• Menu
  • Skip to primary navigation
  • Skip to main content
  • Skip to primary sidebar

Before Header

  • About Us
  • Lexicon
  • Contact Us
  • Our Store
  • ↑
  • ↓
  • ←
  • →

Balloon Juice

Come for the politics, stay for the snark.

Dear media: perhaps we ought to let Donald Trump speak for himself!

I would try pessimism, but it probably wouldn’t work.

One of our two political parties is a cult whose leader admires Vladimir Putin.

Just because you believe it, that does not make it true.

Republicans are the party of chaos and catastrophe.

Dear Washington Post, you are the darkness now.

Speaker Mike Johnson is a vile traitor to the House and the Constitution.

It’s always darkest before the other shoe drops.

White supremacy is terrorism.

Let me file that under fuck it.

“Perhaps I should have considered other options.” (head-desk)

Democracy cannot function without a free press.

He wakes up lying, and he lies all day.

Pessimism assures that nothing of any importance will change.

Let’s not be the monsters we hate.

“In this country American means white. everybody else has to hyphenate.”

“When somebody takes the time to draw up a playbook, they’re gonna use it.”

When they say they are pro-life, they do not mean yours.

Republican speaker of the house Mike Johnson is the bland and smiling face of evil.

Marge, god is saying you’re stupid.

It is possible to do the right thing without the promise of a cookie.

Damn right I heard that as a threat.

You passed on an opportunity to be offended? What are you even doing here?

Republicans in disarray!

Mobile Menu

  • 4 Directions VA 2025 Raffle
  • 2025 Activism
  • Donate with Venmo, Zelle & PayPal
  • Site Feedback
  • War in Ukraine
  • Submit Photos to On the Road
  • Politics
  • On The Road
  • Open Threads
  • Topics
  • Authors
  • About Us
  • Contact Us
  • Lexicon
  • Our Store
  • Politics
  • Open Threads
  • 2025 Activism
  • Garden Chats
  • On The Road
  • Targeted Fundraising!
You are here: Home / Supercommittee Supercollider

Supercommittee Supercollider

by Zandar|  October 27, 20119:25 am| 213 Comments

This post is in: Both Sides Do It!, Decline and Fall, hoocoodanode

FacebookTweetEmail

Here’s everything you need to know about the latest proposal by Democrats to reduce the national debt by $3 trillion, half of it cuts (including Medicare), half of it revenue increases, and it’s the second paragraph of the Reuters story:

Republicans rejected the Democratic initiative.

Any questions?   It doesn’t matter what Democrats do, Republicans are going to block it, period.

Poll after poll shows Americans want a combination of tax increases and spending cuts to rein in the national debt.  Republicans refuse.  Maybe that’s why Congress has a 9% approval rating.  Go figure.

FacebookTweetEmail
Previous Post: « Mitt Romney, accidental truth-teller
Next Post: “Meet Oakland, Singapore-by-the-Bay.” »

Reader Interactions

213Comments

  1. 1.

    Southern Beale

    October 27, 2011 at 9:30 am

    Meanwhile, the World Bank has a new report out basically saying the Republicans are wrong about the U.S. economy.

    So I’m sure we can look for more Democrats to jump on board the “lower taxes & deregulation” bandwagon, since it’s completely irrelevant to fixing the troubles we face.

  2. 2.

    Odie Hugh Manatee

    October 27, 2011 at 9:31 am

    Hurling Billy was in ABL’s thread whining about “Cat Food Commission v2.0” and how Obama has sold us all down the river. You would think that people like that would figure out that no matter what Obama and the Democrats propose, the Repugs are having nothing to do with it.

    Nope. The President that they claim that can’t get anything done is sure going to get this done!

    Firebag on.

  3. 3.

    cleek

    October 27, 2011 at 9:37 am

    Bull y Pulpit! barre me de todo mal!

  4. 4.

    geg6

    October 27, 2011 at 9:39 am

    @Odie Hugh Manatee:

    This.

    Went on over to Tbogg’s place this morning because I heard rumors that the Firebagger brigade went postal on him. Read through the whole thread (it was about the horrible stuff in Oakland) and it just amazed me how much magical thinking is as much in evidence on the far left as it is on the right. Somehow, these cops in Oakland who put the Marine in critical condition is Obama’s fault, Obama is the head of a national conspiracy to have all the municipal cops in the country violently crack down on OWS, and the fact that he hasn’t stopped the Oakland, New York, and Chicago cops all by himself just shows that he is in cahoots with the Kochs or something. Insane stuff. Poor Tbogg. I really do wish he’d come on over here where there are mostly sane people.

  5. 5.

    General Stuck

    October 27, 2011 at 9:41 am

    I guess I don’t get the prog angst over so much as putting medicare on the table. I would rather paint the GOP into a pol corner by making an offer they can’t and won’t accept. And the bigger the better the exposing their lies. Takes the deficit issue off the table and into dems back pocket, and it is an issue of at least political importance, Besides, the trigger is all heads democrats win, and tails replicants lose.

    I still can’t believe the goopers agreed to things that dems already supported, defence and medicare provider cuts. But Obama caved, righto.

  6. 6.

    cleek

    October 27, 2011 at 9:41 am

    it just amazed me how much magical thinking is as much in evidence on the far left as it is on the right

    yup. idiocy does not segregate by party.

  7. 7.

    geg6

    October 27, 2011 at 9:44 am

    @cleek:

    Yeah, you’d think at my age I’d know better, but I really did used to think that the left was intellectually superior to the right. As of 2008, what with the PUMA wars and so-called lefties laying down with Grover Norquist and all, I should have just accepted the reality that all radicals, of whatever stripe, are idiots.

  8. 8.

    cleek

    October 27, 2011 at 9:47 am

    @General Stuck:

    I guess I don’t get the prog angst over so much as putting medicare on the table.

    if the core of your ideology is “Obama is evil”, and you’ve devoted yourself to making sure people know this, you’ll tend to describe every event as clear evidence of how right you are.

    all who’ve joined Team anti-Obama spend their days trying to one-up each other by being the first to point out all the ways in which Obama has failed us. this leads them into absurd territory. but if you’ve already accepted an absurd premise, absurd conclusions probably don’t disturb you.

  9. 9.

    Nevgu

    October 27, 2011 at 9:48 am

    Dow over 12000. Why no breathless headlines from Wrong Again Cole as he blows spittle and spunk all over his computer screen and licks his dog lovingly.

    Ya know, just like he does when the news is equally negative. Of course we all know it’s because he is addicted to sky is falling scenarios. Wouldn’t be surprised if he is on anti-depressants.

  10. 10.

    General Stuck

    October 27, 2011 at 9:56 am

    deleted due to not making a lick of sense. need mo coffee

  11. 11.

    cathyx

    October 27, 2011 at 9:58 am

    But what does the poll of Congress’s biggest donors say they want? That’s what really matters to them.

  12. 12.

    The Republic of Stupidity

    October 27, 2011 at 10:04 am

    “Asking for a $1.5 trillion tax hike in the middle of a jobs crisis is not a serious proposal,” said a House of Representatives Republican leadership aide.

    What the hell is this even supposed to mean?

    Since when did Republicans care about the unemployed?

    And I thought we were in an austerity crisis? Did I miss a memo?

  13. 13.

    MattF

    October 27, 2011 at 10:05 am

    Republicans are incensed! Democrats are attempting to look reasonable! Unfair! The nerve of them! Et cetera!

  14. 14.

    Ben Cisco

    October 27, 2011 at 10:13 am

    @General Stuck:

    In the Firebagger deep space black hole, common sense is sucked into the gaping aperture and worm holed straight to FDL.

    They bug you
    They bug your friends
    Until they bug you out.

  15. 15.

    Grumpy Code Monkey

    October 27, 2011 at 10:16 am

    The Republicans don’t give a shit about the deficit or the debt. They’re perfectly happy for the US to default; that way they won’t have to pay taxes at all.

  16. 16.

    Belafon (formerly anonevent)

    October 27, 2011 at 10:18 am

    @Nevgu: These days, the Dow is just an indicator of how fast the money is being transferred from the middle class to the 1%ers.

  17. 17.

    Odie Hugh Manatee

    October 27, 2011 at 10:19 am

    @geg6:

    Yeah, I avoid that shithole but decided to go check out the car wreck. Tbogg was whacking them down hard as fast as they popped up but those shithole moles don’t know when to quit.

    Speaking of crazy fuckers…

    @Nevgu:

    You really should see a mental health professional. Deny it all you want, as the ill normally do, but you need professional help with your unhealthy obsessions.

  18. 18.

    SensesFail

    October 27, 2011 at 10:20 am

    @Nevgu:

    Dow over 12000.

    This could be a good thing (e.g. confidence in U.S. economy is increasing) or a bad thing (e.g. another bubble is building and will burst in the future).

    So what is your point?

    Haven’t you learned that the stock market is an unreliable indicator of the state of the economy?

  19. 19.

    William Hurley

    October 27, 2011 at 10:22 am

    @Odie Hugh Manatee:

    Recent history testifies to the fictional quality of your assertion. Might I remind you of Obama’s cave-in over the extension of the Bush/GOP tax cuts?

    In a sad restaging of Obama’s “insurance purchasing mandates are bad policy” campaign rhetoric became the locus of Obama’s self-pursued, secret give-aways to corporations in the thick of legislative efforts to craft a plan, Obama’s rhetorical ardency against a continuation of the 2001/3 tax cuts melted like ice cream in the sun when he had to actually hold or fold on the matter.

    Of course, there’s the very plain history of the creation of Cat Food v1.0 that itself belies your assumptions. The first version of the deficit commission came about by executive order after Congress refused to pass legislation creating this Obama sought vehicle to “externalize” the political cost of making shitty policy. Cat Food v2.0 came about during the debt ceiling “negotiations” when Obama pushed for the externalization mechanism once again.

    As we’ve seen in the above and other examples of cross-party negotiations, the contours of a final bill may be telegraphed in advance of the deadline but it is only at (or past) the deadline that the final final is revealed.

    Furthermore, hoping or wishing or expecting that the GOP will “obstruct” any legislative proposals and thereby keep Democrats and the President from making a grand if not fatal error is a political practice that’s beyond negligent. Besides, with o-bots such as yourself repeating Plouffee’s “go to” rhetorical line – the GOP is the party of obstruction – adding the phrase “thank god” to it does not an election win.

    It’s too bad the Democratic Party (writ large) cowed by imaginary fears chose to avoid a primary process this cycle. Instead, what we’re left with is the inevitable plebiscite that pits the President against the economy in the minds of the voters. As such, the “thank god for GOP obstructionism” message is made to fail.

  20. 20.

    Nevgu

    October 27, 2011 at 10:22 am

    Hey Wrong Again Cole,

    I made over $3000 just this morning and it’s still climbing. Put that in your “The Dow is crashing with no end in sight” pipe and smoke it!

    https://balloon-juice.com/2011/08/04/a-feature-not-a-bug/#comment-2708585

  21. 21.

    gene108

    October 27, 2011 at 10:24 am

    I think what is more surprising/shocking/sad is not the Republicans intransigence, but rather the fact that at any given time 40% of the country, nationally, will vote for them and in some areas well over 50%+ of the electorate will vote for Republicans.

    There are many middle class folks, who believe the rich are the only people who create jobs by dolling out their wealth, as a largesse to the masses, by employing folks.

    That Reagan’s mantra of “government is the problem, not the solution” is always true, no matter what facts say and a host of other right-wing talking points they have decided to internalize and live by.

    The Republican enablers aren’t the media or corporation or Blue Dog Democrats; the Republican enablers are the people, who keep voting them into office. Until there’s a way to change the views of these folks, there will be many Republican Congresscritters, who are guaranteed re-election and therefore are safe to behave in any way they feel appeals to the furthest corners of right-wing-nuttery in this country.

  22. 22.

    scav

    October 27, 2011 at 10:24 am

    @SensesFail: sshhhhhhhhhh! That’s his laser toy. Keeps him amused for hours and unaware that no-one else ever wants to play with him. Kinder to leave it be.

