Mistermix already linked to this, but it really made me laugh:
President Obama anticipated Republican resistance to his jobs program, but he is now meeting increasing pushback from his own party. Many Congressional Democrats, smarting from the fallout over the 2009 stimulus bill, say there is little chance they will be able to support the bill as a single entity, citing an array of elements they cannot abide.
“I think the American people are very skeptical of big pieces of legislation,” Senator Bob Casey, a Democrat from Pennsylvania, said in an interview Wednesday, joining a growing chorus of Democrats who prefer an à la carte version of the bill despite White House resistance to that approach. “For that reason alone I think we should break it up.”
Senator Harry Reid of Nevada, the majority leader, has said he will put the bill on the legislative calendar but has declined to say when. He almost certainly will push the bill — which Mr. Obama urged Congress to pass “right now!” — until after his chamber’s recess at the end of the month; Mr. Reid has set votes on disaster aid, extensions for the Federal Aviation Administration and a short-term spending plan ahead of the jobs bill.
Republicans have focused their attack on the tax increases that would help pay for the spending components of the bill. But Democrats, as is their wont, are divided over their objections, which stem from Mr. Obama’s sinking popularity in polls, parochial concerns and the party’s chronic inability to unite around a legislative initiative, even in the face of Republican opposition.
Some are unhappy about the specific types of companies, particularly the oil industry, that would lose tax benefits. “I have said for months that I am not supporting a repeal of tax cuts for the oil industry unless there are other industries that contribute,” said Senator Mary L. Landrieu of Louisiana.
A small but vocal group dislikes the payroll tax cuts for employees and small businesses. “I have been very unequivocal,” said Representative Peter A. DeFazio, a Democrat from Oregon. “No more tax cuts.”
A wise man recently wrote:
In the long term, assuming a plan gets through the House (it won’t), then we get to go through our usual drama of the blue dogs from Red States (Manchin, Nelson, Landrieu, McCaskill, etc.), Lieberman just so he can continue to be the world’s preeminent douchenozzle, and some others I am sure I am missing. They’ll cockblock it on the Senate side, moaning about the program being a deficit buster while conveniently ignoring the fact that each one of them represents a welfare state sucking at the federal teat. Finally, at the 11th hour, Snowe and Collins will swoop in and offer tax cuts for the ultra-rich as a sweetener and they will support it. At this point, Bernie Sanders or whatever progressive hero of the moment will claim he can’t support anything with tax cuts for the rich in it. This will bring things to a standstill for a couple more weeks until another shitty jobs report comes out, and the Senate, acting in the fierce urgency of when-the-fuck-ever will pass some piece of shit that is too small, unfocussed, and does nothing other than provide the left with another opportunity to fracture and start flinging shit at each other. Republicans will have spent the entire time using procedural tricks to slow things down while having Frank Luntz work on the framing of the issue so that by the time it is about to hit the President’s desk, they will already have a cute name, the talking points will be distributed, and we’ll all be hearing about the new “Porkulus” or “Obamacare” or whatever the fuck childish name they come up with. In three months time, when employment hasn’t picked up because we are actually in the same god damned depression we’ve been in since 2007, Rick Perry can claim that Keynesian ideology has once again been disproven. Because everyone hates the bill, Friedman, Brooks, and other members of the Centrist jihad will claim this as proof that the bill is great.
So predictable.
I also hope this shuts up all the idiots who think OBAMA. JUST. NEEDS. TO. USE. HIS. BULLY. PULPIT! He’s running around the country, doing his damn best to whip up support, and as usual, his own party is kneecapping him before the Republicans get a chance.
NonyNony
At least you didn’t make this a prediction. If you had, I’d call it the worst prediction on the blog since Peak Wingnut.
Anyone want to bet on how many comments we get before we get to the No True Bully Pulpit argument?
Joseph Nobles
The pulpit doesn’t get any more damn bully than a joint session of Congress. I’m convinced that people calling on Obama to use the bully pulpit don’t have the slightest idea what that is.
Dave
This is what drives me batshit with the people who think Obama just has to wave a magic wand and all will be well. More often than not, Obama gets kneecapped by his own party in the Senate. For Christ’s sake, why do you think Gitmo is still open?? It’s not because Obama wants it to stay open; it’s because Senate Democrats (including Super Progressive Hero Bernie Sanders) wilted like fucking hothouse flowers and refused to vote for the funding to close it.
I am 1000x more pissed at Nelson and Landrieu than I would ever be with Obama.
Bulworth
We are very truly screwed.
Suffern ACE
Americans are skeptical of big pieces of legislation. This from a guy in in institution that can barely ever vote on any small legislation. Imagine trying to break the bill up into 100 small bills. it would take them 20 years to pass it.
Bulworth
@Suffern ACE: Fortunately the country doesn’t face any significant financial troubles, like perennial 9% unemployment.
Joe Bauers
Yes, but if he *really* wanted this passed he would use his Jedi mind-control powers on Congress. Or at least wave his hands in the air and shout a lot.
Culture of Truth
I do understand that some Democrats represent conservative districts or even states, but what I resent is how stupid and even selfish they can be about it.
Duckest Fuckingway: Ask not for whom the Duck Fucks. . .
This post doesn’t really add value to the discussion. OTOH, the inevitable pie fight will be split across two threads, instead of concentrating all douchiness in one cesspit.
Suffern ACE
@Bulworth: Unfortunately, a lot of the Senators have jobs and most of the people they meet each day have them, too. Kind of a strange “at will but a six-year contract” hybrid working arrangement. Plus, when they lose their jobs, they end up making even more money. It’s kind of hard to knock that work if you can get it.
jibeaux
IIRC, there were multiple corporate tax loopholes proposed to be closed. I’m sure we could find more, though.
Bob Ewing
John,
You may be right that there is little sense to blame Obama for making use of the “bully pulpit” now and in the recent past, but I disagree with your contention as a general matter.
To me, it is fairly clear that Obama squandered the fair amount of political clout he had (and ultimately his credibility) by constantly adopting the positions of those who mean him no good (i.e., the Republicans) on a multitude of prior occasions, and by constantly taking “half steps” when what was needed. He has lost the audience he once had (and that he still could have, if he had acted and spoken in more forceful ways), and unfortunately has now reached the point where any message he attempts to convey is ignored — the political audience is looking for someone new. When Obama gets up to speak, or attempts to act now, more and more people just “change the channel.”
Brian
Yeah, it is totally lame when someone who cites (please see the posts on this topic on Lawyers, Guns & Money), you know, the overwhelming conclusion of all the research and analysis that has ever been done on the subject comes on here and points out that the bully pulpit, WRT domestic policy, if a fairy tale. I hate those know-it-all pointy-headed academic types who understand stuff and try to pop my magical balloon pony. Not that any of you delusional ingnorami will change your minds, but after seeing one too many comments spitting in the face of reality, I’ll say it once more: If you think Obama’s domestic policy “failures” are in any way due to his insufficient use of the bully pulpit, you are functionally retarded. Deal.
boss bitch
He’s gotta use it harder. Call them out by name. Consequences? pffffft.
The Snarxist Formerly Known as Kryptik
This isn’t where he’d need a bully pulpit, but he does need to drag some of these fuckwits into a backroom at the Capitol and verbally sackbeat them with the fact that no matter how much these idiots hippie punch their own party, they won’t be given ‘serious people’ cred because, by sheer dint of being Democrats, they’re already hippies. That’s the whole point of hippie punching: to paint a whole side as unserious no matter the validity of their policy by painting them as super wild-eyed hippies. And these douches don’t escape that by joining in on the hippie punch themselves.
