposition to keeping the Bush tax cuts in place – that’s a major reason why people who usually support him are so damned angry about this. He had his own press representative dismiss difficult votes in the Congress; he hasn’t been advocating for his position in public at all. It’s all been compromise talk, all the way.
That’s the reason why Democratic senators and representatives who almost always support him are angry. It’s the reason why 100+ democratic representatives, from press reports, oppose Obama on this. This deal is in serious trouble. It’s not just that Something Is Wrong On The Internet.
Suck It Up!
@Tim O:
I know enough of this country’s history to know that what I’ve seen from the left in the past two years comes no where close to being described as “fighting tooth and nail”.
WereBear
Yeah. This. So I retain my Obot card. With several more stamps, I get a pony!
Tim O
@joe Which goes back to my original post. He didn’t lose the game at the last minute; he lost it 6-12 months ago because we wasn’t campaigning like he was running for office again.
If the public doesn’t understand how the healthcare bill, or the college tuition, or any of the other legislation works for them well enough that you don’t prevent at least some of the congressional loses, then you’re not Joe Montana you’re Jim Kelly a great QB with no rings.
Why am I still hearing from my mother in laws friends, “He cut Medicare!” forcing me to say “He cut out the middle man who was over charging you! That’s a good thing!”
I mean who the fuck is running messaging over at the WH? Is Plouffe phoning it in? I know all these guys have their hearts in the right place but shit, man! Axelrod was asleep on TV this morning! Gibbs is being as snide to the left as he is to the right!
Oh yeah the US isn’t opposing Israeli settlements anymore. Nice.
Christin
@Gay Veteran:
Eye roll. Another Crazed hating Firebagger posts unhinged ODS comments from another asinine blog full of idiots. Thanks for reposting those worthless asshole comments here hater. Now go GOTV for Palin. Thanks.
amk
Gall-up. Plenty of support for Obama’s “deal”, except of course the fringes at both ends.
http://www.gallup.com/poll/145109/Americans-Support-Major-Elements-Tax-Compromise.aspx
In related news, more heads explode.
Tim O
@ suck it up you’re right, no one is camping out on the Mall and burning flags. We’re all playing tetris, and calling our congressmen to wish them a Merry Christmas. I personally am shouting at my TV very loud.
I didn’t go door to door, call, raise money, donate, advocate, protest or any of that. Oh wait, I did.
Tim O
Um, where is ED Kain?
Anya
It was really fun to watch GOS regulars struggling with canonizing and defending Mary Landrieu. Apparently, Lawrence O’donnoll called her out on her hypocritical stand on this deal (calling it ‘morally corrupt’). And the GOS kids were like, “but but she is right” and “isn’t it sad Mary Landrieu is to the left of the President”. He also yelled at Jane Hamsher and that guy who copies unflattering pictures of the president, to use on his attack ad, from the Drudge report. I don’t like Lawrence O’s overbearing ways but for this I could kiss him.
Christin
@Cataphract:
I refused to click on the link – but was wondering who wrote it. I’m big into not giving anyone my lone little clicks lately. Thanks for the information. I get the TIme on weekends only, and for the past six months keep saying I’ going to cancel. I never have to time to really read it, they keep doing major profiles on GOP wingnuts (good ones too) in their NYT’s magazine. Two weeks ago the SP one put me over the edge. And I’m sick of Dowd’s stupid, Krugman’s whining, and Bai’s idiocy. Today I’m finally dropping them. Just too annoying getting annoyed.
Christin
@Cataphract:
I refused to click on the link – but was wondering who wrote it. I’m big into not giving anyone my lone little clicks lately. Thanks for the information. I get the TIme on weekends only, and for the past six months keep saying I’ going to cancel. I never have to time to really read it, they keep doing major profiles on GOP wingnuts (good ones too) in their NYT’s magazine. Two weeks ago the SP one put me over the edge. And I’m sick of Dowd’s stupid, Krugman’s whining, and Bai’s idiocy. Today I’m finally dropping them. Just too annoying getting annoyed.