  23. 23.

    jwb

    October 27, 2011 at 10:26 am

    @geg6: Twitter has been ripe with the the charge that the police actions on the various Occupy movements are being run by the “Feds.” Never mind that if it was actually being coordinated, it would look coordinated instead of like amateur hour, which have all the earmarks of clueless overreaching local officials.

  24. 24.

    Belafon (formerly anonevent)

    October 27, 2011 at 10:27 am

    @William Hurley:

    Might I remind you of Obama’s cave-in over the extension of the Bush/GOP tax cuts?

    Sorry, but I’ll take a “cave” like this. I know sacrificing workers on the alter of purity might sound like a good thing to you, but not to me, especially when it helps having them spend money. Even ignoring the unemployment benefits extension, raising the taxes on everyone – which is the only way the upper class cuts would have been allowed to expire – would have had an immediate negative effect on the economy with a positive effect coming a lot later.

  25. 25.

    General Stuck

    October 27, 2011 at 10:27 am

    @Nevgu:

    Hey Wrong Again Cole,

    Is yer choo choo around the bend? Cole is not present on this post, the post or in comments. He seems to have vanished from the scene of the crime, leaving his personal trolls to twitch and bark at the moon. people are starting to talk about choo.

  26. 26.

    gene108

    October 27, 2011 at 10:29 am

    @William Hurley:

    In a sad restaging of Obama’s “insurance purchasing mandates are bad policy” campaign rhetoric became the locus of Obama’s self-pursued, secret give-aways to corporations in the thick of legislative efforts to craft a plan, Obama’s rhetorical ardency against a continuation of the 2001/3 tax cuts melted like ice cream in the sun when he had to actually hold or fold on the matter.

    The mandate was caused by Max Bauchus (D-moron), who held up the health care reform bill in his Senate committee, after the House passed a bill with a public option and no mandate, the other committee passed a plan with a public option and no mandate, which was then followed by the summer of crazy-ass protests that nearly derailed HCR before a final bill was even up for a vote.

    What should Obama have done?

    Refused to compromise and let the status quo remain in place?

    EDIT: Also, Too the only reason Bauchus got thrust into being in charge was because Ted Kennedy was in bad shape due to brain cancer. I really do think, if Ted Kennedy was functional in 2009, the HCR bill would’ve been better. Losing the most powerful proponent of HCR, in the legislature, must have taken a toll on the quality of the HCR bill that has not been quantified or even attempted to be estimated or maybe cannot be estimated, but did have an impact by putting Bauchus into a powerful position, he wouldn’t have otherwise had.

  27. 27.

    Kola Noscopy

    October 27, 2011 at 10:30 am

    So…we have Dems adopting the Republican meme that deficit reduction is an appropriate primary policy goal at this point, which is bullshit…god, they are idiots.

  28. 28.

    kc

    October 27, 2011 at 10:31 am

    Now the Repugs can say, “We saved Medicare.” [ducks]

  29. 29.

    SiubhanDuinne

    October 27, 2011 at 10:32 am

    @General Stuck:

    :: musing :: I don’t suppose it would be possible to hook up nevguderf and pocococoloco? Maybe they could get a room somewhere and amuse each other with their incisive wit, penetrating insights, and devastating ripostes. Just pondering here . . . .

  30. 30.

    Bill D.

    October 27, 2011 at 10:33 am

    The proposal would not reduce the current debt one penny. It would reduce cumulative future deficits (e.g. future debt that has hasn’t been incurred yet) by $3 billion. That’s not the same at all, and this kind of sloppiness on government finance issues causes a lot of public confusion.

    The debt and the deficit are not the same thing. Using the analogy of one’s personal finances, the deficit is the shortfall of revenue(or excess of spending) that puts one’s budget out of balance in a given period of time such as one month or one year. The debt is how much you have borrowed and have not paid back yet.

    In the case of the federal government the debt is simply the sum of all past deficits and offsetting surpluses, since the federal government does not make payments on debt principal (unlike state and local gov’t) but instead rolls over existing debt as it becomes due. Even eliminating the deficit will not touch the debt unless the government actually run surpluses.

    Just because idiot reporters and editors use “debt” and “deficit” as synonyms is no excuse for commentators who really should know better to do the same thing.

  31. 31.

    Mark S.

    October 27, 2011 at 10:36 am

    WRONG AGAIN COLE IS WRONG AGAIN ABOUT EVERYTHING! HE IS EVEN WRONG WHEN HE SAYS HE IS WRONG! 12000!

    Is Nevgu Fred/Derf? Will he soon be Ugven?

  32. 32.

    Mark S.

    October 27, 2011 at 10:41 am

    HE IS EVEN WRONG WHEN SOMEBODY ELSE POSTS SOMETHING

  33. 33.

    Nevgu

    October 27, 2011 at 10:42 am

    @Mark S.: I can be whatever you want me to be. Just express what it is about me that bothers you and I will make sure to do even more of it.

    I would be more than happy to use my old handles if Wrong Again Cole would unban them. So don’t blame me for having to change my handle.

    Or is this basic tech stuff over your head. Certainly understandable how the most basic of things of a blog board would be over your head. You people almost never fail to underwhelm in that area. Still laughing at Coles lame ass attempts to prevent me from posting all together. All he managed to do was break the Reply link.

    I am quite proud of that accomplishment btw.

  34. 34.

    flukebucket

    October 27, 2011 at 10:42 am

    @General Stuck:

    Reckon Cole hooked himself up to that piss tube and can’t get loose?

  35. 35.

    Plethded

    October 27, 2011 at 10:44 am

    @gene108: I think what is more surprising/shocking/sad is not the Republicans intransigence, but rather the fact that at any given time 40% of the country, nationally, will vote for them and in some areas well over 50%+ of the electorate will vote for Republicans.

    Right. The status quo isn’t bad for republicans. They’re getting a huge chunk of national wealth each year, and if they say ‘no’ to every policy that threatens that annual take, what’s their punishment? They have that solid red state majority to keep them in office.

  36. 36.

    catclub

    October 27, 2011 at 10:45 am

    @Belafon (formerly anonevent): Nope. Not true. That would imply that when the dow goes down money is tranferred from the 1% to the middle class. …except when THAT happens all the concern is about middle class retirees losing their retiremnet and having to work.

    Can you tell that I stayed invested in my 401k and kept putting into it the past three years? Where else would I go with it? Real estate?

  37. 37.

    General Stuck

    October 27, 2011 at 10:47 am

    @Nevgu:

    happy to use my old handles if Wrong Again Cole would unban them.

    Well then, grasshopper, I don’t think Cole so much banned your previous handles, as he banned YOU. Now there is some early morning Zen for you to chew on and get back to us.

  38. 38.

    Mark S.

    October 27, 2011 at 10:47 am

    @Nevgu:

    Shine on you crazy diamond.

  39. 39.

    burnspbesq

    October 27, 2011 at 10:48 am

    OK, so we’re all pretty much in agreement that Republicans are hypocrites, liars, and enemies of everything that ever has been, is now, or may ever be good about this country.

    We’re also generally in agreement the Republicans in Congress are good for nothing but nihilist obstruction.

    My question is, when does this start hurting their standing with people who are likely to vote next November? The harsh reality is that the bad guys are winning.

  40. 40.

    joes527

    October 27, 2011 at 10:48 am

    Now watch for the R’s to scream that the Democrats are being obstructionist by not moving forward with the areas of agreement (just the cuts)

    ‘cuz that’s how they roll.

  41. 41.

    William Hurley

    October 27, 2011 at 10:51 am

    @Belafon (formerly anonevent):

    Again, flawed understanding and specious logic result in bad analysis.

    The “cave-in” metaphor is operative when, and only when, there are practices and actions taken that precipitate the “cave-in”. In other words, they don’t occur spontaneously.

    One would expect, reasonably, that a President whose policy decisions and campaigning had been variously described as “11th dimensional chess” would foresee and avoid the “cave-in” scenario when his operating premise had long been “I’ll not sign legislation to renew or extend the Bush tax cuts”.

    Of course, there were other options left on-the-table, such as executive order(s) or a Constitutionally-based rejection of the uniquely Americans “debt ceiling” fiction.

    In the end, Obama chose to the cave-in route giving Beohner his rout.

    Still, your reply begs the question. Given the hard reality of automatic cuts, will you or more importantly the President “take” Medicare cuts instead of cuts elsewhere? Where is your, or more importantly, the President’s bottom-line or “no go” zone?

  42. 42.

    burnspbesq

    October 27, 2011 at 10:51 am

    @Belafon (formerly anonevent):

    These days, the Dow is just an indicator of how fast the money is being transferred from the middle class to the 1%ers.

    Not so fast, there. Where is your 401(k)/403(b)/IRA invested?

  43. 43.

    Dustin

    October 27, 2011 at 10:52 am

    @Nevgu: Or he could do the smart thing and ban your ip address and any address you comment from. Within short order you’d be locked out of the site totally and we wouldn’t have to listen to your bullshit.

    I suggest this site Cole, if you don’t know how to accomplish this: http://qualitynetdesign.com/helpful-tips/block-the-persistent-comment-troll/

  44. 44.

    catclub

    October 27, 2011 at 10:52 am

    @SensesFail: I think it is irrational hopes for the latest so-called Euro solution to the Greek (Italy, Spain, portugal) bond crisis to succeed.

    Although I am pleased that they are _saying_ that holders of Greek bonds will take a 50% haircut for starters. Amazing if true.

  45. 45.

    burnspbesq

    October 27, 2011 at 10:54 am

    @William Hurley:

    Obama’s rhetorical ardency against a continuation of the 2001/3 tax cuts melted like ice cream in the sun when he had to actually hold or fold on the matter.

    I respectfully suggest that you try selling this narrative to someone whose unemployment benefits got extended as a result of Obama’s “capitulation.” I’ll be around to help you pick up any teeth that get knocked out when you get punched in the mouth.

  46. 46.

    OzoneR

    October 27, 2011 at 10:54 am

    @William Hurley:

    Might I remind you of Obama’s cave-in over the extension of the Bush/GOP tax cuts?

    you mean the “cave in” that happened after he spent 2 1/2 months fruitlessly fighting to no avail?

  47. 47.

    Berial

    October 27, 2011 at 10:58 am

    Poll after poll shows Americans want a combination of tax increases and spending cuts to rein in the national debt. Republicans refuse. Maybe that’s why Congress has a 9% approval rating. Go figure.

    And that 9% approval rating means jack shit when the states just keep voting their incumbents back into the job year after year.

    You can go insane trying to make the voting public understand that THEIR representative/senator is a PART OF CONGRESS that they disapprove of so much.

  48. 48.

    burnspbesq

    October 27, 2011 at 10:58 am

    And so Nevgu, being a bear of very little brain, wandered aimlessly through the Hundred-Acre Blogosphere, searching in vain for anyone who would take his silly ravings seriously.

    THE END.

  49. 49.

    Nevgu

    October 27, 2011 at 10:59 am

    @Dustin: BAHAhahahahah. What do you think he has been trying to do for the past few months?! Guess what. I’m still here! Once again, basic tech stuff and not suprised you do not understand any more that Wrong Again pea brain Cole how easy it is to get around that.

  50. 50.

    Dustin

    October 27, 2011 at 11:00 am

    @burnspbesq: Well as of about 3 years ago it’s in government CDs and my savings account. Sure the growth rate sucks, but at least my accounts not being raped and pillaged by stock hypertraders. The last year my 401k was active I lost well over what I put in and from the looks of it I’d have lost about 10 years of payments by now if I hadn’t pulled it out.

    How many near-retirement people don’t have that option and will live a life of complete poverty because of what’s going on in the market right now? You want investment advice? Buy shares in catfood makers.

  51. 51.

    Corner Stone

    October 27, 2011 at 11:00 am

    Also from the article:

    It also seeks around $400 billion in Medicare savings, with half coming in benefit cuts and the other half in cuts to healthcare providers. Details of that proposal were scant

    Just wanted to get that in there before Martin et al strive ardently to convince us it’s just cuts to “providers”.

  52. 52.

    Corner Stone

    October 27, 2011 at 11:04 am

    The issue with Medicare cuts “being on the table” is that once it’s acceptable the idea will never go back off the table.
    That does two things, IMO, 1) Sets up the same rug pulling trick where cuts and revenue increases are put forth but only cuts survive the deal, and 2) It completely dilutes any campaign message D Congresspeople may have had about battering the R’s for coming after Medicare.