And on a more OT note, reminder #1748374 that “9/11 CHANGED ERRYTHING!!”:
The FBI is freakin’ using a WND bot as an ‘intelligence specialist’ for his keen insight to just how all Muslism top down are giant America-hating monsters.
Baud
The term “bully pulpit” is just an incantation for some, kind of like saying “One of us.” It shows your in the club.
J.A.F. Rusty Shackleford
No, John Cole, you’re wrong. Digby’s David Atkins just detailed how Obama should go about getting belligerent Democrats in line.
When are you Obots going to learn that the Hillary Clinton deadenders were right and stop supporting that inadequate black man?
ant
Obama needs to act more black. It would pass then.
The Snarxist Formerly Known as Kryptik
This isn’t where he’d need a bully pulpit, but he does need to drag some of these fuckwits into a backroom at the Capitol and verbally sackbeat them with the fact that no matter how much these idiots hippie punch their own party, they won’t be given ‘serious people’ cred because, by sheer dint of being Democrats, they’re already hippies. That’s the whole point of hippie punching: to paint a whole side as unserious no matter the validity of their policy by painting them as super wild-eyed hippies. And these douches don’t escape that by joining in on the hippie punch themselves.
Bobby D
Might be time to pay some visits to Blue Dog districts for some bully pulpit action, just like he’s doing the speeches in Boehner and Cantor’s backyards.
Shame those Landrieu types into getting on board.
srv
A UBS Trader just lost $2B
Fuck Yeah!
Chris
@Joe Bauers:
“I’m a Republican! Minda tricks don’t work ona me: only money!”
The Snarxist Formerly Known as Kryptik
And on a more OT note, reminder #1748374 that “9/11 CHANGED ERRYTHING!!”:
The FBI is freakin’ using a WND bot as an ‘intelligence special-ist’ for his keen insight to just how all Muslism top down are giant America-hating monsters.
Duckest Fuckingway: Ask not for whom the Duck Fucks. . .
J.A.F. Rusty Shackleford: That wasn’t a post by Digby Downer(TM).
Chris
@The Snarxist Formerly Known as Kryptik:
Yeah, I saw that. My first thought was that for years now I’ve been reading teabagger allegations that the FBI’s up to its eyeballs in cultural sensitivity training and so it’s penetrated by the Muslim Brotherhood and therefore al-Qaeda, and all that Bircher shit. Huh, looks like they were lying again.
The politicization of government departments to conform to Gooper ideology proceeds apace.
mcd410x
And yet, Obama used his pulpit to tell us we NEED DEFICIT SOMETHING NOW and now everyone believes it will create jobs. Which is why we can’t have nice things like putting 10 percent of the population back to work.
Eh, who cares. They deserve their fate, right?
Kola Noscopy
hahaha…of course he is: Now that he’s put in two and a half years of service to Wall Street, the military industrial complex, and the health insurance industry, it is, however once again CAMPAIGN season! Time to bring out HOPE and CHANGE again.
Fraud.
I’m beginning to wonder if Cole even believes in his Obot stance, but continues posting as such because it’s great for long comment threads and page hits. Thoughts?
General Stuck
Republicans are lockstep people sometimes to militaristic levels that put voters off. But Dems are faithless clowns, especially in difficult times when the chips are down, when it seems like all of them are trying to personally run the circus.
There is a time for internal debate on policy and strategy inside the dem tent. Then there are times when the POTUS of their party puts out what many of them have been crowing for, and it is time to rally around, but instead, they wring their hands and drop their drawers in unison, and commence to shit wildly on the D tent floor.
It was that way when preening dems in congress kneecapped Carter, and sometimes I wonder if Clinton didn’t throw the 94 election to the wingers so he wouldn’t have to deal with a dem led congress. And now with the Cheeto wizards on blogs.
People sense disarray and will usually turn to the unified in the midst of a political battle, like now. The wingers worry them they don’t have their best interests at heart. But who wants to follow a tribe of backbiting chickenshits?
Hawes
Yes, if we threaten to take away recalcitrant Senator’s committee chairs, as thereisnospoon suggests, that will learn them!
Or, just as likely, the retiring Lieberdouche won’t care. Landrieu will bolt the party, maybe Nelson, too.
And then we shall blissfully pure! Pure I tells you!
In the minority, but pure.
amk
amurika doth deserve prezinent perry.
J.W. Hamner
@The Snarxist Formerly Known as Kryptik:
Right, the LBJ argument. Remind us again of the levers that Obama can use on blue dogs? Remember that, by-and-large, these guys represent districts that are hostile to Obama.
Bulworth
@J.A.F. Rusty Shackleford: Wow, I didn’t realize how easy that would have been.
Public Option!
singfoom
I’m not skeptical of big legislation. I’m skeptical of bullshit legislation that just nibbles around the edges and doesn’t change the underlying dynamics.
Is this bill a step in the right direction? Yes, for sure. Are the blue dog legislative cock blockers that are shooting themselves and the country in the foot because of campaign contributor concerns? Yes.
Is this bill the end all and be all of economic changes? Fuck no. I really hope they do get around the blue dogs and the republicans and get this passed.
Then maybe we can talk about the “American Financial Accountability Act of 2011” that might actually fix our broken corrupt casino of a financial sector.
Not holding my breath though.
singfoom
Help! Stuck in moderation and I don’t know why!
Hawes
I would love to see a three party system in the US. I imagine we’d have to change our election laws at the congressional level, but imagine a Congress with a progressive Democratic Party, a centrist Whig party and a conservative(reactionary) Republican party.
We’d get the same half-assed legislation as now, but more of it!
At least this way, we’d know who to shoot when the time comes.
Plus, this post come Friedman pre-approved.
Mike Goetz
I stand by what I have felt for three years now: I hate Congressional Democrats more than I hate anybody else in Washington.
However, always vote the Democrat in every election. I don’t care what your issues are – always vote for the Democrat in every election.
The alternative is electing the people from The Hills Have Eyes.
Kola Noscopy
So…did fucking political master player Obama even bother to fucking talk to his alleged allies in Congress or otherwise set things up behind the scenes before his melodramatic “you should pass this bill…right now!” speech?
Hmmmm…more deliberate fucking up? Or more spineless incompetence?
It would be racist to ask…
beltane
@The Snarxist Formerly Known as Kryptik: It would appear that our intelligence experts are being trained in stupidity instead. I don’t see how these people will be able to do their job effectively with that level of ignorance. Sucks to be us, I guess.
Steve
There is emo and then there is counter-emo. Using the term “kneecapping” just because some Democrats don’t instantly say “Yes, Mr. President” is counter-emo, and just as mockable as the other kind. Don’t be so overwrought.
Alesis
It understandable that things like this cause frustration, and anyone who thought that aggressive action on the part of the president would be sufficient to pass common-sense laws should certainly learn from this experience.
Nevertheless, wouldn’t it make sense to go beyond thumbing our noses at “the bully pulpit people”. You know avoid using this moment of predictable liberal infighting to provoke even more… well… you know…
Instead maybe we can name names, Blue dogs in safe blue seats shouldn’t exist, what dinosaurs should be up for forced retirement in 2012?
kindness
OK, it took 15 posts before someone accused John (and most the rest of us) as being Obots.
I guess that might be a good thing if it wasn’t so sad.