Christin
@Cataphract:
I refused to click on the link – but was wondering who wrote it. I’m big into not giving anyone my lone little clicks lately. Thanks for the information. I get the TIme on weekends only, and for the past six months keep saying I’ going to cancel. I never have to time to really read it, they keep doing major profiles on GOP wingnuts (good ones too) in their NYT’s magazine. Two weeks ago the SP one put me over the edge. And I’m sick of Dowd’s stupid, Krugman’s whining, and Bai’s idiocy. Today I’m finally dropping them. Just too annoying getting annoyed.
geg6
It was fail. Sorry, but coming right out and saying that the GOPers are going to be able to roll him any time someone, somewhere, might be hurt by the action just says go ahead and roll me some more.
The idea of not negotiating with hostage takers is an assumption of a risk that the hostage might get hurt but that the larger good of deterring such acts and the escalation that follows capitulation to the hostage taker’s demands is worth the regrettable sacrifice. Now, perhaps that trade off of the larger good is fine with you or Obama, but it is a perfectly acceptable point of view that the larger good is more important, too.
Obama got what he wanted. But now he has to live with the consequences of showing them that he can be rolled at any time on any issue if they can make someone, somewhere, feel some pain. They are nihilists and they will do this continuously for the next two years. The idea that he thinks he’ll be able to re-visit this tax issue in two years and win is magical thinking. To try to spin that as a win is ridiculous, IMHO.
scarshapedstar
@joe from Lowell:
Let me repost this since you failed to read it:
Having no blog of my own, um, I guess I’ll spend some time combing through comment threads and sooner or later I’ll find one where I made the bold, earthshaking prediction that the Republicans would continue to filibuster Democratic legislation at a record pace, no matter what. Just like they’d already been doing ever since the Democrats took over Congress.
I don’t know why you’re being such a dick with the “YOU LIE!” stuff.
Anyway, here’s one link.
Suck It Up!
@Tim O:
I stand by what I said.
Taylor
Can someone remind me of when Bush complained petulantly at a major national news conference about criticism he was getting from his base?
Isn’t it part of his job to bring his supporters along with words of encouragement, and not instead lecturing them to buck up? “I know my supporters are disappointed, I am too, but …”
A large part of the rage on the left is a strong suspicion that Obama is going to put SS on the chopping board, in the ultimate gesture of Rubinomics. When this deal cuts funding for SS “temporarily,” I think it is remarkably stupid, under the circumstances, to expect the Professional Left to all start singing kumbaya.
And BTW, what happened to FDR’s oft-quoted “Make me do it”?
Johnny B
@WereBear: No pony for you. Instead, Saint Sarah. And a whole lifetime of saying that “Obama was the worst President ever.” That should be enough for the left.
Suck It Up!
@Anya:
they have a talent for setting themselves up don’t they?
geg6
@Ija:
I think you need to go read some history, Grasshopper.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Lyndon_B._Johnson#1968_presidential_election
Suck It Up!
@Taylor:
Obama KICKED ASS!!! Left, Right, Media. All of it. Thoroughly. It was glorious!! the “base” can go stick it.
that is all.
Ben
Joe from Lowell (“Yeah; they’re called moderates. Very useful to have in your corner on election day.”):
You know, it actually takes more than just moderates to get elected. It takes liberals, too – in the polling booth, but perhaps more importantly, in the field offices and on the streets. I worked for the campaign in ’08, and frankly, I don’t remember too many moderates as staff or volunteers.
But even if a deal like this makes sense, what doesn’t make sense is to publicly deride those with legitimate concerns about the process and the end result as just public option dead-enders. I can’t think of a single effective leader in history who routinely publicly rebuked his or her base like that. It suggests that Obama actually believes that the let is a bigger problem than the right, and if that’s true and it continues, he’s got no chance in ’12.