  53. 53.

    Belafon (formerly anonevent)

    October 27, 2011 at 11:06 am

    @catclub: Actually, I was talking about the economy in general, not all of our 401K money. I wasn’t saying that the Dow indicates how fast IT is transferring money, just how fast the wealthy are making money.

  54. 54.

    William Hurley

    October 27, 2011 at 11:10 am

    @catclub:

    Indeed. The retirement landscape has become a barren and hostile terrain for most Americans. As you describe of your own situation, what are individuals to do with their 401(k) and IRA holdings when the majority of common investment options are returning paltry sums while becoming less and less reliable in the near term?

    The project to steal the trillions in retirement wealth locked into homes & RE, bonds, stocks and retirement plans has been terrifyingly successful. And now, for the first time since its inception, Democrats (including the President) have put critical retirement/retiree oriented safety net programs on the chopping block. Its truly disgusting.

    If you’ve not heard of this newly released book regarding the “changes” in the nation’s fractured retirement system, give this short talk by author Ellen Schultz a look.

    Or, give her professional bio a peek to eval her credibility.

  55. 55.

    Dustin

    October 27, 2011 at 11:11 am

    @Nevgu: You start with the simple stuff and go from there. Quite frankly assholes like you are why i think the site should have an LGF style comment policy. He doesn’t near the trouble with shitheads like you as Cole does.

  56. 56.

    cleek

    October 27, 2011 at 11:12 am

    the purity troll is the enemy of good conversation.

  57. 57.

    fasteddie9318

    October 27, 2011 at 11:19 am

    Maybe that’s why Congress has a 9% approval rating.

    You say that like it’s a bad thing. When one of the two governing parties has as its First Principle the idea that government in all forms is inherently Evil, driving the approval rating of a full third of the federal government into single digits is a sign of success.

  58. 58.

    catclub

    October 27, 2011 at 11:20 am

    @Belafon (formerly anonevent): That is not what you wrote:

    Your Second post (backtracking): “Actually, I was talking about the economy in general, not all of our 401K money. I wasn’t saying that the Dow indicates how fast IT is transferring money, just how fast the wealthy are making money.”

    Your First post though was: “These days, the Dow is just an indicator of how fast the money is being transferred from the middle class to the 1%ers.”

    So I would say that you DID say that the Dow indicates how fast money is being transferred to the 1%ers from the middle class.

    It is common to claim that quoting what one has said is extremely unfair and confrontational, but there I go.

  59. 59.

    William Hurley

    October 27, 2011 at 11:21 am

    @burnspbesq:

    Is that a threat of violence?

    Do you even bother to understand issues before you rant, or the circumstances of the persons with whom you “debate”? The answer to that rhetorical question is quite clearly “no”.

    Your response mimics that of a prisoner who genuflects to his/her captors and defends them despite his circumstance. Plato’s the first in a long line of political thinkers to have identified this behavioral paradox.

    But, back to your line of “thought” that privileges your bad circumstances over and above those of others. Consider this, how may weeks of unemployment insurance does a formerly self-employed contractor receive when hospitalized for a long undiagnosed congenital illness?

  60. 60.

    Brachiator

    October 27, 2011 at 11:23 am

    @William Hurley:

    Recent history testifies to the fictional quality of your assertion. Might I remind you of Obama’s cave-in over the extension of the Bush/GOP tax cuts?

    I believed that Obama should have killed the Bush tax cuts. However, to call it a cave-in is ignorant.

    Of course, there were other options left on-the-table, such as executive order(s) or a Constitutionally-based rejection of the uniquely Americans “debt ceiling” fiction.

    What does this have to do with anything? The Bush tax cuts were extended as part of the 2010 tax deal.

    @Corner Stone:

    The issue with Medicare cuts “being on the table” is that once it’s acceptable the idea will never go back off the table.

    Actually, I would think that Medicare is going to have to be re-examined as part of health care reform.

    I don’t think the Democrats have much to lose here, especially if they clearly explain that the Republicans ultimately want to gut Social Security and Medicare.

  61. 61.

    Corner Stone

    October 27, 2011 at 11:28 am

    @Brachiator:

    I don’t think the Democrats have much to lose here, especially if they clearly explain that the Republicans ultimately want to gut Social Security and Medicare.

    I disagree with the idea of “explaining” the difference between the two parties as “We want to cut benefits, THOSE guys want to gut them!”

  62. 62.

    jwb

    October 27, 2011 at 11:33 am

    @Brachiator: But putting Medicare cuts on the table makes it that much more difficult to be clear that their position differs from the GOP, who you may recall ran in 2010 on scaring old folks that the Dems were gutting Medicare to pay for HCR. The Dems will come out looking muddled on the issue. You may say that the resulting position is the correct one from a policy position (we have to get Medicare costs under control), but there is no way to turn that policy position into a clean political statement you can hammer home in 10 second sound bites.

  63. 63.

    catclub

    October 27, 2011 at 11:33 am

    @Dustin: Um… if you really pulled everything out three years ago – i.e october 2008, that was pretty bad timing for selling. The Dow and S&P500 are about back to where they were in August 2008, before a big fall, and are up about 40-60% over the low in march 2009.
    if you had left yourself invested, (assuming some similarity of your portfolio to the DOW or S&P500) you would
    NOT “have lost about 10 years of payments by now if I hadn’t pulled it out,” but would be about back to where you were in August 2008.

  64. 64.

    PeakVT

    October 27, 2011 at 11:34 am

    Too bad it’s not a Supercolliding Supercommittee.

  65. 65.

    Dustin

    October 27, 2011 at 11:34 am

    @Corner Stone: I hate to admit it Brachiator, but CS is right. If you think “explaining” helps the Democrats one iota I’ve got a bridge in Nigeria to sell you.

  66. 66.

    William Hurley

    October 27, 2011 at 11:35 am

    @OzoneR:

    Is that an excuse or something different?

    Will you offer the same platitude when, after “xx 1/2” months negotiating, the President signs a deficit “reduction” bill that includes cuts to Medicare, Medicaid and/or SocSec?

    The problem, electorally speaking, is not me. It’s the tens of millions of potential voters whose political sensitivities and/or affiliations do not dispose them to be sympathetic to either major party or their candidates. It is they, that odd mix of quasi-Dems, quasi-GOPers and perpetually indecisive that will determine the President’s reelection fate. As of today, that mass is decidedly undecided and leaning angry to very angry – and Obama is unlikely to recapture those in that mass who had supported and voted for him in 2008.

    As I’ve said before, campaign slogans premised on “the GOP made me do it” or “the GOP refused to let me do it” are both defeat-making mantras.

  67. 67.

    Odie Hugh Manatee

    October 27, 2011 at 11:35 am

    @William Hurley:

    Keep firebagging and maybe someone will follow you.

    I sure won’t so don’t waste your time.

  68. 68.

    Woodrowfan

    October 27, 2011 at 11:36 am

    @Dustin:

    Yep, I am basically starting over and I’m in my early 50s. I did what my HR retirement people said to do, put it in the stock market! I did, mostly. S**T

  69. 69.

    beergoggles

    October 27, 2011 at 11:38 am

    @kc:

    Now the Repugs can say, “We saved Medicare.” [ducks]

    I wouldn’t put it past them. Dems really never get tired of giving Republicans more ammo. If Republicans keep saying Dems want to cut Medicare, the Dems will only be too happy to oblige to prove Republicans correct. Ugh.

  70. 70.

    William Hurley

    October 27, 2011 at 11:39 am

    @Dustin:

    Indeed, even the illustrious queen of liberal talking heads, Rachel Maddow, is fond of repeating the mantra “if you’re explaining, you’re losing”.

  71. 71.

    mcmullje

    October 27, 2011 at 11:39 am

    @Nevgu: Wow! Cranky this morning? Nothing like a hate-filled, destructive, ridiculous, and very sad post to start my day. UGH!

  72. 72.

    Nevgu

    October 27, 2011 at 11:41 am

    @Dustin: Awww…..someone had too much coffee this morning. Hey, we can’t all make over $3000 in 2 hours like I did this morning (currently at $3142 btw). Some of you stiffs still have to work for assholes for chump change.

    I’m more than happy to be part of the 1% myself. It’s one thing to rebel against them aka OWS (which I happen to support) but quite another to actually have to live and breath it.

    So sorry to hear about your predicament there Dustin. Sucks to be you.

  73. 73.

    Brachiator

    October 27, 2011 at 11:42 am

    @Corner Stone:

    I disagree with the idea of “explaining” the difference between the two parties as “We want to cut benefits, THOSE guys want to gut them!”

    Seems to me that you easily understand the distinction between cutting Medicare and eliminating the program entirely.

    I’m betting that the majority of voters are as smart as you are.

    And as I said earlier, it seems obvious to me that Medicare is going to have to be re-examined as national health care reform goes forward.

    On the other hand, the idea that neither Social Security nor Medicare can ever be touched because they represent a sacred promise to people, or variations of this, is childish.

    And conventional wisdom about pensions leads to some odd, unthinking conclusions. For example, there is talk about extending the retirement age. But, with the economy continuing to shred jobs, and the tendency of companies to dump older workers, is this really a meaningful solution to the problem?

    In any event, I don’t see how the GOP has the stronger position on this issue. And if some liberals and progressives gain nothing by playing ideological puritans here.

  74. 74.

    William Hurley

    October 27, 2011 at 11:43 am

    @Odie Hugh Manatee:

    Odd reply. What’s with the “followers” thing? Odd indeed.

    So too the “firebagging” term. Care to explain?

    Or maybe you could, since it seems you’ve already arrived at that conclusion, highlight where I’ve factually erred.

  75. 75.

    Nevgu

    October 27, 2011 at 11:43 am

    @mcmullje: Yea I am so sad and hate filled that I made over $3000 this morning. I feel like ending it all (sniff….).

  76. 76.

    Belafon (formerly anonevent)

    October 27, 2011 at 11:44 am

    @catclub: My implication, which I guess I did a poor job of communicating, was that the Dow has nothing to do with the health of the economy, only how much wealth the upper class is accumulating. I’m still not seeing where you’re reading that I was talking about 401Ks, other than 401Ks being another mechanism of wealth transfer.

    If this is the biggest thing to fight over right now, though, then we’re doing much better than I thought.

  77. 77.

    Violet

    October 27, 2011 at 11:44 am

    Since people are discussing stock prices, this headline seems relevant:

    Exxon profit rises 41 percent but output down

    Making money while producing less! Win!

    From the article, this excerpt is too good to pass up:

    “Their oil and gas production mix was a tick higher to the gas side than I thought,” said Phil Weiss, oil analyst at Argus. “The concern I have is that they are becoming gassier and gassier, which is less lucrative.”

    Too much gas hits your bottom line. Ahem.

  78. 78.

    Dustin

    October 27, 2011 at 11:45 am

    @Nevgu: Sucks to be me? No, not really. I make good money, have a great family, and am about 6 months away from starting my dream business brewing beer for a living.

    Take your condescending attitude and shove it, asshole.

  79. 79.

    Lol

    October 27, 2011 at 11:46 am

    Is this where emo-progs pretend the extending all the Bush tax cuts wasn’t the price for passing DADT repeal, START and UI benefits extension? Because Snowe, Collins, Murkowski, Brown wouldn’t have supported those otherwise and said as much at the time.

  80. 80.

    Belafon (formerly anonevent)

    October 27, 2011 at 11:47 am

    @Violet: Do they need some Tums?

  81. 81.

    Dustin

    October 27, 2011 at 11:47 am

    @William Hurley: firebagger is basically a carpetbagger from Firedoglake. i.e. someone who’s still butthurt over Hillary having lost the nomination. Nowadays it’s basically code for any liberal more obsessed with purity and circular firing squads than accomplishing anything or fighting against the GOP.

  82. 82.

    scav

    October 27, 2011 at 11:48 am

    Somehow, preening and getting all visibly smug ‘n’ excited on the innnertubz about 3K in a morning doesn’t exactly smell 1% does it?

  83. 83.

    mcmullje

    October 27, 2011 at 11:48 am

    @Nevgu: The 3 grand would buy you a pretty decent funeral. Don’t hesitate on my account.