@ant: Are you trying to continue that ABL thread?!? Damn you ant!
@Kola Noscopy: I think you’re an asshole. How’s that for thoughts?
Kola Noscopy
2778019″>The Snarxist Formerly Known as Kryptik:
Oh my gosh no. Obama can’t do that. He is much too calm and pragmatic.
Dave
@Steve:
When people from your own party start hammering your proposal before the bill has even come to the Senate for review? Yeah, that’s “kneecapping”. It’s also called “Doing the Republicans job for them.”
J.A.F. Rusty Shackleford
@Duckest Fuckingway: Ask not for whom the Duck Fucks. . .:
Yeah, I got the correction in there…but obviously too late.
Wamp! Waaaaaah!
Dennis SGMM
@General Stuck:
Nicely put. I’m beyond disappointment at the way some of the Congressional Dems rush to abandon their own president at the first sign of trouble. Carter, Clinton, and now Obama have had to deal with faithless Blue Dogs who grease the skids for their own party. That’s bad enough in itself. What really chaps my hide is that the sons-of-bitches keep getting re-elected because “They’re the best Democrats that we can elect under the circumstances.” That is probably true but I sure as hell don’t have to like it.
beltane
@General Stuck: This is the problem. Away from the Beltway people are hurting. People who are hurting generally want someone to do SOMETHING or at least create the impression they are doing something. This even applies to people living in the Blue Dogs’ districts, some of whom may not be rich people. I don’t get the Blue Dogs’ strategy here unless they are seeking to make the Republicans seem principled in comparison.
Mike Goetz
@General Stuck:
“But who wants to follow a tribe of backbiting chickenshits?” And who would want to try to lead them either? Why pick up rifle and go over the wall when all you’re going to hear is how you’re not holding the gun correctly?
beltane
@Kola Noscopy: You have the most fitting screen name I’ve ever seen. Congratulations.
singfoom
@Steve: You have a fair point, but calling out the Blue Dogs for acting against the interest of the country and their party (which of course is a point of view) is pretty fair, and I don’t think it’s counter-emo in and of itself.
Landrieu shilling for the oil industry is pretty bad in my opinion. The economy sucks, we need to help create more jobs and get it going. The oil companies are balking at tax increases?
Boo fucking hoo hoo I say. Their profits are in the billions…. For me, when I read shit like Landrieu’s statement. I thought she was supposed to represent her constituents and yes, the oil company employs a lot of her constituents, but when the priorities of the constituency at large conflict with that of the oil companies, which do you think she’ll choose?
From my perspective, that’s someone not doing their job properly….
Duckest Fuckingway: Ask not for whom the Duck Fucks. . .
J.A.F. R S: Saw that. Can’t edit my postt. Pedant out.
Commenting at Balloon Juice since 1937
Heath Shuler is still butt hurt that he is not Nancy Pelosi and never will be.
cleek
@beltane:
it was pretty fitting when he was Trollenschlongen, too.
J.A.F. Rusty Shackleford
@kindness:
That was me!
(fyi, that was my attempt at snark. I’m 100% Obot and I’m even willing to do shit that Bush did if it means Obama’s re-election. I’m not purer-than-thou, I’m a Democrat! And when it comes to politics, I’ll play hardball.)
jl
I made a comment on an econbrowser blog post examining the idea that uncertainty and fear of regulation are responsible for poor economic recovery. Short story is that there is no evidence: private nonresidential investment has been performing better during this recession than 2000 recession.
Link to comment and Econbrowser post:
https://balloon-juice.com/2011/09/15/the-menagerie-speaks/#comment-2778012
And I see the misguided and semi hysterical Cole is making silly comments about the uselessness of the Bully Pulpit.
I disagree. I don’t know what others mean by that term, but I mean the president, and the party, devising and implementing a strategy to communicate its vision for why its viewpoints are correct, and its policies will work.
That is not the same as running around giving loud speeches for a few days and expecting instant success. Which seems to me is what Obama is doing, in kind of panic. And now that pols announce they might not go along with 100 percent of what Obama wants, we have a ‘Bully Pulpit’ Fail announcement.
I think that is silly. This country would be better off today if the reactionaries used the same reasoning. But they didn’t. The plugged away for years, through winning election cycles and losing election cycles, patiently communicating their world view and memes to the country, until their nonsense became habits of thought.
And some people here want to give up after, what, five days? I think it is silly.
kay
@J.A.F. Rusty Shackleford:
They’re not belligerent. Belligerent I could respect.
They’re scared. They’re angling for a position that leaves them the least exposed.
I don’t think it’s going to work. It’s not the time for that. I’d just go all-in on Obama at this point, if I were them. He’s not polling very well, but he polls a hell of a lot better than they do.
NonyNony
@General Stuck:
I’ve highlighted the relevant word here. “Many”.
Was Bob Casey begging for a comprehensive jobs bill? I didn’t see it.
Was Mary Landrieu begging for a jobs bill paid for by increasing taxes on oil companies? Doubtful.
This is why Obama took the approach with health care reform that he did – he’s got a Senate full of prima donas who have their own bank of special interests that they’re catering to and he has to individually stroke each ego just enough to get them to agree with him. This is also why the ACA was disappointing in the ways it was disappointing – he had to go stroke a bunch of egos and sometimes that meant giving up things just to get them on board in the first place even BEFORE he could negotiate with the Republicans.
Zifnab
@J.A.F. Rusty Shackleford:
These are all great tricks in theory, but they only work so often. You can’t serve the same plum up repeatedly, or threaten with the same stick, without the threats losing their edge.
What Digby doesn’t address is that Lieberman may have already been bribed with his committee seat simply to keep him from defecting from the get-go (and that his fifth vote was vital in keeping the Senate in hand back in ’06, which gave Reid committee authority to begin with). Lincoln may have already been offered campaign assistance or an Administration post, and simply received superior offers from private firms. And as for Nelson, I think the only reason he came within fifty miles of the ACA to begin with was a cherry like the Nebraska Compromise.
Atkins assumes Obama never played his cards simply because “Obama swings vote by offering plum job / threatening committee assignment!” wasn’t a front page headline in a major newspaper. A lot of backroom deals get made in the Senate, and assuming the White House administration was simply lazy or sloppy in doling out carrots and swinging sticks is poor thinking when you’ve already recognized them doling out carrots and swinging sticks in other instances.
TooManyJens
McClatchy reports that people aren’t calling Congress to push for the jobs bill. Time to organize another “Pass the Damn Bill” push?
cleek
@jl:
yeah, good luck with that. the Dems can’t even agree to lift their feet out of the way when their ostensible leader tries to lead them into battle.
he’s been talking about this stuff for months and months, in speeches all across the country. nobody in his party paid attention to him. they just complained he wasn’t doing what he was doing, or wasn’t doing it loud enough. now he’s done it big and loud and his party complains that he’s too loud, too late.
liberals are worthless in a fight. all they care about is maintaining their right to complain that the leader is failing to do exactly what they’d do if they were in charge.
One of the idiots
You’re (purposely) misrepresenting the bully pulpit argument, as least as I understand it.
Whether or not Obama uses it, the results will be roughly the same. And so, since he ran on progressive ideas, he ought to at least do his part to keep them alive in the consciousness of the country.
Nobody (except) you thinks it’s going to magically pass legislation.
beltane
@kay: Yep, the Blue Dogs reek of timidity and cowardice, not belligerence. Cowardice doesn’t sell in the best of times, so why they think it will sell when times are bad is a mystery to me. If the Republicans are the bullies who pick on the disabled kid, the Blue Dogs are the low-ranking children who shun the disabled kid because they are afraid of getting picked on themselves.