And if he sees this as some sort of “Sister Souljah” opportunity to prove his moderate bona fides, then he needs some smarter advisers. The problem with the independents he wants to court is that they dont follow this stuff.
joe from Lowell
@Tim O:
There has to be more to politics than positioning yourself for elections.
Yeah, instead of actually passing the most ambitious set of legislation of any presidential term in decades, he could have positioned himself for 2012.
I’ll take the accomplishments, over a 100% certainty of reelection. What happened over the past two years – that’s what winning elections is for.
Ija
@geg6:
Yeah, I already corrected that in comment #16.
Johnny B
@Taylor: Um, Social Security is going to be cut. Either by this President or the person who beats him in 2012. You get to pick which one.
joe from Lowell
@scarshapedstar:
It’s no more impressive, or relevant, than the first time I read it.
Since you’re so agonizingly confused, I’ll try to use even smaller words: Noting the number of filibuster attempts in the previous Congress is not the same thing as calling for the abolition of the filibuster.
Did you get it that time? Shall I use hand puppets?
Yup, a link in which you didn’t call for the abolition of the filibuster, as I’ve been saying all along.
Here’s what you wrote:
First of all, saying that the filibuster rules are what they are ONLY because of Harry Reid is idiotic.
But more importantly, here you are, slagging on Harry Reid for not, in January 2009, wanting to change the filibuster rule, and neither you nor anyone else you can identify had said a single word about changing those rules at that time, either.
Did you get it this time? Quick, find another comment where you complain about the Senate and don’t say anything about changing the filibuster rules!
Gay Veteran
joe from Lowell:
“…I needed a good laugh this morning…One termer, just like Clinton, right? ”
I guess we can now expect triangulation from Obama. And Clinton’s actions regarding financial deregulation set the stage for our current problems.
arguingwithsignposts: “Oh, noz. He’s fracturing his base!”
Polls? Wait til next week. Republicans are happy, many Democrats fuming.
Christin: “Eye roll. Another Crazed hating Firebagger posts unhinged ODS comments from another asinine blog full of idiots. Thanks for reposting those worthless asshole comments here hater. Now go GOTV for Palin. Thanks.”
Maybe you should just clap harder. Jeez, I’m beginning to think the Cult of Obama is as bad as the Cult of Bush.
Reminds me of a scene from the HBO series “Rome” where Pompey has ordered the retreat from Rome. Cicero says “so this is not defeat but some rare species of victory?”
Taylor: “…A large part of the rage on the left is a strong suspicion that Obama is going to put SS on the chopping board, in the ultimate gesture of Rubinomics….”
BINGO, we knew that was coming when he appointed the Catfood Commission.
gogol's wife
I’m sorry if this has been said, because I have to get to work and can’t read the whole thread, but everyone should read David Leonhardt’s analysis in the New York Times today. He calls the deal “a second stimulus.” He is one of the best writers on the Times.
While Maureen Dowd is flogging her tired “obambi” shtick.
Ija
http://www.outsidethebeltway.com/jim-demint-says-he-will-filibuster-tax-deal/
This tax deal could still fall apart. How crazy would it be if after all the whining and moaning from liberals, it’s actually Republicans who kill the deal.
joe from Lowell
@Taylor:
1. The professional left are not his base. Never were. Stop flattering yourselves.
2. Can someone remind me when any Republican base ever defined Bush as their enemy?
Go back and read what National Review had to say about the prescription drug benefit. It certainly wasn’t conspiratorial fapping about Bush being a secret liberal out to destroy conservatism. It was real-world disappointment about the need for compromise in politics.
Hugh
@joe from Lowell:
I’m still strying to figure out how to tell who is a part of the professional left. What are the criteria?
joe from Lowell
@Ben:
Obama has an 80+% approval rating among liberals, about where he was the day he took office. “Handful of Keyboard Kommandos” does not equal “liberals.”
The people he didn’t have in November were the moderates.