  84. 84.

    Dustin

    October 27, 2011 at 11:50 am

    @scav: Nope, and I’m guessing that unless he cashes out that stock bump he hasn’t actually gotten his $3k either. Hell, I doubt he’s actually even had the stock bump myself.

  85. 85.

    William Hurley

    October 27, 2011 at 11:51 am

    @Brachiator:

    Are you really suggesting that the same electorate that, as poll after poll demonstrates, believes that TARP was an Obama policy will a) care about or b) differentiate between the murky, wonky Paul Ryan pan to kill medicare – which did noit become law despite GOP votes – or a law signed by Obama that does in fact institute cuts to these programs?

    In the end, it’s the outcomes that matter. If Obama signs cuts into law, whether cobbled together in Cat Food v2.0 or elsewhere, it is Obama who will take the hit. And in doing so, signing such a law that is, he’ll take the “medicare” issue off the table for “down-ticket” Dems in their contests that will determine which part will control the House & Senate.

  86. 86.

    geg6

    October 27, 2011 at 11:54 am

    @Dustin:

    Sad as I am to say it, I am getting quite close to retirement age (not that I’ll be able to do it, though) and I still have my 401K. In fact, I haven’t lost a dime on it at all. Not even in 2008-9. I’m not saying that everyone has had my experience, but that’s just how these things go. I changed my mix of investments (mostly to the more conservative investments) after the 2001 recession and it’s steadily grown. Unfortunately, I don’t make enough money to make a killing on it (or even be able to live on it in the 15 years until I reach retirement age), but I haven’t lost a dime.

  87. 87.

    OzoneR

    October 27, 2011 at 11:54 am

    @William Hurley:

    If Obama signs cuts into law, whether cobbled together in Cat Food v2.0 or elsewhere, it is Obama who will take the hit.

    which IS NEVER GOING TO HAPPEN.

  88. 88.

    Brachiator

    October 27, 2011 at 11:55 am

    @jwb:

    But putting Medicare cuts on the table makes it that much more difficult to be clear that their position differs from the GOP, who you may recall ran in 2010 on scaring old folks that the Dems were gutting Medicare to pay for HCR. The Dems will come out looking muddled on the issue. You may say that the resulting position is the correct one from a policy position (we have to get Medicare costs under control), but there is no way to turn that policy position into a clean political statement you can hammer home in 10 second sound bites.

    Romney and Perry are embracing the GOP extreme.

    The Republicans believe that you should pray to the baby Jebus and four rich guys for charity when you get sick or old. Vote Democrat.

    Seems like a pretty simple message to me. Eminently suitable for soundbites.

  89. 89.

    William Hurley

    October 27, 2011 at 11:56 am

    @Dustin:

    As I thought, odd. Also, very poorly conceived.

    By the definition you offer, I certainly don’t qualify. I did not support Hillary in the 2008 primaries AND I did volunteer (phone-bank and door-knock) and contribute to Obama’s campaign.

    One question, can you differentiate “purity” from good or bad electoral politics pursued through policy?

  90. 90.

    Odie Hugh Manatee

    October 27, 2011 at 11:57 am

    @Dustin:

    Thank you. :)

    @Dustin:

    I’m betting his hair is as brown as his eyes. No “quart low” there, if you know what I mean.

  91. 91.

    some guy

    October 27, 2011 at 11:58 am

    It also seeks around $400 billion in Medicare savings, with half coming in benefit cuts and the other half in cuts to healthcare providers. Details of that proposal were scant but tackling the popular Medicare program is always politically risky for politicians in Washington, especially Democrats.

    The Democratic proposal also identifies $100 billion in cuts to the Medicaid healthcare program for the poor, according to a lobbyist in contact with the committee.

    finally! super awesome news. if this doesn’t win over the voters I don’t know what will. just fucking brilliant.

  92. 92.

    Comrade Dread

    October 27, 2011 at 11:59 am

    Of course, in the end, you know the package they pass will be 100% spending cuts with a few ‘tax reforms’ thrown in for good measure.

    Because while the Democrats might think they’re pitching a balanced package, the Republicans will hear “Hey, guys, we want 1.5 trillion in spending cuts too” and dig in their heels on anything else.

    Which is why I’ll never get the Democratic party, having run off the cliff after the Road Runner for the 100th time, you’d think they’d realize that if they wanted a ‘balanced’ approach, they need to start with 100% tax increases.

  93. 93.

    William Hurley

    October 27, 2011 at 11:59 am

    @Brachiator:

    Maybe, but not likely.

    How many of the 30,000,000 un- or under-employed will be swayed by “it’s not my fault, they blocked me” rhetoric?

    Very few I suggest.

  94. 94.

    General Stuck

    October 27, 2011 at 12:00 pm

    The GOP has put on their eggs in the faux basket of spending cuts and reducing the debt. It is an issue that has some resonance, if for no other reason the wingers have had their formidable wurlizter almost entirely dedicated to the austerity cause. The “tax and spend” liberal charge has been a winner for a long time for republicans, and dems and Obama have faced them down with an offer that gives them precisely what they want, (attacking social programs like medicare with an idea of destroying them) except with a giant poison pill, tax increases for the rich.

    I think that programs like medicare and SS are long since the voters trusting the dems, and not the wingnuts on keeping those programs healthy. And it is a fact that it, medicare, has some big fiscal problems that need to be addressed fairly soon. I don’t think it is off base to complain about the counter messaging effect of dems even considering making changes to medicare in rhetoric. But I don’t think it will have any adverse effect politically for dems, provided they are not seriously wanting to have their plan accepted by the GOP. And they aren’t.

    It is a shadow box move, to take away any benefit the wingnuts have gained with their usual lock step messaging, droning out daily how concerned they are for the debt and deficit, and how democrats only want to spend and raise your taxes. It leaves them, the GOP, holding a sack of shit they brought hoping to dump it on dems. But dems are using the lockstep shit against the wingers, by playing the tax increase card the wingers took a blood oath to never do.

    I guess it’s just a difference in pol philosophy, that I see dems almost always doing better when they engage the wingnuts and expose their lies and hypocrisy. Rather than bowing up with a purity message of base politics only. It takes away the GOP advantage, a big one, imo, to throw a monkey wrench in the impressive media organ wurlitzer. When dems call their bluff, like with being serious about debt reduction, They kick the dirt and whine about dems not playing far, class warfare, yadda yadda yaboo.

  95. 95.

    geg6

    October 27, 2011 at 12:01 pm

    @William Hurley:

    Yeah, you played this same “I have no idea what a Firebagger is” game the last time you shit on a thread.

    You’re a troll. There, is that clear enough for you?

  96. 96.

    Sentient Puddle

    October 27, 2011 at 12:03 pm

    @Dustin:

    firebagger is basically a carpetbagger from Firedoglake. i.e. someone who’s still butthurt over Hillary having lost the nomination.

    Actually, I think the original etymology has more to do with teabaggers, what with Hamsher attempting to make common cause with Norquist over health care reform. But FDL carpetbagging is a rather novel take on it, and it certainly seems to be just as correct these days. So I think this should count as an additional definition.

  97. 97.

    some guy

    October 27, 2011 at 12:04 pm

    The Democratic plan proposes deeper cuts to Medicare than those envisaged by the summer budget deal. The automatic spending triggers in that deal would limit cuts to Medicare to 2 percent a year. Analysts say that would amount to about $123 billion in spending cuts for the program through 2021.

    $400 Billion versus $123 Billion, but let’s not quible about who guts Medicare more. the Obama-Boehner summertime “deal” is back again, but this time without Boehner’s fingerprints on it.

    score! and as I said above, brilliant political strategery 12 months before the election.

  98. 98.

    Yutsano

    October 27, 2011 at 12:04 pm

    @geg6: I see Zandar forgot to lay out the anti-troll traps this morning. I suppose we’re gonna have to have a talk with that boy.

    BTW William Hurley is a dishonest actor. But you already knew that. :)

  99. 99.

    William Hurley

    October 27, 2011 at 12:05 pm

    @Comrade Dread:

    Indeed.

    And you know that former House member, former Chief of Staff, former DCI and current Sect’y of Defense Leon Panetta is in Obama’s office as often as possible telling him how damaging any cuts to the DoD budget will be.

    Obama will gladly “take” the shitty “compromise” Cat Food II produces rather than upset his most reliable donors, Wall St, and the defense establishment.

    Consider this, how may “anonymous DoD sources” will suddenly emerge to reveal all manner of “evil” doing in the body of the President’s unchecked use of drone strikes – military actions that have killed thousands of innocent civilians and a few “bad guys” too.

  100. 100.

    Mark S.

    October 27, 2011 at 12:05 pm

    Mark Dumbass Halperin:

    If the election were held today, the Obama-Biden ticket would not win the 270 electoral votes required to hold the White House.

    Despite his low approval numbers, Obama still beats all the Republican contenders.

  101. 101.

    William Hurley

    October 27, 2011 at 12:09 pm

    @Mark S.:

    As is said about Vegas odds, that’s why they play the games.

    Polls are indicators – that’s all.

    Consider that exactly zero effort or spending is considered in the calculus of polling. As you may know, GoTV efforts are a central focus of campaigns. Anyway, I think my point is made.

  102. 102.

    Marc

    October 27, 2011 at 12:10 pm

    Obama is successfully shifting the conversation, and the so-called “progressives” in the online left are just repeating the same stale criticisms.

    The entire argument amounts to some vague claim that, by allowing any changes at all to entitlements, Obama is somehow “caving” into Republican demands. Prior Democratic leaders didn’t have to contend with this level of mindlessness – for example, they could adjust or reform things without having fanatics screaming betrayal.

    If the people howling about this were sincere, they’d be arguing that the Democratic proposals were different from the Republican ones (thus shifting the conversation.) Instead, they’re repeating Republican arguments (that the two parties are the same.) This is either tactical cluelessness or Republicans pretending to be Democrats. Neither is useful.

  103. 103.

    Marc

    October 27, 2011 at 12:11 pm

    @some guy:

    Do you enjoy repeating republican arguments?

  104. 104.

    General Stuck

    October 27, 2011 at 12:12 pm

    @Mark S.:

    Yea, I read that earlier, by that fucking wanker Halperin. Dems certainly don’t have a lock on the 270 electoral votes, but they are considerably closer to it than the GOP

  105. 105.

    ed drone

    October 27, 2011 at 12:12 pm

    @cleek:

    idiocy does not segregate by party.

    The big difference is we don’t run our truly insane brigade for high public office, nor even parade them before the public by hiring them as media spokesmen.

    And I noticed the other day that those “mandatory” cuts won’t stay mandatory if Republicans like John McCain have anything to say about it (and McCain always has something to say about it). If the “mandatory” cuts are “mandated” by failure of the SuperCongress, then McCain is planning to introduce legislation to safeguard the weakest part of the budget — the Defense Department.

    So, as we predicted, even before the “mandatory” cuts get “mandated,” they will be “unmandated.” Or maybe “remanded” (to the custody of the NeoCons now beating he drum for war with Iran).

    No wonder Congress is held in such low esteem. Well-deserved low esteem.

    Ed

  106. 106.

    Marc

    October 27, 2011 at 12:14 pm

    @Comrade Dread:

    We heard the same crap from the online left the last few runs through. They were totally wrong: we didn’t get the “sellout” on entitlements that the whiners predicted.

    Obama is basing his re-election campaign on federal action for jobs and tax cuts for the rich. Does the fact that the so-called progressive Obama critics were totally wrong the last few times that we heard their complaints matter?

  107. 107.

    William Hurley

    October 27, 2011 at 12:16 pm

    @geg6:

    Pardon me for failing to keep up with the etymology of sophomoric insults coined, it seems, to divide Democrats from Democrats or more broadly left from left.

    I’ll readily cop to using the term “o-bot” which to my mind is meant to highlight the impulsive, automatic defense of the President on any and all fronts before considering an argument’s merit or the robustness of that argument’s facts or evidence.