General Stuck
@NonyNony:
Good comment. I agree fully with what you wrote.
cleek
@TooManyJens:
David Price, my rep, reports:
of course, Obama visited this district yesterday.
Villago Delenda Est
I’m really getting tired of all this “support the dear leader, or else shit” from members of my own party.
DeFazio makes a good point. So you lump him in with blue dog Schuler and oil whore Landrieu.
DeFazio has been making good points about deficiencies in the “let’s take care of the banksters” crowd on Obama’s economic team for some time now. Particularly their disdain for infrastructure investment as opposed to covering the bets of the assholes in the Wall Street ca$ino.
kay
@beltane:
I love when Congress shows it’s a separate branch. I’m a big booster! Really!
But. For their own survival, at this time, they should quit screwing around.
People don’t think they’re working at this job. I think they would do well to stay behind the scenes completely, and look busy :)
How is this going to help them? Putting aside Obama or the the Democratic Party, how does this bitching and second-guessing help them?
justawriter
Of course it would be gauche of me to point out that had Obama and other incrementalists supported supported the Democratic nominee in the Connecticut election in 2006, we probably wouldn’t have Liarman as a pain in the but for the last five years. Dave Atkins over at Digby’s Place has a list of other steps Obama, Reid and Pelosi could have taken to mute the blue dogs and their ilk. Note that none of these are new ideas but are things that leaders willing to play hardball did in the past.
grandpajohn
@kay:
Yes, CYA, because the only thing that matters is getting re-elected so they can continue to ride that congressional gravy train and all its perks and bribes. Representing the people who elected them is not part of their job description, representing those big bucks guys who bought them is.
cleek
could somebody tell me when “no tax decreases, ever!” became lefty dogma ?
it’s such a weird position to take. on one hand, the idea that we need to increase revenues (now!) completely synchronizes with the right’s insistence that the deficit is going to murder us all in our sleep. and on the other hand, it completely synchronizes with the right’s insistence that the left is nothing but a bunch of tax-and-spenders.
if possible, i’d like to file a formal complaint with the Lefty Dogma Committee about this. when are they meeting next?
Jim in Chicago
The time to use the Bully Pulpit was after winning in a landslide in 2008. THAT’s when Obama could have exerted real pressure on the douchnozzles in both Parties to get a sufficiently large stimulus passed so we had a decent economy going into the next election and his popularity would stay high. He could have called on the millions of people who joined the campaign on line to inundate their representatives.
Instead, the first time he called on people to contact their reps, what was it for?: the shitty debt reduction deal, after his popularity was already in the toilet. Brilliant.
For comparison, look at what Bush was able to do following the 9/11 attack despite his extremely poor approval ratings right before he (by not paying attention to the warnings) let our country be attacked.
Nom de Plume
@TooManyJens:
That article quotes, like, three Republican offices.
beltane
@kay: It’s not like they’re coming up with a viable alternative plan. That would require committing to something, which they are too terrified to ever do. One does not have to be particularly cynical to see that these so-called Democrats don’t want to do a single damn thing that might jeopardize their first-class seat on the gravy train.
Emma
@Kola Noscopy: Is your name descriptive or wishful? Inquiring minds…
Enhanced Voting Techniques
@kay:
Yes, it’s kind of hard to complain about the presidents grabbing more and more power when Congress can’t even handle basic budget issues. The instant explosive pants crapping battles to the death over principle when Congress has to take up basic issues is really something else.
Taobhan
This shows why we are truly screwed as a nation and a society: there is no organized opposition to the insanity running rampant in the country. How can this ever have a good outcome?
J.A.F. Rusty Shackleford
@Villago Delenda Est:
You’re right, I can only imagine how taxing this is for someone as pure as you. We really should take every opportunity to slag the President now because if we wait he might not be re-elected and then who will be left to disappoint us true, pure liberals?
Hillary is 45 in 2012!
(That’s how it works, right? Obama disappoints us for not being the black LBJ, we repeatedly and incessantly point out how disappointed we are which helps depress Democratic voter turnout and then Hillary is elected, right?)
beltane
@Taobhan: The insanity is running rampant in most countries right now. The only exception seems to be Denamrk, where the voters are taking a hard-turn to the left and rejecting the austerity madness that surrounds them.
Emma
@cleek: liberals are worthless in a fight. all they care about is maintaining their right to complain that the leader is failing to do exactly what they’d do if they were in charge.
I’m beginning to believe that this is the right view of things. Sigh…
J.A.F. Rusty Shackleford
@kay:
It proves to the Obots how much purer-than-thou we true, liberal Democrats are. If they weren’t so busy having sex with their lifesize Obama sex dolls the Obots might realize this. But, alas, they are so they won’t.
Hillary is 45 in 2012!
CaffinatedOne
@Bob Ewing:
Exactly! I’m sick of this “bully pulpit” strawman argument. I don’t believe that anyone expects that Obama can by sheer force of will make Democrats all fall into line. It’s that he’s adopted and indeed reinforced the narrative framework that underlies the republican/blue dog arguments.
If the deficit is the “biggest problem facing us” and “business confidence” is what’s holding back the recovery, then it makes these clown’s arguments easy. In short, since even Obama has adopted the republican economic arguments, so now we’re just arguing over the details.
beltane
This is OT, but fits in with today’s general bullshitfest:http://www.guardian.co.uk/business/2011/sep/15/world-banks-flood-markets-with-dollars
Kola Noscopy
@kindness:
Hows’ that? Stupid of course. So your name is added to the long Obot/BJ list of tools whose opinions matters not a whit, but which are ripe for frequent mocking.
Thank you for letting me know.
Kola Noscopy
@kindness:
Hows’ that? Stupid of course. So your name is added to the long Obot/BJ list of tools whose opinions matters not a whit, but which are ripe for frequent mocking.
Thank you for letting me know.
jwb
@Bob Ewing: Actually, if you look at the ratings, people don’t change the channel when Obama speaks. Whether they pay attention to what he says, I don’t know, but they are certainly not tuning him in any more or less than they have at other times in his administration.
kay
@J.A.F. Rusty Shackleford:
Hah! Stop it. I like Hillary. She’s likeable. Enough.
We have a conservative magistrate here who loves politics. Oddly, he loves Democratic politics. He was a Reagan delegate! That’s his claim to fame.
He advises me on national strategy. He’s like: “put her in as VP. Jeez. Do I have to tell you everything?”
Like I’m just moving pieces on a chessboard, here from my catbird seat in rural Ohio :)
Kola Noscopy
@beltane:
Thank you, poor thing.
Obot fee fees hurt?
TooManyJens
@TooManyJens: True, although McClatchey’s generally a pretty good news source so I tend to trust their take on things more than, say, the NYT or CNN. What I do know is that the switchboard isn’t melting down like it was during the debt ceiling fight, and that’s what needs to happen. We need to step up our game.
Kola Noscopy
@J.A.F. Rusty Shackleford:
Then why in living hell do you support Obama the kind and gentle pragmatist?
cleek
@CaffinatedOne:
are those direct quotes from Obama ? do you have a link to the transcript ?
Samara Morgan
you know Cole…ive been on a vengenance kick lately….i watch a lot of Asian revenge genre…Oldboy is a classic…….well…there is this netflix movie i saw last night that i wish you would watch.
its called I Saw the Devil.