You’re too young to remember Clinton’s campaign and presidency, aren’t you?
They don’t follow the screeching on the internet, that’s for sure – but they do follow things like unemployment insurance and their own taxes going up (or not).
joe from Lowell
@Gay Veteran:
Expect? Where have you been. You’re watching it in real time.
Yes, but that wasn’t triangulation. Like NAFTA, and welfare reform, financial “modernization” was something that Clinton actually supported, not something he did for effect. Which is to say, triangulation wasn’t the left’s real problem when it came to Clinton’s economic policies. Clinton was actually a center/center-right thinker on economics. Looking at Obama’s first 2 years, it’s clear he’s to the left of Clinton on these issues (even if he’s not as far to the left as we’d like).
matt
well, citizens have no input into whether or not filibuster reform happens so I don’t see how ‘focusing’ on it would help.
joe from Lowell
@Hugh:
No, you’re not. You aren’t the slightest bit confused about what I meant by that comment.
I’ve never understood why people think that playing dumb is an effective debating technique.
Hugh
@joe from Lowell:
Yes, you recognized my sarcasm. Now, what are the criteria?
kindness
re- primary challenge. You’ve really got two things going with respect to this scenerio. On the one hand you’ve got the DLC & Third Way folks acting like those who are saying they have misgivings about the deal Obama brokered are speaking heresy & blasphemy. Then on the other side you’ve got the FireDogies who essentially want Senator Bernie Saunders to run the show.
While I sympathize with the Firedog crew I think the DLC & Third Way people are worse. There is no viable Ralph Nader candidate to threaten 2012 & those who think we shouldn’t be bitching about policy we don’t like should expect to be told to go to hell.
Odie Hugh Manatee
@Gay Veteran:
Oh no! Anonymous people on teh internets are angry at Obama and he is losing them because he won’t do what they want him to!!
I am so not impressed. Really.
Tim O
@ Joe to clarify, I wasn’t talking about reelection of Obama, i was talking about touting Dem accomplishments with the energy of a campaign. And I’m not talking about bluster like the GOP does for the sake of bluster. Great things have been done and using those things are another tool in negotiating. I’m talking about leaving it all on the field or at very, very least giving the impression that you are.
So in the presser when he challenges the hostage takers, they have no room to chuckle.
joe from Lowell
@Hugh:
Perhaps I wasn’t clear the first time: I don’t respect people who play dumb, and I have no intention of enabling you.
joe from Lowell
@Tim O:
I think this problem you identify isn’t Obama’s problem, but that of many Democrats in Congress. Obama himself spent months barnstorming and talking about ACA, ARRA, Financial Regulation, and his other other accomplishments.
TimO
For example, the Healthcare summit with the GOP on TV looking like assholes. Brilliant!
Obama, invading the GOP caucus retreat. Masterful!
He should have been challenging them weekly like that. If he wasn’t going to get votes any way, at least he would look like the adult to a wider audience than just the Village and the blogosphere. Those are moments where the public were exposed to the contrast between the parties. Especially since the GOP always wins the press cycle and the sound bite war.
Knock Caribou Barbie off the front page. Engage the public. Play to your strengths. Master orator. Not stepping back and saying “I hope Congress follows my suggestions.” “Here’s my framework.”
TimO
Time to get to work. Good morning all!
Odie Hugh Manatee
@Suck It Up!:
Picture them with their hygiene long forgotten in the quest for liberal perfection on the internet, grinding their long-unbrushed teeth together in anger so much that they are half worn away, with untrimmed nails worn flat from hammering away on the keys.
If you do that I guess you could say that the manic progressives are fighting tooth and nail.
Hugh
@joe from Lowell:
Joe I’ve read many of your comments and respect you a lot. You’re being evasive though. You are often sarcastic in comments. That ought not to put you off.