  108. 108.

    soonergrunt

    October 27, 2011 at 12:18 pm

    Way off topic, but the Servicemembers Legal Defense Fund is suing the government to get DOMA overturned on the basis that denying gay servicemembers the same benefits at straight ones is a violation of the Constitution’s Equal Protection clause.
    EDITED FOR LENGTH:

    BOSTON — A group of married gay current and former military personnel sued the federal government on Thursday, seeking equal recognition, benefits and the same support as married heterosexual couples who serve in the military.
    The lawsuit filed in U.S. District Court in Boston says the government’s Defense of Marriage Act violates their constitutional rights and asks the military to recognize their legal marriages…
    The lawsuit names as defendants Defense Secretary Leon Panetta, U.S. Attorney General Eric Holder and Veterans Affairs Secretary Eric K. Shinseki…
    Under current law, the Pentagon is required to ignore same-sex marriages…
    [Pentagon spokesman] Capt. John Kirby, pointed out that service members can already designate some benefits to people of their choosing regardless of sexual orientation, but other benefits are restricted by law.
    “In connection with ‘Don’t Ask, Don’t Tell’ repeal, the Defense Department is engaged in a careful and deliberate review of the possibility of extending eligibility for benefits, when legally permitted, to other individuals including same-sex partners,” the statement said.
    The lead plaintiff in the case is Maj. Shannon McLaughlin, a judge advocate general in the Massachusetts National Guard…
    Another plaintiff is Chief Warrant Officer Charlie Morgan of the New Hampshire National Guard…
    Morgan said she has cancer and is worried that her spouse and their daughter would be unable to receive survivor’s benefits. “We are only asking for equitable treatment as a recognized family,” she said.

  109. 109.

    William Hurley

    October 27, 2011 at 12:18 pm

    @General Stuck:

    Define or better yet provide an example or two of “better”?

    2010 won’t qualify, I trust.

  110. 110.

    General Stuck

    October 27, 2011 at 12:19 pm

    @William Hurley:

    Define or better yet provide an example or two of “better”?

    I don’t speak gibberish

  111. 111.

    Mark S.

    October 27, 2011 at 12:20 pm

    @William Hurley:

    Anyway, I think my point is made.

    Um, what is your point? My point was just that it is horrible journalism to say that Obama would lose if the election were held today when he is beating every conceivable challenger. But Halperin is almost in a class by himself when it comes to horrible journalism.

  112. 112.

    NR

    October 27, 2011 at 12:21 pm

    @Marc:

    Obama is successfully shifting the conversation

    Yes. He is shifting the conversation to the right.

    That’s why we’re not happy.

  113. 113.

    William Hurley

    October 27, 2011 at 12:21 pm

    @soonergrunt:

    It would be a very simply thing for Obama to “win” by ordering Holder to join the litigation but let the Defense Fund, the initial petitioners, to handle the logistics of purusing the matter.

    Simple, so simple in fact it won’t be done.

  114. 114.

    soonergrunt

    October 27, 2011 at 12:22 pm

    @William Hurley: Anyone who uses that term, uses it reflexively to dismiss their detractors, usually when they’re posting some bullshit emo screed that belies more of their misunderstanding of the structure of government and the roles and limitations of the players than it does actual useful factual information. People who use that term show themselves to be major time wasters with such certain regularity that one can pie filter them without any worry of missing anything useful, excepting that which accidentally occurs.

  115. 115.

    Brachiator

    October 27, 2011 at 12:22 pm

    @William Hurley:

    Are you really suggesting that the same electorate that, as poll after poll demonstrates, believes that TARP was an Obama policy will a) care about or b) differentiate between the murky, wonky Paul Ryan pan to kill medicare – which did noit become law despite GOP votes – or a law signed by Obama that does in fact institute cuts to these programs?

    You’re the guy whose claim that Obama caved on the Bush tax cuts indicates that you have no knowledge of the issue. You don’t have much credibility going for you.

    However, I don’t put much stake in polling, or in treating the electorate like fools who need to be manipulated for their own good, which is what you are implying.

    Is your answer that the Democrats should just lie about Medicare?

    In the end, it’s the outcomes that matter.

    We are speculating about outcomes here, not making anything happen. What’s your point?

  116. 116.

    chopper

    October 27, 2011 at 12:22 pm

    @Dustin:

    but he made $3000 today! 3000! do you know how much money he made today?

    lol. yeah, $3000, that’ll skyrocket you right into the upper echelon of society.

  117. 117.

    Martin

    October 27, 2011 at 12:23 pm

    @Violet:

    Making money while producing less! Win!

    Such are the benefits of an inelastic commodity – particularly one with limited supply. When the price of oil goes up, people don’t consume less, they merely complain about paying more. Exxon knows roughly how much is out there, so dumping it all on the market is just stupid – they crater the price, and when the price goes up due to demand being unmet, there’s none left in the ground to take out.

    I don’t blame Exxon too much for this. For one, they don’t control the price of oil, and even if they tried they’d fail because even if they have undue influence in the US, they don’t in China and India, etc. and they all have as much effect on the price as we do.

    I blame the GOP for chaining the country to this rigged system with their drill baby drill bullshit and steadfast refusal to entertain energy alternatives that would allow energy prices to become much more elastic by allowing the markets much more ability to substitute one energy type for another. Just doing that would balance prices out considerably, and take a lot of Exxon’s power to control supply in order to maximize profits away.

  118. 118.

    NR

    October 27, 2011 at 12:23 pm

    @Mark S.: In polls this far out from the election, the head-to-head numbers aren’t what matters. It’s whether the incumbent is under 50% that matters.

    Incumbents that consistently poll under 50% usually lose the election.

  119. 119.

    General Stuck

    October 27, 2011 at 12:24 pm

    Now for a puzzler to puzzle on today.

    Fighting?

    What is it within the confines of American governance and politics between the two main parties?

    Is fighting always standing pat of pure principal, without any leeway for political tactics. Or, base only strategy?

    Orly?

    Is fighting engaging the other side in political combat on the great issues of the day? Sometimes coopting the other sides rhetoric and action for your sides advantage with the audience. The Voters?

  120. 120.

    soonergrunt

    October 27, 2011 at 12:25 pm

    @William Hurley: And thus, my point is proven.
    The role of the Justice Department in a civil lawsuit against the government is to defend the government and the law in question.
    This is so simple and so routine that it seems to escape you.

  121. 121.

    soonergrunt

    October 27, 2011 at 12:26 pm

    @NR: You’re rather stupid. Nothing personal dude, just an observation.

  122. 122.

    NR

    October 27, 2011 at 12:27 pm

    @Brachiator:

    On the other hand, the idea that neither Social Security nor Medicare can ever be touched because they represent a sacred promise to people, or variations of this, is childish.

    Yes, people who want to protect Social Security and Medicare are just childish. They certainly aren’t Very Serious People like we have in Washington. I’m glad we have Very Serious People like Obama to tell us that the answer to our budget problems that were caused by irresponsible tax cuts and massive, bloated military spending is to cut programs that the elderly and the poor depend on to survive. Maybe someday, if we’re lucky, we can all be Very Serious People like they are.

  123. 123.

    William Hurley

    October 27, 2011 at 12:28 pm

    @Mark S.:

    That Halperin’s a d-bag goes without saying.

    My point is that polls, as mere indicators, are in practical terms of narrow and limited value.

    The “vegas” analogy I mentioned draws on the fact that although the “Vegas line” is often close to the actual outcomes of sporting events, the results on the field differ. So to with elections v. polling when all contingencies are in play and not merely some “variable”.

    As it stands today, Obama’s re-election is far from given. To my mind, his announced intention to raise (and spend) ~$1 billion in campaign financing is a massive red flag.

  124. 124.

    General Stuck

    October 27, 2011 at 12:29 pm

    @soonergrunt:

    NR is like Hurley, commenters of dubious origin and intent. IMO, Being so consistently full of shit is almost impossible to achieve without an alternate agenda, or plan in motion.

  125. 125.

    NR

    October 27, 2011 at 12:30 pm

    @soonergrunt: Thank you for perfectly illustrating mentality of Obama supporters. Can’t stand on the facts, so just insult anyone who dares criticize him.

  126. 126.

    William Hurley

    October 27, 2011 at 12:32 pm

    @Brachiator:

    It’s that kind of thinking that loses elections.

    “Childish” is in the eye of the voter.

    Cutting Medicare, Medicaid and/or SocSec when there’s massive income inequality, a general collapse in the “private” retirement system and unfettered streams of cash lavished on the MIC, the energy industry and financial services industry is, in the eye of this voter, childish – cowardly even!

  127. 127.

    William Hurley

    October 27, 2011 at 12:34 pm

    @General Stuck:

    You traffic in accusation often, and just as often fail to supply evidence or rational argument for your paranoid assertions.

    Care to change that trend?

  128. 128.

    General Stuck

    October 27, 2011 at 12:37 pm

    @William Hurley:

    Care to change that trend?

    Not for you

  129. 129.

    William Hurley

    October 27, 2011 at 12:37 pm

    @soonergrunt:

    Are you suggesting, then, that I ignore them?

  130. 130.

    fasteddie9318

    October 27, 2011 at 12:37 pm

    Fuck off! We’re the People’s Front of Judea!

  131. 131.

    William Hurley

    October 27, 2011 at 12:44 pm

    @General Stuck:

    I’ll read that as an “I can’t, so I won’t”.

    Instead of making like an anti-Santa, compiling a list those who voice dissatisfation with the President’s policies and – even more so – his electoral prospects, for use later when in despair at Obama’s loss you to redouble your purification ritual, maybe you could consider the temperament of the electorate and the prospects for a nation facing the terrifying potential of a GOP House, a GOP Senate and a GOPer in the White House – and an aged and ill Ruth Bader-Ginsburg teetering toward retirement.

  132. 132.

    Yutsano

    October 27, 2011 at 12:48 pm

    @William Hurley:

    maybe you could consider the temperament of the electorate and the prospects for a nation facing the terrifying potential of a GOP House, a GOP Senate and a GOPer in the White House – and an aged and ill Ruth Bader-Ginsburg teetering toward retirement.

    Try sounding more gleeful ratfucker.

  133. 133.

    ed drone

    October 27, 2011 at 12:49 pm

    @Nevgu:

    Well, I didn’t make $3000 this morning, but I’m still ahead:

    When I looked in the mirror this morning, I didn’t see your face.

    That makes me the winner.

    Ed

  134. 134.

    William Hurley

    October 27, 2011 at 12:49 pm

    @soonergrunt:

    Justice has on occasion joined a suit seeking the invalidate a law.

    Sorry to resimplify a point you needlessly made opaque.

  135. 135.

    Comrade Dread

    October 27, 2011 at 12:51 pm

    Obama will gladly “take” the shitty “compromise” Cat Food II produces rather than upset his most reliable donors, Wall St, and the defense establishment.

    I wouldn’t apply the adverb “gladly” to his actions, but if the choice is between doing nothing and accepting half of a deficit reduction package that he believes is necessary, I don’t imagine he’ll turn it down.

  136. 136.

    William Hurley

    October 27, 2011 at 12:52 pm

    @Yutsano:

    Pardon my french, but you are truly a dumbass.

    I base my assessment on the tenor and “sophistication” of your many retorts to participants here.

  137. 137.

    General Stuck

    October 27, 2011 at 12:54 pm

    Instead of making like an anti-Santa

    There is no need for talk like that. I fully support Santa, and all his little elves, especially Grumpy, an elf after my own heart,

    And further, with such hideous and baseless accusations, I challenge you to a duel, next Tuesday.

  138. 138.

    soonergrunt

    October 27, 2011 at 12:57 pm

    @NR: Dude, you’re a fucking moron. I’m sorry that you’re a fucking moron, but it’s not my fault. It doesn’t do you any good for me to pretend that you are not a fucking moron, because you are. A fucking moron, that is. Were I to pretend otherwise, you might start to think that you weren’t a fucking moron, and you might go sign a contract or something and eventually get into trouble. I’m helping you out here, you fucking moron.
    Conversely, I wouldn’t be doing myself any good pretending that you’re not a fucking moron because then I’d get all stressed out at having to keep the lie running in the face of you being a fucking moron and at the end of the day, everybody else would still think you were a fucking moron, so the effort would be a total waste to boot.
    Besides, as I said earlier, it’s not personal. It’s just an observation. In the same way that I observed that the sun came up yesterday and today in more or less the same place on the horizon, I’ve read your posts the last couple of days and found them to be of the same consistent quality as that of a fucking moron.