Korean.
You see…liberals have no hostages.
The power distribution in contemporary America favors white christian conservatives.
All they have to do is slaughter the poor, the dark-skinned, the children, weak, the non-christian.
we cant win until the demographic timer tips the scales.
And you give front page privs to glibertarians in the name of discussion and favor Bush Doctrine/COIN interventionism.
So quit whing.
You baked this failcake, and havent stopped frosting it with kumbayah bulshytt frosting.
28 Percent
Harry Reid is trying to protect his Senate colleagues in their re-election bids by handing the incumbent president from his own party a major jobs fail one year before the election. That is so fucked up, it’s stunning.
Clue to Reid: a strong president from your party is an asset, even if his wins include bits and pieces that might create discord for individual Senators. If you make your president look weak, you lose too.
Anyway, it isn’t the bully pulpit that Obama’s missing. What’s missing is that he wasn’t in politics, especially national politics, long enough before taking office to have been in a position to take over the party machinery. If he was in control of some DNC purse strings those Senators particularly wanted to pluck, you’d better believe they’d snap to attention and deliver for him.
B W Smith
@Jim in Chicago: I don’t usually correct folks, but you are wrong about Bush’s popularity prior to 9/11. It was around 55% where it had been for months. Which was not bad considering the outcome of the election. Yes, his popularity went up after the attacks but I think that had more to do with fear than him yapping on a bullhorn at ground zero.
les
@J.A.F. Rusty Shackleford:
Here, Rusty, Lawyers Guns & Money helps explain how stupid your position is. Atkins’ “support” for you lacks reason, evidence, logic and sense. A perfect fit.
TooManyJens
@Nom de Plume: I replied to myself up in #83, like a dumbass, but that was supposed to be a reply to you.
catclub
@Suffern ACE: The TARP bill had TWO votes in about a week for a $750B payout. So if there is sufficient panic, things can happen very fast. But in those cases (potential) blame is well spread around.
In almost all other cases, they system has dozens of roadblocks to slow down change. I used to think this was a good idea.
TooManyJens
@28 Percent:
This rings true to me, too. This is the sole way in which I think Hillary Clinton would have been more effective.
beltane
@Samara Morgan: Liberals never have hostages, leftists have hostages. Decades of red-baiting obliterated the Left from American soil, and all that remains are timid liberals and whiny progressives. Until someone comes along with enough balls to demonize the heretical, bastardized “Christians” that make up the Republican base, there will not be any change for the better no matter what the demographic timer says.
The Tragically Flip
Well John, you win none of the fights you don’t engage in.
At least Obama is fighting for something that would actually help the economy. We’ve had too many instances where the policy was bad, and the politics sucked too.
I’ve never thought the “bully pulpit” was 100% effective, but neither do I buy the “powerless president” thesis that became all the rage around mid 2009. Can the President get a bill passed that 100% of congress opposes? Of course not. Can he put a bill over the top that is a few votes shy of passing? Probably yes.
We may never really resolve whether Obama used all the tools in his toolbox to pass things like this, or the public option (which contrary to many assertions, there was majority support in the Senate). Who can know what he says in back rooms, what threats he makes, how hard he pushes?
At least the national conversation is about a jobs bill instead of a fresh round of contrived cultural grievance bullshit from the fever swamps (lipreadinggate!) or the VSPs pushing for austerity.
Belafon (formerly anonevent)
@NonyNony: We made it to comment 12.
kwAwk
Look at the bright side. At least the pundocracy is giving Obama credit for turning the conversation to jobs.
And he finally seems like he’s serious about doing something about the economy. He may fail in Congress but this’ll pay dividends down the road.
kay
@TooManyJens:
I agree. I also think they’re resistant to following him, because a lot of it depends on their amorphous feeling of “knowing” someone. I heard that over and over during the primary. “We know her”.
I think she would have had more resilient Party support when it got tough (and it would have gotten tough), simply based on years and years of relationships.
At the end of the day, though, whatever the reasons, I think it’s stupid and self-destructive to head off on some path distinct from his path. This is their work, and they’re supposed to approach it like work.
Chris Grrr™
This post fills me with amazement that President Obama would even want to run for reelection. Somehow it just highlights the incredible amount of shit he’s put up with…
Belafon (formerly anonevent)
@TooManyJens: I believe it’s always time to make one of those pushes. Tim, where are you?
Belafon (formerly anonevent)
@kay:
I doubt it. She’s a female Democrat. A Democratic vagina in charge in the White House would have been just as good a reason to ignore her as Obama’s ability to absorb sunlight. Anyway, all of those connections you’re talking about are Bill’s, and she would have needed to keep him separate from her to prevent the appearance of Bill’s third term.
beltane
@Belafon (formerly anonevent): The Clintons were not universally loved by their party. In fact, many Congressional Democrats felt betrayed by them and would have been happy to reciprocate in kind. There is a reason Hillary did not win the nomination, and that reason would not have vanished in a Clinton/Bayh administration.
J.A.F. Rusty Shackleford
@les:
Thanks for the encouragement, Les. You really know how to lift a snarkers’ spirit. It’s posts like this that make me think that I may one day be worthy to carry DougJ’s jock.
Montysano
Mrs. Monty, who put in a lot of hours to get Obama elected in 2008, announced last night that “I’m done with him. Won’t work for him. Won’t vote.”
The reason: the Keystone Pipeline. Now, I agree that the pipeline is a bad idea, mostly because it’s built to exploit Alberta’s tar sands. But sweet Jeebus, it’s not the hill I’m going to die on, giving Perry/Bachmann 2012 a leg up in the process.
JWL
Cole: If you would only wipe the wax out of your ears and clean your reading glasses once in a while, you might understand that most democratic criticism of Obama does not involve his lack of rhetorical belligerency.
kindness
@Kola Noscopy(78): Dude….
@Kola Noscopy(79): Do I detect Cheetos stains on your fingers and keyboard? Is you mothers basement that dark that your greasy fingers slip & you double post inanity?
I mean you are making all my points for me.
The Moar You Know
@beltane: Damn straight. I doubt there are more than a couple of thousand full-throated, “throw a punch at a Pinkerton” type leftists left in this entire country. My great-uncle was one of them, back in the day, a union organizer whose favorite tool was a squad of angry patriots armed with lead pipes and dynamite. He knew that you were never going to get better working conditions or better pay out of a business owner by asking nicely.
It would be a race between today’s homicidal right and today’s craven left to see who could get to a telephone first and rat such a man out today.
WaterGirl
“Afternoon Speed Read”, compliments of Politico 44:
A media-fixated Solyndra
POLITICO | DARREN SAMUELSOHN
A Democratic Party of ‘self-destruction’
FireDogLake | DAVID DAYEN
Frustrated Dems look to primary
The Hill | MOLLY K. HOOPER
Barack Obama’s blue-state blues
POLITICO | EDWARD-ISAAC DOVERE
Some Democrats balk at jobs bill
New York Times | JENNIFER STEINHAUER
Obama sinking in North Carolina
Los Angeles Times | PETER NICHOLAS
I don’t plan to click on any of them – I’m pretty sure I know what they say. Bad news for Obama, BE. VERY. WORRIED.
So much can change in a year, let’s try not to slit our collective throats just yet…
Edit: Oh, and right after I pressed submit, I got an email from James Carville. Obana needs to panic and FIRE. PEOPLE. RIGHT. NOW. Lots of people. geez
Cat Lady
@Montysano:
Oh fer fuck’s sake. What is up with liberals? “I’m going to take myself out of the game so it can be played without me, then whine about losing and blame Obama.” The stupid, it burns.