“Professional left” is a lazy term whose entire purpose is to be perjorative. It is meaningless in every other way. You used it as a snarky insult, which is the only way it ever gets used, and I’m challenging that with some snark of my own. If you actually feel the term has merit then defend it.
Odie Hugh Manatee
@Tim O:
Sure you did all that you claim and now you have proven it beyond a doubt by telling people about it on the internet! Congratulations! Did you know that I genetically engineer hamsters to act as triggers for nuclear warheads? No, really. They make good pets too, just don’t startle them because they pop and make a bit of a mess.
Makes the kids laugh though.
sparky
uh-oh, an MM post i almost could agree with. or at least agree with in part. but, not to worry, because you lost me when you started talking about a press conference.
i can agree that at least at the moment, it seems rather quixotic to be discussing a primary to a sitting president.
that said, since when has a press conference been the determinant for whether something was good policy? do you really really want to judge every president just on appearance and nice delivery?
judging the value of a political act by how your favorite performs in a press conference is (a) disingenuous (b) fatuous or (c) proof that Rove et al were correct and that George W. Bush was the greatest president ever when he landed on that aircraft carrier and gave a press conference.
seriously, people, you look more than a bit silly when you defend a political deal on the ground that the guy talking about it sounded good.
one starts to wonder if somebody just copied and pasted a redstate thread here with the names changed.
now, as to actual points:
this is a horrible horrible deal. the Rs get what they wanted, including a wedge against Social Security as well as a potent deficit argument. and anyone who claims these tax cuts are temporary when they are set to expire in a presidential election year is either lying or truly deluded.
also, has anyone bothered to notice that this deal implements two of the “Deficit Commission’s” ideas? when is the next implementation?
my guess (though it is just a hunch) is that we will see more of this when the time comes to raise the debt ceiling.
no doubt we will continue to see people spinning this crap as “a second stimulus” but that is, literally, crap because it is accepted by pretty much everyone that tax cuts are a poor way to stimulate the economy. and calling unemployment benefits an economic stimulus is, charitably, disgusting.
i do think the unemployment insurance extension was needed.* but when something that should not even be up for discussion is obtained by making inroads everywhere else, and the whole thing could have been avoided if the Ds acted on this months ago, one really, really has to wonder at the notion that this “deal” should be seen as a plus for the Ds.
*was it worth giving away the store for that? at the moment i don’t have an opinion. i tend to side with the camp that says put the Rs on record as saying unemployed Americans should starve to death (because i can’t see that they would do anything other than cave), but on the other hand i don’t think it’s fair to make the unemployed pay for Obama’s incompetence (or disingenuousness, depending on your viewpoint). IMO, reasonable and unreasonable people can disagree on this one.
sparky
wanted to edit that comment but not permitted for some reason.
ok, then, FYWP and i’ll fix it here–i should not have said “the deal was a plus.” though no doubt some people are trying to push that notion up a rope. most people are simply trying to say “not as bad as it could have been”.
if that’s your notion of doing a good job–not getting completely screwed by the opposition for something that was completely avoidable in the first place–well, fine. i can’t say i see the value for people in an ostensibly New Deal-supporting party celebrating someone who, without any initial need to do so, sets the stage for the elimination of the last bit of the New Deal. but perhaps i am missing something here. from here, it seems to me that it’s not the “angry crazy left” that’s crazy but the self-described “pragmatists” who are denying reality as fast as they can.
seriously, is there anything, anything at all that would be going too far for D loyalists? what would not be considered spinnable, for example?
shortstop
When filibuster reform was last being discussed at length on de blogs, there were massive disagreements about what form it could take, how many votes were needed to achieve it, what exceptions to that vote requirement might apply at the beginning of a congress, etc. I never felt like I was getting solid and reliable info on these points from anywhere. I wish I had it.
Rihilism
Well, well. A combination circle-jerk and circular firing squad, all this. Criticize the president, you’re a “professional left” (whatever the fuck that is). Support the “deal”, and you’re a sell out (despite the fact that the unemployment extension does, in fact, help those in need and stimulates the economy).