  139. 139.

    Yutsano

    October 27, 2011 at 12:57 pm

    @William Hurley: I call it like I see it. You want to punish Obama for being a heretic to your supposed true cause (which remains elusive) so have determined yourself to work for his electoral defeat consequences be damned. You know it’s too late for any serious primary challenger so therefore you are aligning yourself with those that would seek to increase wealth inequality and fundamental unfairness. You do not see the inherent cognitive dissonance in this, as your only concern is punishing Obama for not being the pure progressive you think he should be. In other words, you’re a rodent copulator.

  140. 140.

    William Hurley

    October 27, 2011 at 1:00 pm

    @Comrade Dread:

    Your comment rests on a fiction.

    There is no “nothing” in the matter of Cat Food II. There are essentially 2 options. One option is to take the automatic cuts. The second option is to take the proposal, should one be forthcoming, from the Cat Food Commissioners. That’s it.

    A) or B). No “nothing”.

    As for “gladly”, I was using a call-back to satirize the views of a respondent who used that term to characterize the President’s demeanor when signing the bill extending the duration of the Bush tax cuts.

  141. 141.

    Martin

    October 27, 2011 at 1:01 pm

    @NR:

    Incumbents that consistently poll under 50% usually lose the election.

    If you’re going to try to school us, at least get the schooling right.

    The rule was that incumbents polling below 50% in their final poll before the election (usually the 3 day period immediately preceding) go on to lose. If you think there will be no polling in the next 53 weeks, you’re a fucking idiot. So you fail here.

    However, Nate ran the numbers and showed that the rule was wrong, that incumbents under 50% in their final poll often win. So you fail here too for trying to school us without even bothered to read Nate, which is pretty much required reading on the topic.

    The revised rule proposed by Nate is that incumbents below 50% and also trailing their opponent in the final poll go on to lose. Well, that’s such a mountain of ‘duh’, that it hardly deserves to be a rule. For one, if you’re trailing, of course you’re likely to lose, and if you’re trailing you have to be below 50%.

    Finally, the presidential race has fuck-all to do with the popular vote, so the rule wouldn’t even have applied had it been correct. Assuming it was correct, you’d need to show us at least 11 polls showing Obama below 50% (the fewest states you can carry and still win the presidency), and probably much more. And those polls don’t even exist. So even if the rule was right, you still fail for not understanding how we elect a president.

    @Nevgu: +$11,682 since the open. And the DJIA means nothing. Stop being a dick.

  142. 142.

    NR

    October 27, 2011 at 1:05 pm

    @soonergrunt: Like I said: This is a perfect example of the mentality of Obama supporters. You have no facts, no rational basis to argue from, so whenever anyone voices any criticism, you respond with childish insults.

    Your post has done nothing except, yet again, prove the intellectual and moral bankruptcy of Obama supporters. So congratulations for that, at least.

  143. 143.

    soonergrunt

    October 27, 2011 at 1:07 pm

    @William Hurley: I know that you aren’t very bright–your multiple statements here belie that fact rather easily, but do please to tell us all on what basis you have determined that the Justice Department will actively fight this lawsuit with any vigor at all?
    Since, unlike you, I cannot read minds, I have only the article about it, which says that AG Holder, Secretary Shinseki and Secretary Panetta were named as defendants by the plaintiffs, but nothing that says that the government is going to do one thing or the other.
    Although given your ratfucker personality as so aptly (and a hell of a lot more eloquently) described by Yutsano, I’m sure you’re hoping this won’t get to SCOTUS until after Obama has lost the election and Ginsburg has been replaced with Scalito, Jr. Then you’ll have that to blame on Obama too.

  144. 144.

    soonergrunt

    October 27, 2011 at 1:12 pm

    @NR: Insults are more than you deserve, being that you are a fucking moron. The problem with fucking morons like you is that you can’t have whatever fucking moronic thing that you want (because it’s fucking moronic) and so you fight like hell to bring down the rest of us (because fucking morons like you don’t like to be alone in your fucking moronic lives.)
    Being a fucking moron, you are not worth the effort it takes to rebut you, because you do not say anything that has any value. You also are not worth the energy it takes to call you a fucking moron. However, there is at least an element of fun to thinking of and expressing all the ways that you are a fucking moron and so I do so, you fucking moron.

  145. 145.

    Corner Stone

    October 27, 2011 at 1:15 pm

    @soonergrunt: For goodness’ sake! Are you trying to single handedly kill FlipYrNick!?
    Might as well take a sledge to the poor fellow, it would be more humane than this sustained assault on his reasonable sensibilities.

  146. 146.

    William Hurley

    October 27, 2011 at 1:17 pm

    @Yutsano:

    Let me make it very simple for you.

    My Personal View:
    Obama has radically underperformed his mandate, squandered what was an unprecedented majority in both the House & Senate and has refused to take a Democrat’s stance in the face of massive fraud perpetrated by financiers from small town mortgage brokers to TBTF banksters. His refusal to enforce the law and to exact accountability from the previous Administration’s policy makers on top of his refusal to investigate – let alone prosecute – the creators of a calamity that destroyed more than $14 trillion in wealth is unacceptable.

    Yet, even with these and other complaints, I will vote for Obama if he is the Democrat’s nominee in 2012.

    My Electoral View:
    The preponderance of the data has convinced me that Obama cannot win re-election. Between the fact of the on-going disaster that is the housing bubble’s deflation and the Kafka-esque Obama programs intended to assist home-owners being crushed under the weight of that deflation, HAMP & HARP, the electorate is violently pissed (see OWS).

    There are presently 26,000,000 Americans who are un- or under-employed. Unless the economy begins to generate 350k new jobs a month, every month, until election day, the number of un- and under-employed Americans will top 30,000,000 and the headline unemployment rate will be “north” of 9%. In the past 70 years, no President has been re-elected when the headline unemployment number was over 7.2%.

    85% of working Americans take-home less pay, in 2008 dollars, today than they did when Obama became President.

    these and other unavoidable truths of the lives of the electorate are what guide my conclusion regarding the President’s electoral prospects.

    In short, Obama will not lose because I will vote for him, should he be the nominee. He’ll lose because tens of millions of Americans will face the choice of A) more of the same or B) something different or C) stay home.

    I have yet to see a convincing argument, and supporting data/logic, that demonstrates more voters will choose A) over the combination of B) and C).

    And let me assure you that “I woulda’ if only they let me” is NOT a winning strategy – regardless of whether it’s accurate or, IMHO, is not.

  147. 147.

    chopper

    October 27, 2011 at 1:22 pm

    @NR:

    yeah, ‘fucking moron’ is pretty much spot-on. OH NOES I MUST BE A OBAMA SUPPORTER TOO!

  148. 148.

    Brachiator

    October 27, 2011 at 1:23 pm

    @NR:

    Yes, people who want to protect Social Security and Medicare are just childish. They certainly aren’t Very Serious People like we have in Washington.

    Please don’t distort my words, and please don’t waste my time with the lame cliches and catch phrases that some Balloon Juicers love to overuse.

    Since I am not saying that Social Security should be abolished (hell, I don’t even believe that it is going to become insolvent any time soon), your talk about “protecting” Social Security and Medicare is rather empty.

    Now, we can talk about the political miscalculations and economic realities that may make adjustments to these programs necessary, but to insist that everything should be in stasis (except, of course, for benefit increases) is unrealistic, especially since there is currently no easy way to get tax increases which might help alleviate the problem.

    Also, I would love to see more progressives with brains elected to come up with creative solutions. Help get some elected. Anything else is pointless.

    @William Hurley:

    It’s that kind of thinking that loses elections.

    That’s certainly your opinion, for what it’s worth.

    So let’s see. The GOP presidential contenders are falling all over themselves to find a way to get a zero percent tax system, while killing outright all social programs. Meanwhile, the budget stalemate and GOP control of the House makes it practically impossible for the Democrats to do anything without triggering either automatic spending cuts or a demand for deeper spending cuts.

    So, let’s see. People can sit at home, improving the GOP’s chances. They can vote for a no-chance third party candidate, improving the GOP’s chances. They can insure that Congress is dominated by Republicans. Or they can vote for the Democrats. What else you got?

    Cutting Medicare, Medicaid and/or SocSec when there’s massive income inequality, a general collapse in the “private” retirement system and unfettered streams of cash lavished on the MIC, the energy industry and financial services industry is, in the eye of this voter, childish – cowardly even!

    There’s nothing of substance to respond to here. Just saying.

  149. 149.

    Yutsano

    October 27, 2011 at 1:24 pm

    @William Hurley: It would be rather easy to deconstruct this entire comment, but I’ve wasted enough words on you. I’ll just say this: you are not helping anything.

  150. 150.

    chopper

    October 27, 2011 at 1:24 pm

    @William Hurley:

    what was an unprecedented majority in both the House & Senate

    lolwut?

  151. 151.

    soonergrunt

    October 27, 2011 at 1:25 pm

    @Corner Stone: I’m home with nothing to do, and post-op pain makes me cranky.

  152. 152.

    NR

    October 27, 2011 at 1:29 pm

    @soonergrunt: You know, what’s hilarious is that you think your comments say something about me, but in reality, they say nothing about me. However, they say a lot about you.

    I pity you. I really do.

  153. 153.

    eemom

    October 27, 2011 at 1:30 pm

    @Brachiator:
    @Yutsano:

    when you argue with clowns, you wake up with fleas. Or something.

  154. 154.

    Yutsano

    October 27, 2011 at 1:32 pm

    @eemom: Eh. It’s okay. I’m done. I called out this copulator of rodentia weeks ago.

  155. 155.

    William Hurley

    October 27, 2011 at 1:33 pm

    @Marc:

    You might want to reconsider your analysis of the electoral landscape, your application of rhetorically laden pejoratives and the conclusions you draw regarding the President’s “success” in having moved “the conversation”.

    Truth be told, on the heals of securing a far too small stimulus package from a House & Senate wherein the President enjoyed what were, until the 2010 elections, an unprecedented majority in both chambers, he immediately began his 2-pronged approach to under-delivering on HCR and to create, by Executive Order, the first deficit commission.

    After pissing away political capital, giving away politically advantageous positions and legitimizing a “national” debate on the evils of debt and deficit, the President is now trying for another bite at the politically rotten apple of “meritorious” safety-net cuts.

    The American public has a different perspective on the nature and order of the problems they (we) want addressed.

    Americans in Poll Back Taxing Rich, Maintaining Entitlements

    I’ll look for your modified assessment as well as the more likely an apologia for a factless fiction.

  156. 156.

    Yutsano

    October 27, 2011 at 1:36 pm

    @William Hurley:

    an unprecedented majority in both chambers

    If I keep repeating it, it will be true!

    I’ll look for your modified assessment as well as the more likely an apologia for a factless fiction.

    Nice fucking high opinion you have of yourself. Also. Too.

    @eemom: (okay I was almost done.)

  157. 157.

    eemom

    October 27, 2011 at 1:37 pm

    omg, I now see just how hilarious this thread is, and I missed it. I hate it when I actually WORK with my computer.

  158. 158.

    NR

    October 27, 2011 at 1:37 pm

    @Brachiator:

    Since I am not saying that Social Security should be abolished (hell, I don’t even believe that it is going to become insolvent any time soon), your talk about “protecting” Social Security and Medicare is rather empty.

    Straw man. I never said that you or any other Democrat was talking about “abolishing” Social Security or Medicare. What they, and you, are talking about is making cuts to these programs that the poor and the elderly depend on to survive.

    These cuts will be very damaging to a lot of people, and so they need to be protected against.

  159. 159.

    Uncle Clarence Thomas

    October 27, 2011 at 1:38 pm

    .
    .
    Fortunately, the most important thing here is that President Obama and the Democrats offered up these Medicare cuts of their own accord. With better party discipline and more cohesion, they will eventually be successful.
    .
    .

  160. 160.

    chopper

    October 27, 2011 at 1:38 pm

    @NR:

    someone calls you a fucking moron? clearly shows that obama supporters are morally bankrupt.

    get cut off in traffic? FUCKING OBOTS. I KNEW IT WAS THEM, EVEN WHEN IT WASN’T THEM I KNEW IT WAS THEM.