OzoneR
@The Snarxist Formerly Known as Kryptik:
they won elections in districts he didn’t, why would they listen to anything he says?
OzoneR
@Montysano:
Clearly people are concerned about jobs.
ThatLeftTurnInABQ
@28 Percent:
I think you are right on the money about Obama’s lack of leverage and that the rapidity with which he came up thru the ranks contributing to his political weakness, but the sad part is that today no Democratic president is going to have the sort of intra-party leverage that FDR and LBJ enjoyed. And even they had failures in this area; for example in the 1936 election FDR tried to put the squeeze on a couple of the most conservative Democratic Senators and got his ass kicked for his trouble. Senators today are not nearly as dependent on the national party for fundraising as they used to be because of the direct fundraising techniques which have been developed since then, and the Citizens United decision has made this situation worse rather than better.
ETA: Dem Senators were if anything even worse in their treatment of Clinton, Carter, JFK and Truman. Really FDR and LBJ were the only Dem presidents in the last 80 years to get much traction with Dems in the Senate, and both of them look very much like special cases due to FDR’s commanding position in the party and LBJ’s prior history as the Senate Majority Leader who rewrote the customary rules in that chamber during the 1950s.
kay
@Belafon (formerly anonevent):
I don’t agree with that. I think she was active for 30 years, and a force of her own. I don’t think she made any bones about it as an advantage, either, in the primary. That’s what all that “pulling the levers of power” was about. She was talking about relationships.
I also don’t think the media would have been as hostile to her as they were in Bill’s term(s). They didn’t “know her” then, but they do now. Time passes.
She wasn’t frozen in time between Bill’s Presidency and 2008. She was a legit DC insider, for years. Understand, that isn’t an indictment. I don’t think the Hillary Clinton who came from Arkansas years ago is in any way the Hillary Clinton who was in the Senate, and all the speculation on how she would have been treated is based on 1994. Again, time passes, and she didn’t stand still.
J.A.F. Rusty Shackleford
@Cat Lady:
You Obots just don’t get it, do you? True, pure liberals like myself need to be able to put a little distance between us and the “do anything to get a Democrat elected even if it means supporting an inadequate black man” Obots because if our purity is compromised society will collapse. We also need to be just a step further than arms-length away to help protect us when we start with our “told you so’s – shoulda elected Hillary” after NoBama loses.
Hillary is 45 in 2012!
CaffinatedOne
@cleek:
The entire foundation of the “slash our way to prosperity” (that’s not a direct quite, btw) ethos is that by fixing the deficit, that we’ll improve business confidence, which will get them hiring. Of course, there’s no evidence for that, and quite a bit that indicates the opposite.
For the latter, there’s a whole speech given as to why addressing the deficit is so important (to him).
Suffern ACE
@beltane: Belgium apparently is doing o.k. too by simply going without the elected government part of the democracy. Don’t know how long it will last, but at some point, maybe King Albert will just declare the country a monarchy again.
uptown
Isn’t Pres. Obama’s latest deficit plan due out any day now? That’s when he’ll use his bully pulpit and political arm twisting – for the thing he really believes in.
Dollared
@Hawes: Try it once. You think the Republicans will take Mary Landrieu when they can have a their own guy? Puhleeze.
kay
@Belafon (formerly anonevent):
I have to say, too, I don’t think the two things are at all the same. Clinton would have faced a unique situation as the first female President, and Obama faces a unique situation as the first AA President. I think that comparison is too easy. I don’t think you have to look any further than the fact the Clinton campaign regularly referenced gender bias, and the Obama campaign had to run like hell from any direct association with raising racial bias. Why was that? One wasn’t a campaign-killer, and the other would have been. Why? One is hotter than the other. More charged. More risky. I just think that’s fact.
OzoneR
@Dollared:
I don’t think she cares either way, I think she cares that she is seen as opposing Obama, whether as a Democrat or as a Republican
Dollared
@kay: I am deeeeeeeeeeply disappointed in Obama, but I entertain no illusions that Hillary would have been any better. First of all, she would have experienced no media honeymoon whatsoever. Second, she has much less likeability, Obama’s only remaining asset. Third, the sexism factor would have been just as vicious – and just as blessed by the over-55 whites nationwide – as Obama has experienced. Fourth, she would have been no more aggressive than Obama in her approach to the economy – she is just as much a tool of Wall Street and the center of the corporate spectrum.
So what would have been better with Hillary?
OzoneR
@kay:
There are more women than black people.
PWL
Sorry, but I think Obama did bring this on himself.
Rather than acting as a bold and decisive leader and advancing progressive interests,Obama spent too much time temporizing, taking half-measures, seeking “bipartisanship” and a “grand bargain,” with people who weren’t interested in either, which Obama apparently never figured out.
So the thing is that while Obama thought he was playing brilliant eleventy-dimensional chess with the Repubs, he was actually busy giving in, giving up, and selling out. Ultimately, Obama looks like a wimp, and a loser. Let’s face it–all his “bipartisanship” has backfired on him-badly, especially, since things got worse, not better, after all his “compromising.” .
So Dems, seeing which the wind is blowing, are running for their political lives–as far away from Obama, as fast as they can. Why should they tie their political futures to someone with a track record of caving in,letting his side down, and letting the Repubs capture the debate? Weakness doesn’t sell well in politics, which after all, is about power and the judicious use of same.
Had Obama made more like FDR (or even like Slick Willy, when he faced Newt down)this wouldn’t be happening to him. Strength is what pols respect, not “turn the other cheek,” and “please sir, may I have another.”
FlipYrWhig
@CaffinatedOne: It _is_ important to address the deficit. Over the long term. Which is what Obama always discusses. It is also important to jump-start the economy. Over the short term. Which is what Obama always discusses.
Unfortunately, he’s hobbled in pursuing these things because a big chunk of elected Democrats disagree with him (about “government spending”) and refuse to play along. And they’re pretty confident that poking a thumb in the eye of the president who isn’t particularly popular in their district can’t possibly hurt their standing.
So, here we are. He really doesn’t have leverage over these Democrats, and he has absolutely no leverage over Republicans. The only thing that stands to bring them around is their consciences.
Oh, shit.
OzoneR
@PWL: Yeah Heath Shuler would totally respect the President if he just fought for a $2 trillion stimulus, a WPA, and single payer healthcare
The sad thing is you’re serious.
kay
@Dollared:
As I said, I don’t agree with that. I am one of the people who is surprised and saddened by how deep racial animus goes. It’s been a learning experience for me, and I’m a little slow, but I’m getting it.
I’m not dismissing what Clinton would have faced. I just no longer believe that comparison is apt. I did, once, but I don’t anymore.
FlipYrWhig
@PWL:
He’s trying to cajole Congressional _Democrats_. Not Republicans. But then Congressional Democrats repeatedly stab him in the back, starting with the people who wanted less of a stimulus and then tried their damnedest to ruin HCR. That’s where blame resides. And it has all along. And when you let those fuckers off the hook, you make it _more_ possible for them to get away with doing it again the next time, only more gleefully.
Kola Noscopy
@Chris Grrr™:
Let’s hope for the good of the country that he opts out.