Can we at least agree that Obama is either not very good at the negotiations dealy or at the very least is not very effective at selling what he wants to do or what he’s done when he’s done it?
Yes, Obama is facing an intractable repug party and an impossibly unwieldy Democratic Congress, which means he will need to play some smart politics. The past two years seem to indicate that he has not been very good at that. Major accomplishments (yes, there have actually been some) are great and important but politics of the presidency are 24/7 and he needs to do a much better job of selling them or he risks the accomplishments being ignored or co-opted by the SOB repugs. You can bitch about the press, the repugs, etc., but selling himself and his ideas in addition to governing is what he gets paid to do and will strongly impact his likelihood of achieving a second term
Calling the critics on the left sanctimonius may make him feel better, heck it may even get some moronic low-information independents to vote for you, but long term, is it really a smart method to achieve what I assume are his progressive goals? Goals that will require a second term.
Sure, you got the unemployment extension, but in the long run, is it really wise to couple UI with tax cuts? Really? Really, really? There was absolutely, positively, beyond a reasonable doubt, no other way to accomplish this? Maybe, maybe not. I don’t know and anyone who claims to “know” yes or no is full of shit unless they are capable of mind reading and control. But if there appears to be no other way, you get your fucking ass out ahead of it, you pound the pavement and you get your supporters in your corner. You don’t hold a hastily prepared press conference after the fact and then attack the idealists in your own fucking party as sanctimonius purists. Sorry, it may “work” but it don’t seem too smart to me.
Now, I have no intention of supporting any primary challenge to Obama and if he recieves the nomination I plan on voting for him. But for crying out fucking loud, he needs to start leading (not deferring to Congress) and he needs to start playing smart politics (and, no, not the self-serving party immolating crap that Clinton played). I’m not wanting nor am I expecting a dictator-lite (been there, done that) but Obama NEEDS to start being smart (as in political acumen, not IQ). If he doesn’t, it really doesn’t matter whether he gets a primary challenger or what he gets accomplished…
now back to your regularly scheduled bitch fest…
Gay Veteran
sparky: “…and the whole thing could have been avoided if the Ds acted on this months ago….”
You assume they wanted to avoided it.
100% of all the crap that has been going on cannot be blamed on Democratic incompetence or cowardice. Try complicity.
Another Bob
Perhaps Obama can follow up this current triumph on the Bush tax cuts by preemptively agreeing to cut future Social Security benefits and raise the retirement age to 70. In exchange, the Republicans will agree to meet with him at their convenience to discuss their future agenda. Hey, it’s a win-win!
TimO
Wow, Odie way to be a dick and add nothing to the conversation; not even remotely witty.
BombIranForChrist
I had the same kind of reaction as Mistermix.
I am extremely, very, very disappointed in Obama as a President.
But it must be said. When I read the twitter feeds, I thought that Obama basically pulled down his pants and took a giant dump on a picture of Kos.
When I actually saw the news conference, however, I thought his response was very measured and worthy of thought.
I still think his shit is weak right now, but the Left That You Guys Hate really needed to take a few deep breaths, I think.
Amaliada
My irritation about the extension of the tax cuts is that I also have no illusions about how they will be paid for in the future. We are already talking about austerity. I spend most of the year in Greece – here austerity is lower wages, higher taxes, and a freeze or cut in pensions.
Do you really think that President Obama is loathe (in other words will fight really hard against implementing ) to cut social security? I get social security and this is our second year without a cost of living increase. Bet there are more freezes on the way.
The Deficit Reduction Commission (or whatever their actual name is) called for raising the age of social security recipients, cutting social security, eliminating the mortgage deduction, etc.
Sounds like if you are a middle or lower wage earner, you’re going to have the privilege of paying for these tax cuts. Unemployment is still, unfortunately, going to be really high in 13 months, so this battle has just been kicked down the road.