  161. 161.

    eemom

    October 27, 2011 at 1:42 pm

    @William Hurley:

    I’ll look for your modified assessment as well as the more likely an apologia for a factless fiction.

    I fucking LOVE this sentence.

    Would that there were a Nobel Prize for Self-Parody.

  162. 162.

    replicnt6

    October 27, 2011 at 1:43 pm

    @Nevgu: Welcome back Fred! I thought I smelled stale urine.

  163. 163.

    Uncle Clarence Thomas

    October 27, 2011 at 1:44 pm

    .
    .
    @Corner Stone:

    @soonergrunt: For goodness’ sake! Are you trying to single handedly kill FlipYrNick!? Might as well take a sledge to the poor fellow, it would be more humane than this sustained assault on his reasonable sensibilities.

    Hey, cut the OG OK Killer some slack, willya? He’s used to having prostrate Iraqi women and children beg for their lives before him, and the transition to civilian civility has been difficult for him.
    .
    .

  164. 164.

    Lol

    October 27, 2011 at 1:51 pm

    The 2009-2010 Senate isn’t even in the top ten for control of the Senate. Ditto for the House.

  165. 165.

    chopper

    October 27, 2011 at 1:53 pm

    @eemom:

    i do love it when smug, self-righteous types who try to act much smarter than they are use phrases like “on the heals of…” and “as well as the more likely an apologia”. it’s like sarah palin read a book but just can’t quit the gibberish.

  166. 166.

    chopper

    October 27, 2011 at 1:55 pm

    @Lol:

    shut up, he’s rolling. no seriously, i think there are drugs involved.

  167. 167.

    Brachiator

    October 27, 2011 at 1:57 pm

    @NR:

    Straw man. I never said that you or any other Democrat was talking about “abolishing” Social Security or Medicare. What they, and you, are talking about is making cuts to these programs that the poor and the elderly depend on to survive.

    Stop falsely using the term “straw man.”

    And you are now jumping from the question of making cuts to Social Security and Medicare to “protecting Social Security and Medicare” to invoking images of the poor and the elderly who presumably depend on Social Security and Medicare.

    Not much of an argument here. But obviously, not every person on Social Security or Medicare is poor, or will be impoverished by changes.

    These cuts will be very damaging to a lot of people, and so they need to be protected against.

    How you gonna do that?

  168. 168.

    William Hurley

    October 27, 2011 at 2:05 pm

    @Brachiator:

    I find it interesting that you complain about your words being misinterpreted, in your comment to MR, then immediately proceed to mangle the very plain English I put forth in my post.

    I also find it interesting that you, like many other titanic o-bots here, expend as much energy as you do creating them burning down straw-person arguments.

    Most notably, your willful distortion of elementary electoral politics. The Presidential primary process always produces a cacophony within and among the party engaged in the process when, by virtue of an unchallenged incumbent, the media spotlight is focused on only one party. Feel free to google or otherwise research that history. One example in the recent past is the Democratic Party’s 1992 primaries. So too the 2004 primaries.

    My point is that the current “calamity” amid the GOP “hopefuls” is interesting theater, if that’s your thing, and may be fruitful ground to mine for future attacks against the eventual nominee. However, the most historically important fact of the transition from primary to general is that each phase is distinct, with little “bleed over” from the internecine battles into the cross-party combativeness that is the general election.

    Furthermore, the up-coming general will in all likelihood resemble past general elections held under bad economic conditions. In the past, and it is in this case prologue, the election was little more than a plebiscite on the incumbent’s performance on economic matters. Again, I refer you to ’92 when the Democrats were bickering and the press belittling the primary field out of which came Bill Clinton wrapped in Paul Begala’s “It’s the Economy, Stupid!” slogan. You may well argue that Clinton beat Bush on the merits of policy proposals and the “intangibles” of the campaign, but there’s little doubt among most observers that the central factor aiding Clinton and crippling Bush was the state of the economy.

    And let me assure you, the state of the economy in 1991 was nirvana compared to its state today and the state it will be in on election day.

    As such, the electorate can A) vote for more of the same (Obama), B) something different or change from the same (the GOP nominee) or C) stay home and opt out.

    As I said, and now that description includes your “assessment”, I have yet to see a convincing argument and/or data indicating that more voters will choose A) than will choose B) and C) combined.

    For instance, take a peek at this polling. As I wrote above, polls are indicators not certitudes. Still, what is the President’s response to the potential loss of a large percentage of young voters?

    Let me assure you, alienating elderly and retired voters will not “back-fill” a decline in the youth demographic.

    Or, you could take a look at the disposition of formerly ardent and critical supporters of the President. Wishing for different facts leads only to unfulfilled wishes and a very sour disposition.

  169. 169.

    eemom

    October 27, 2011 at 2:15 pm

    then immediately proceed to mangle the very plain English I put forth in my post.

    dude, you are killing me here. Srsly, you are almost too good to be true.

  170. 170.

    William Hurley

    October 27, 2011 at 2:20 pm

    @Yutsano:

    As I wrote above, you’re a dumbass.

    On Inauguration Day, the President enjoyed a 20 seat majority in the Senate and an 80+ seat majority in the House.

    One of many reports on the emergence of that majority – a powerful tool lost when Obama and Rambo were more concerned about Rahm’s up-coming mayoral race than retaining Ted Kennedy’s seat and the last vote to break a filibuster.

    Many analysts described it as unprecedented, others historic.

    Why are you purposefully distorting what should otherwise be seen, especially by o-bots, as a major victory and endorsement of the newly elected President?

    Is it that the President’s failures are so transparent that without your whiny historical revisionism about the majority he enjoyed you’ll have nothing to believe in but the facts?

  171. 171.

    William Hurley

    October 27, 2011 at 2:23 pm

    @eemom:

    You’re point?

  172. 172.

    chopper

    October 27, 2011 at 2:27 pm

    @William Hurley:

    On Inauguration Day, the President enjoyed a 20 seat majority in the Senate

    come on, this is just spoof. doug?

  173. 173.

    William Hurley

    October 27, 2011 at 2:29 pm

    @chopper:

    Are the events of 3 years ago so dim in your mind that they’re beyond history?

    In 2008, then DNC Chair Howard Dean 50 State Strategy produced spectacular results on top of the spectacular results of 2006. At the onset of his Administration, Obama enjoyed a 20 seat majority in the Senate and an 80+ seat majority in the House.

    If you can’t even be honest with regard to these facts, facts that should be a badge of honor among o-bots, then you’re your ability to be honest with any “fact” is – at best – suspect.

  174. 174.

    soonergrunt

    October 27, 2011 at 2:30 pm

    @NR: And yet, I’ll find the strength to live on.
    That’s because you’re a fucking moron.

  175. 175.

    chopper

    October 27, 2011 at 2:34 pm

    @William Hurley:

    Obama enjoyed a 20 seat majority in the Senate

    you keep saying that and throwing the word ‘facts’ around. come on, this is spoofing.

    and all this garbage about obama ‘enjoying’ a democratic majority when the blue dogs cock-blocked half of his agenda before the GOP even had a chance to?

  176. 176.

    William Hurley

    October 27, 2011 at 2:36 pm

    @chopper:

    Interesting. Your posts are nothing more than gibberish (this being the correct spelling) it’s amusing to see you adopt the “tried & true” right-winger’s tactic of accusing the opposition of committing the same crime you just committed.

    It’s a curious and silly application of the “moral equivalence” tactic.

  177. 177.

    burnspbesq

    October 27, 2011 at 2:41 pm

    @William Hurley:

    Is that a threat of violence?

    That you would even think that was a threat of violence shows that you are functionally illiterate. Go back and read it again. Try harder this time.

  178. 178.

    William Hurley

    October 27, 2011 at 2:43 pm

    @chopper:

    WOW!

    Pencils down. We have a winner!

    Talk about cognitive dissonance.

    To recap: you’re asserting that the Democratic majority the Democratic President enjoyed in the Senate and the House wasn’t really a majority because all of those Democrats in that majority failed to vote for every single bit of the Democratic President’s proposals.

    You sound like a disaffected GOPer! Or possibly an ardent Maoist of the Cultural Revolution who, with Little Red Book in hand, remained on the hunt for that last peasant who refuses to capitulate to the party’s order.

    Your grasp of politics appears to be stuck at the kindergarten level.

  179. 179.

    burnspbesq

    October 27, 2011 at 2:43 pm

    @William Hurley:

    But, back to your line of “thought” that privileges your bad circumstances over and above those of others. Consider this, how may weeks of unemployment insurance does a formerly self-employed contractor receive when hospitalized for a long undiagnosed congenital illness?

    Gibberish, non sequitur, and strawman, all in one sentence. I am in awe.

  180. 180.

    William Hurley

    October 27, 2011 at 2:48 pm

    @burnspbesq:

    Really?

    And would my teeth fall out by virtue of … angry kittens?

    The problem with debating people who are aren’t so sharp is that the limitation prohibits the sufferer of this intellectual dullness from realizing the boundaries of his/her own limitations. You demonstrated that here by asserting that a violent act is something other than violence and that anyone who comes to a different conclusion is mistaken.

    Have you ever considered taking a job with Breitbart? I’m sure that goon could use another “over-achiever” on his staff.

  181. 181.

    William Hurley

    October 27, 2011 at 2:52 pm

    @burnspbesq:

    You clearly are in awe, since the effect of that euphoric state has stunted your ability to read and respond to a simple question.

    Let’s try again.

    How many weeks of unemployment assistance would such a person as I described receive?

  182. 182.

    Sentient Puddle

    October 27, 2011 at 2:59 pm

    @William Hurley:

    You’re point?

    Yep, eemom has point. You’re left flank, soonergrunt is on the right flank, I’m covering the rear. NR is supposed to be providing air support, but I wouldn’t count on it. Make due.

    MOVE OUT!

  183. 183.

    Odie Hugh Manatee

    October 27, 2011 at 3:00 pm

    @Hurling Billy:

    I may have been wrong in my assessment of you being a firebagger. Yutsano may be right that you are a ratfucker but I’m detecting a strong Naderite stench rising from the piles you are dropping all over here today. One thing I can safely say is that you are not intelligent. Your piles of bullshit are little more than a lot of words with some numbers and punctuation.

    A tale told by an idiot, full of sound and fury, signifying nothing.

    Hint: Quantity does not mean quality.

  184. 184.

    Djur

    October 27, 2011 at 3:44 pm

    I’m drowning in smarm over here. Holy crap, what a prissy little shit.

  185. 185.

    Brachiator

    October 27, 2011 at 3:44 pm

    @William Hurley:

    I find it interesting that you complain about your words being misinterpreted, in your comment to MR, then immediately proceed to mangle the very plain English I put forth in my post.

    Nonsense. You write much, but say little.

    I also find it interesting that you, like many other titanic o-bots here, expend as much energy as you do creating them burning down straw-person arguments

    Not an Obot. Never have been. You clearly have never read my other posts here.

    There is nothing more foolish than people who cannot engage arguments, and who look for silly reasons to dismiss people. I don’t know whether you are an Obot or anti-Obot. You seemed to want to express some opinion, and I was somewhat curious that you were so emphatic about, for example, Obama and the Bush tax cuts, but so manifestly uninformed about the background to the issue.

    I lost interest in your post after this. Might return to it later.

  186. 186.

    chopper

    October 27, 2011 at 3:46 pm

    @William Hurley:

    now you’re throwing around terms like ‘cognitive dissonance’. oy gevult.

    To recap: you’re asserting that the Democratic majority the Democratic President enjoyed in the Senate and the House wasn’t really a majority because all of those Democrats in that majority failed to vote for every single bit of the Democratic President’s proposals.

    no, you half-wit. i’m saying it wasn’t a “20 seat majority” (which it clearly was not, at least to anyone who wasn’t in a drug-induced coma in 2009). and the not-20-seat-majority was not ‘enjoyed’ by obama either way because numerous blue dogs went out of their way to screw with obama’s agenda. hence him not ‘enjoying’ it.

    you’re either a bad spoof or some cask-strength stupid.

  187. 187.

    William Hurley

    October 27, 2011 at 3:51 pm

    @Odie Hugh Manatee:

    You’re an odd and unfortunate character OHM. For all of your bluster and thunderous language of dismissal, I have yet to see you make any of the following cases:

    A) Why Obama will win.