FlipYrWhig
@PWL:
Bill Clinton, who bragged about deficit reduction, ending welfare as we know it, free trade, deregulation, and school uniforms, is only known for “facing down” Republicans by people who were children during his presidency.
kay
@FlipYrWhig:
Still brags about deficit reduction. Makes statements, now, advocating deficit reduction. I don’t even recognize this mythical Bill Clinton, and the myth is inexplicable, because he’s still around and he talks constantly. I could see it if he was actually gone, but he speaks! All the time!
WereBear
And yet… and yet… but still…
Show me a national leader who has a better plan and is out there backing it?
We whine about how the Republicans worship strength… and yet who has it right now? Their Nomination Lineup is straight out of the Blackadder Looney Party episode, the Congressional leaders just about crashed the world’s economy, and their most widely quoted bits from the recent debates is how bloodthirsty they are.
Nobody’s happy; but by comparison? WE LOOK LIKE CHURCHILL.
It may be viewed as a leaky and inadequate lifeboat; but it’s better than the anchor the Republicans are offering.
Micheline
@Kola Noscopy:
F-off you troll
kindness
Really Micheline…..What the fuck is up with all the Trolls?
Yea, some of you are firebaggers and not trolls, just the liberal version of using magnifying glass on ants with your fellow less dogmatic progressives here on Balloon Juice.’
What would I prefer? That everyone makes a case for their positions rather than just flame others for the sake of raising everyone’s blood pressure. I mean really, do you jack offs get off on this shit? Are you subjecting us to your fetishes? You know how wrong that is? Consenting adults, not everyone I can spew and hit it with….DAMN!!!
fuckwit
That’s it.
WE HAVE BECOME WEIMAR GERMANY. That is what we are now. Democracy has failed. American democracy has been rendered impotent, contemptible, and unable to solve even the simplest and most obvious problems of the people. Just like Weimar was. The economy is crashing and will continue to get worse.
The next step is dictatorship. It will not be a “progressive” one, but it will be “populist” in the right-wing sense: based on religion, race, and militarism.
The people will welcome the dictatorship, because democracy has been discredited as being a waste of time and money, ineffective, and pointless.
That is what the Rethugs are doing. ON PURPOSE, I assert, and with full knowledge of what they are doing.
Villago Delenda Est
@J.A.F. Rusty Shackleford:
So, rather than address DeFazio’s specific criticism, you go for the “Villago must be a PUMA!” angle.
For your information, dickweed, I first supported Edwards, and then supported Obama.
But the fact is, Obama has been operating under the absolutely stupid assumption that he can actually work with vermin like McConnel who have said, publically, that their goal is to sabotage him every fucking chance they had.
Now Obama’s in a situation where he can’t get the House to go along with anything (totally unlike 2009-2011, where the House was passing legislation left and right only to see it die in the Senate, thanks to the spinless wonder that is Harry Reid) and all he can do is paint them as obstructionists, but yet he backs off from even that, what with all this fail out the gate “grand bargain” bullshit, and buying into the Teabagger “it’s the deficit, stupid” meme that didn’t exist when the drunken deserting coward was borrowing against everyone’s great-grandchildren’s VISA to pay for his fucking illegal war in Iraq.
OzoneR
@Villago Delenda Est:
now who’s using right wing talking points
PGFan
Obama took a critically important first step in acknowledging the need to deal with “main street’s” economy. He took a second critically important step, which was developing and presenting a solid (if limited) proposal. His third critical step was refusing (so far) to undermine his own proposal.
Now the usual suspects (as John correctly predicted) are doing their usual Blue Dog undermine-from-the-Dem-side dance. So Obama is at the fourth critical point: what does he do now? I agree with other posters who have suggested he take these chumps aside privately and make clear to them that they will pay a price if they persist in their trouble-making. Because the thing is, if he doesn’t get some kind of handle on them, they will raise their ugly heads again and again. They are a problem that won’t go away.
If he doesn’t assert himself and succeed he will be permanently weakened. If he allows himself to start backpedaling, he will be permanently weakened. This is what politics is: it’s perception. He has to make the repubs and the Blue Dogs blink first.
He’s already caused a few Repub blinks, just by holding strong literally for a few days. But they, of course, are going to test him to see if this is for real or just a token effort. This IS the critical time. He has to stay strong. If he does, he can begin to shift the dynamic in Washington. He has to show the public that he is, in fact, capable of mounting and sustaining a fight.
FlipYrWhig
@Villago Delenda Est:
No, he’s been operating under the assumption that he can actually work with vermin like Ben Nelson, who thinks like a Republican and makes demands to move big-ticket items rightwards ideologically and to cut their costs. And if he doesn’t kiss their butts, he doesn’t even get _his own party_’s support. Around the blogosphere, this is seen as capitulating to Republicans. But it’s not Republicans. It’s Democrats who think like Republicans and have Republicans’ ideological tendencies, such as fetishizing spending cuts and balanced budgets, and valuing the private sector over the public one. _That’s_ where all the worst ugliness happens. Repeatedly. Both Nelsons, Landrieu, McCaskill, Webb, Warner, Carper, Manchin, Lieberman, Pryor, Tester, Baucus, Feinstein, Bennet, Coons, and the list goes on.
These are not liberal firebrands. They are not moved by liberal firebrand arguments. Every time Obama wants to do something slightly left of center, he has to run that gauntlet. Accordingly, everything that comes out the other end of the sausage factory has been pushed to the right.
That’s the issue. That’s what produces liberal frustration.
Everything else is rhetoric about coming together and finding common ground that no one believes but is de rigeur in politics, because naive voters still want to believe that how legislation gets passed involves haggling out differences and meeting somewhere in the middle. No politician believes that. They just have to pretend.
Mr Furious
@Zifnab: What Asskins also fails to address is the fact that zeroing out Connecticut means exactly jack shit to Joe Lieberman, who is never running again. Or that offering plum Administration jobs to soon-to-be unemployed Senators are worthless when that same Senator can turn to any number of corporate benefactors for a job that pays significantly more, demands much less work, and is theirs beyond the next election if they want it.
Leverage. How the fuck does it work?
cleek
@FlipYrWhig:
too complicated. easier to just project all that hate onto Obama.
all that warm, righteous, tingly hate.
mmm.
hate.
Villago Delenda Est
@OzoneR:
Yet, here Obama is paying fucking attention to the supposed crisis of the deficit which is the NOMINAL reason for the teabagger movement to exist. Which wasn’t actually their concern until 8PM PST 4 November 2008. Before that time and date, according to Dick “Lord Voldemort was a wussy!” Cheney, Ronald Reagan proved that deficits don’t matter. Unless a Democrat is in the White House, of course. Then they’re the most important fucking thing in the world.
Buy into the wingnut meme, by all means. Obama seems to have done so.
FormerSwingVoter
A “Call Your Fucking Senators” thread would be welcome. I can guarantee part of the pushback from ConservaDems is based on the constant, continual stream of RedState-reading, Rush-listening callers.
FlipYrWhig
@Villago Delenda Est: Senate Democrats _really do care_ about the deficit. When Obama proposes things, if they like them at all they insist that they be paid for (ETA: but not with new taxes!), and if they don’t like them they insist that we can’t afford them. They’re the ones who “buy into the wingnut meme, by all means.” Take it up with them.
cleek
@Villago Delenda Est:
i love this idea that acting on a situation is verboten if your political enemy supports it.
today’s liberalism: the opposite of whatever the GOP is for, updated daily.
fits on a bumper sticker.
Samara Morgan
@beltane: they are just as christian as khalid is muslim.
they deny Christ, khalid denies the Quran.
and the Demographic Singularity will get them in the end.
its not just local to amerikkka ….its global.
Taobhan
@beltane (#76.):
Yes, I’ve noticed the rest of the world has gone crazy too. I wonder if we’re seeing the beginnings of one of those cataclysmic periods in human history that sets civilization back several hundred years. Good for the Danes, who seem to have figured things out – I wish them luck in keeping their country intact.
Loviatar
.
You know what this reminds me of, the Stimulus Plan. There were those in the know (Paul Krugman) who disliked the President’s stimulus plan because it was too small and would not do the the job thereby disqualifying future stimulus plans. They also said that the Republicans and those who wanted it too fail would say we tried it and it doesn’t work, so lets never do it again.
Well the President just tried a Bully Pulpit that was too little and too late, those that wanted it to fail (Obots) are now saying, see we tried it and it failed, so lets never do it again. How is this any different from the Republicans.
cleek
@Loviatar:
why would “Obots” (which i assume means knee-jerk supporters of everything Obama does) want him to fail at anything ?
Sasha
If both Republicans and Democrats have issues with it, then Obama’s proposal must be perfectly bipartisan and should pass immediately.
OzoneR
@Loviatar:
Because wanting it to fail and warning that it would fail are two completely different things.
It would be nice if the bully pulpit work, and I suspect if Obama was named John Morris, was the former Governor of South Carolina and was a Navy SEAL, it might actually work, but Obama being Obama, it does not.
Loviatar
@cleek:
Maybe they want him to fail on this one issue (his misuse of the Bully Pulpit) so they can refute the fact that he hasn’t done a good job of communicating his message.
But hey, why don’t you tell me why John and the Obots seem hell bent on convincing the rest of us that the Bully Pulpit doesn’t work.
OzoneR
@Villago Delenda Est:
which, of course, is why he’s been pushing for tax hikes on the rich and infrastructure spending.
OzoneR
@Loviatar:
because it doesn’t work
FlipYrWhig
@Loviatar: Yes, it reminds me of the Stimulus Plan too, in that the president can only pass what the senate decides it’s willing to accept, and yet for some reason there are hundreds of would-be “progressives” who nitpick to death how Obama totally should have tried harder to do… something… that would have been so convincing it would scare the Senate into doing what Obama wanted instead of what they wanted. Then, as now, it’s a total fantasy.
FlipYrWhig
@Loviatar:
Because it self-evidently doesn’t fucking work, if what you mean by “work” is “make politicians vote for what Obama wants if they don’t already want it themselves.” It doesn’t happen, and won’t.
What it _can_ work to do is to spread the word about what Obama _wants to do_ and _would do_. Which is what the critics say they want.
But then when what Obama can get ends up being less than what he wants — which is pretty much by definition what has to happen — the critics pule and moan about how he still didn’t do it right, because he should have gotten more.
It’s bullshit, and every time progressives reason this way, it kills more brain cells, because of how many people bang their own heads into a brick wall in utter exasperation.
Kane
The next time someone argues that President Obama should have fought harder and used his bully pulpit to achieve more liberal policies, point to this occasion as Exhibit A as to why he didn’t. Obama understands the make-up of his party better than most critics do.
Loviatar
@OzoneR: / @FlipYrWhig:
So, the President waits until the 3rd year of his term to address the jobs aspect of the economy and its self evident that it doesn’t work. riiiight.
Loviatar
Exhibit A of my point. Well the President just tried a Bully Pulpit that was too little and too late, those that wanted it to fail (Obots) are now saying, see we tried it and it failed, so lets never do it again.
OzoneR
@Loviatar:
No, he did it in his first year too, when he pushed for the stimulus, high-speed rail and green energy jobs, and it didn’t work then either.
Then he did it for ending the tax cuts on the rich last year, and it didn’t work either
and now he’s proving for the umpteenth time that it doesn’t work.
The “too little, too late” excuse is really a baffling one. You just won’t accept it doesn’t work, despite the fact that there’s no evidence it ever did for a Democrat, will you?
cleek
@Loviatar:
nobody wanted it to fail.
@Loviatar:
he actually started our addressing jobs before he was even inaugurated. he was working with Bush and Congress on the auto bailouts and the stimulus before he even took office. and he’s been trying all kinds of things ever since. the problem is that he hasn’t been able to get anything through Congress, not that he hasn’t been out there stumping for these things.
Villago Delenda Est
@OzoneR:
Which explains why he fought so hard to allow the Bush tax cuts to expire on schedule.
cleek
@Villago Delenda Est:
this is baffling. do you not remember that he traded that away for some really good things?
he got the fucking repeal of DADT out that deal!
Kane
@Loviatar:
Now why would “Obots” want Obama to fail on anything? The very definition of “Obots” are those wanting Obama to succeed at all things. The notion that “Obots” are more enamored with the thought of defeating the bully pulpit argument than they are with wanting Obama to succeed makes no sense.
socratic_me
I love that the President stumps hard for a week about jobs instead of the deficit and everybody doesn’t immediately jump in line, so the response is “see, the bully pulpit is a myth and you should just suck on whatever crap is served you” instead of “give your congress-critters hell and let’s push this thing through!” It is like reverse-firebagger stupidity. Don’t actually do a damn thing to help. Just complain about how the rest of the liberals are idiots for thinking there might be another way to do business.
FlipYrWhig
@Loviatar: Think back a ways, all the way to 2009. If you don’t remember several very expensive, very dramatic things Obama did for the sake of “jobs,” you’re hopeless.
@socratic_me:
Who is saying that? What it certainly proves to _some_ degree is that even when Obama does everything exactly in accordance with his “left” critics’ wishes, a big chunk of the DEMOCRATIC party still has the knives out. And, for that reason, the “left” critics should probably keep in mind that the presence or absence of The Bully Pulpit doesn’t really accomplish fuck-all in terms of sidelining conservative Democrats, who are, and always have been, the biggest strategic problem in Obama’s efforts. You don’t have to like it, but you do have to keep it in mind, because IT ALWAYS HAPPENS.
Cat Lady
@socratic_me:
LIKE WHAT? What the fuck is going to turn Lieberman, Landrieu, Nelson, Manchin, McCaskill et al. into progressive heroes? WHAT? They’re in red states, except for Lieberman who represents Israel. I just don’t understand why the purity progressives are so fucking stupid about this. It’s clear it’s personal and emotional, and not political. Seriously, it’s disturbing.
hrprogressive
Maybe, just maybe, if Obama stopped using the phrase “Some in my own party” when he wants to hippie punch and instead turned it around on the fucking blue dogs, maybe we’d get something done.
“Some in my party are from oil rich states. To achieve shared sacrifice, we must ask the oil companies to pay their fair share, since they are making billions in profits as it is”
Maybe those fucks would stop being so sanctimonious if they got called out once in a while.
Cat Lady
@hrprogressive:
You know, a lot of hippies need to be punched too. Sanctimony is not just for blue dogs. Have you read Obama’s speeches? He does call for shared sacrifice. Jeebus. Maybe we’d get something done if all the sanctimonious pricks got to work instead of working so hard at being such sanctimonious pricks.
OzoneR
@socratic_me:
we said both
OzoneR
@Villago Delenda Est:
he didn’t want them to expire, he wanted to extend most of them, just not the ones for the rich
cleek
@socratic_me:
go look up the transcripts of the town-hall speeches he’s been giving all across the country for the past year or so.