    B) Why a primary challenge to Obama is 1) bad politics, 2) bad for Obama, 3) a mistake that would guarantee a GOP Presidential win.

    C) Why various historical examples are or are not instructive in the case of Obama’s 2012 campaign prospects.

    D) Why legitimate grievances regarding the President’s performance and/or continuation of Bush era policies are divisive and/or negative and/or threaten to derail Obama’s re-election.

    Or some other scenario.

    If you really want to impress your fellows here, take the chance and make the (your) case.

    Since you chose to dismiss it, let me reintroduce you to my perspectives.

    Good luck.

    Let me make it very simple for you.

    My Personal View:
    Obama has radically underperformed his mandate, squandered what was an unprecedented majority in both the House & Senate and has refused to take a Democrat’s stance in the face of massive fraud perpetrated by financiers from small town mortgage brokers to TBTF banksters. His refusal to enforce the law and to exact accountability from the previous Administration’s policy makers on top of his refusal to investigate – let alone prosecute – the creators of a calamity that destroyed more than $14 trillion in wealth is unacceptable.

    Yet, even with these and other complaints, I will vote for Obama if he is the Democrat’s nominee in 2012.

    My Electoral View:
    The preponderance of the data has convinced me that Obama cannot win re-election. Between the fact of the on-going disaster that is the housing bubble’s deflation and the Kafka-esque Obama programs intended to assist home-owners being crushed under the weight of that deflation, HAMP & HARP, the electorate is violently pissed (see OWS).

    There are presently 26,000,000 Americans who are un- or under-employed. Unless the economy begins to generate 350k new jobs a month, every month, until election day, the number of un- and under-employed Americans will top 30,000,000 and the headline unemployment rate will be “north” of 9%. In the past 70 years, no President has been re-elected when the headline unemployment number was over 7.2%.

    85% of working Americans take-home less pay, in 2008 dollars, today than they did when Obama became President.

    these and other unavoidable truths of the lives of the electorate are what guide my conclusion regarding the President’s electoral prospects.

    In short, Obama will not lose because I will vote for him, should he be the nominee. He’ll lose because tens of millions of Americans will face the choice of A) more of the same or B) something different or C) stay home.

    I have yet to see a convincing argument, and supporting data/logic, that demonstrates more voters will choose A) over the combination of B) and C).

    And let me assure you that “I woulda’ if only they let me” is NOT a winning strategy – regardless of whether it’s accurate or, IMHO, is not.

  188. 188.

    William Hurley

    October 27, 2011 at 4:06 pm

    @chopper:

    So, what you’re really telling me it that despite the mathematical facts and the composition of the Democratic Caucus, which consisted of 2 Independents in addition to the 58 Democrats, that the President didn’t actually have a “majority” because – unlike Republicans – they refused behave as if subjects before a crown or with the singular purpose of an invariant hive mind.

    Is that the story you tell yourself?

    Or maybe you’re telling me and other readers here that despite the Democrat’s absolute, filibuster-proof majority in the Senate, that Obama was such a weak and untrustworthy leader that the members of his own party’s caucus voted against him and their own best interests out of spite.

    Is this the story you tell yourself?

    Which is it?

    Was the 60 member Democratic majority in the Senate something other than a 20 seat absolute majority in the Senate?

    Or is Obama such a weak leader and poor communicator – or rogue negotiator following his own rules – that he could not muster enough support among his own party’s caucus YET, he remains the “best” choice for President.

    Bizarre!

    Hypothetically speaking, let’s say Obama does win re-election. Let’s even consider that the House and Senate remain essentially unchanged – on balance. Do you think that this scenario – as a campaign narrative – is one a majority of the electorate will support at the ballot box? Essentially, 4 more years of the past 2 years?

    Is that the story you tell yourself?

  189. 189.

    chopper

    October 27, 2011 at 4:11 pm

    @William Hurley:

    Democratic Caucus, which consisted of 2 Independents in addition to the 58 Democrats,

    jesus, in all this time you’ve spent looking like a moron you could have just looked up the actual number in the democratic caucus when obama was sworn in.

    while you were doing that, you could also have tried to remember how much trouble obama had with the conservative end of the democratic caucus and how many headaches they gave him.

    ‘filibuster-proof majority’, that’s a laff.

  190. 190.

    William Hurley

    October 27, 2011 at 4:12 pm

    @Brachiator:

    I look forward to your return. I hope you bring some facts, evidence, an argument or something of substance with you when you do return.

    If you feel I’ve overlooked or discounted a particularly important point, argument or series of facts you’ve put forward, please do alert me to these points where I’ve erred.

    I’m curious to see where, why and by what means I’ve misfired – in your estimation.

  191. 191.

    chopper

    October 27, 2011 at 4:13 pm

    @William Hurley:

    also, i never said that the democrats didn’t have a majority in the senate when obama was sworn in, numbnuts. i’m saying it wasn’t a 20-seat majority, and that obama didn’t have a great time with it.

    seriously, if you had your head out of your ass for more than a few seconds you’d get that from the plain english of my posts.

  192. 192.

    Mike Lamb

    October 27, 2011 at 4:21 pm

    Please explain how Obama’s electoral outlook (as you set forth above)would be any different if he tried to use his alleged mandate in your preferred manner (public option, allowing tax cuts to expire, whatever). In that event, we would still have a bunch of Senate Blue Dogs and GOP watering down or outright blocking legislation (public option/size of stimulus); there’d be no extension of tax cuts (a good thing); no legislative repeal of DADT or extension of Unemployment Benefits (bad thing). In short, his policy accomplishments would be negligible and he’s STILL arguing that I would’ve done x, y and z but for Senate intransigence. So how does that make him more electable? Because he’d fire up a portion of his base with his “uncompromising” approach?

    Also, what, exactly, does a primary challenge accomplish? Do you honestly believe that a successful primary challenge would yield a more electable candidate? Anyone would with a “D” next to their name would be painted as more of the same. Moreover, I can only see a primary challenge being successful if it came from the left. As misguided as it is, the GOP has, somewhat successfully, painted Obama as a “leftist”. What would they do with the new candidate? What’s the selling point of the primary challenge to independents?

  193. 193.

    William Hurley

    October 27, 2011 at 4:23 pm

    @chopper:

    Does the name Arlen Spector ring a bell?

    Correcting you o-bots is tiring but, hopefully, not a wasted exercise.

    Since we’re now in agreement that Obama did indeed enjoy a filibuster proof majority in the Senate, can we begin to amend and correct other views you have leading to the mistaken conclusion that the President is a victim who exercised/s no control over his political fortunes?

  194. 194.

    chopper

    October 27, 2011 at 4:29 pm

    @William Hurley:

    arlen specter was a republican on obama’s inauguration day, you nimrod.

  195. 195.

    William Hurley

    October 27, 2011 at 4:35 pm

    @Mike Lamb:

    Here’s a little thing that unravels your rant.

    Your “what if…” is not fact. It’s a guess, announced by your introduction.

    Obama cannot be at once “victim” of a recalcitrant Democratic caucus if Obama never actually put the legislative options your enumerate before them.

    In fact, if you look at the AR primary in which local favorite and labor darling Bill Halter forced a primary run-off with the incumbent, Blanche Lincoln, you’ll see that the President chose to waste money and political capital on a candidate who trailed the GOP’s nominee by 25 points – a sum smaller than than actual end result.

    Had Obama taken the same “hands-off” approach to Lincoln’s race as he did with the race to fill Kennedy’s seat, would Halter have won? Who knows!

    But, what we do know about that race is that in “head-to-head” polling, Halter equaled and even beat the GOP nominee where Lincoln wasn’t even close. What we do know is that Obama, Plouffe, Axelrod and Emmanuel picked the guaranteed loser over candidate with stronger prospects.

    Good thing the balance of the Senate wasn’t actually in play on the strength of that one race.

    The lesson here is that Obama will follow the conservative course, regardless of the polling and regardless of the tangible benefits he’d realize with different choices.

    Additional evidence: Bill Daley, Chief of Staff.

  196. 196.

    William Hurley

    October 27, 2011 at 4:41 pm

    @chopper:

    Indeed, in that detail you are correct. Equally important details are to be found in Spector’s months-long flirtation with “flipping” during which he voted with the majority’s caucus more often than his own.

    Now, with that settled, the fact that Obama did indeed have a filibuster proof majority, in contradistinction to your mistaken rebuttal above, resets the rhetorical landscape regarding the opportunity he – and no other President for 70 years prior – had enjoyed.

    I’m curious to know what, if any, point you’re hoping to make.

  197. 197.

    Sentient Puddle

    October 27, 2011 at 4:48 pm

    @William Hurley: See, here’s the exact moment that I know for sure you’re no longer worth paying any attention to:

    Yet, even with these and other complaints, I will vote for Obama if he is the Democrat’s nominee in 2012.

    So we know exactly how you’re going to vote in November 2012. That’s a load off our backs!

    At least other people who bitch about Obama selling them out half-heartedly threaten to sit out the election. That kind of sort of gives of some sort of air of “You should give a fuck what I think.”

  198. 198.

    Catsy

    October 27, 2011 at 4:49 pm

    @geg6:

    I really did used to think that the left was intellectually superior to the right.

    On the balance, it is. In the vast majority of cases and by an overwhelming margin.

    That doesn’t mean that the left wing of crazytown doesn’t have a significant population inclined to silliness and magical thinking. It just means that the contemporary right has set an extraordinarily low bar in this regard.

  199. 199.

    chopper

    October 27, 2011 at 4:52 pm

    @William Hurley:

    yes, i am indeed absolutely correct. obama did not enjoy a filibuster proof majority when he was inaugurated. i’m glad you finally came to realize it. counting a wishy-washy republican as part of the caucus is so stupid i’m not going to dignify it with a response.

    60 votes, which the democratic caucus had for two short periods during the last congress, was a filibuster proof majority only in myth. it’s enough votes for cloture on paper, but it only works if absolutely everyone in the democratic caucus votes together.

  200. 200.

    Mike Lamb

    October 27, 2011 at 4:52 pm

    @William Hurley: That’s completely non-responsive. The House bill re: health care was far more progressive than what was ultimately signed into law. So it’s not like a more progressive option was never available. It was systematically dismantled by the Senate until it reached its current iteration.

    It’s telling that you adhere to completely unreaslistic scenarios (i.e. that Lincoln, Nelson, Lieberman, Bayh or Landrieu would have magically voted with the caucus on a more progressive bill), when we know that it didn’t happen.

  201. 201.

    NR

    October 27, 2011 at 5:06 pm

    @Mike Lamb:

    It was systematically dismantled by the Senate until it reached its current iteration.

    With Obama’s blessing.

  202. 202.

    eemom

    October 27, 2011 at 5:12 pm

    @William Hurley:

    You’re point?

    No, I am not point.

    I am, however, laughing my ass off.

  203. 203.

    Mike Lamb

    October 27, 2011 at 5:19 pm

    @NR: Based on what evidence? And even if true, was it because he knew what could get passed or because he wanted an individual mandate?

  204. 204.

    Catsy

    October 27, 2011 at 5:39 pm

    Hm, this William Hurley chap seems to have a lot to say about pie. I’m guessing he must’ve come by here at some point before to share recipes.

  205. 205.

    NR

    October 27, 2011 at 5:46 pm

    @Mike Lamb: The evidence has been gone over multiple times, so I’m not going to bother digging up the links again. But it’s been confirmed that Obama cut secret backroom deals to kill both the public option and drug reimportation long before the bill even came up for a vote in the Senate. Lieberman, et. al., were just doing his dirty work for him.

  206. 206.

    General Stuck

    October 27, 2011 at 5:48 pm

    @eemom:

    shiat, if Hurley don’t up his grammar game, peeps is gonna look in my direction.

  207. 207.

    FollowtheDough

    October 27, 2011 at 6:50 pm

    Every day the democrats thank god the republicans exist. Blocking legislation makes it easier for the democrats to sit down & pretend that both parties aren’t completely bought and paid for. In a way the democratic party has become the imagniary buffer of “We almost had it that time” The clinging faithful continue to clutch their ticket hoping it isn’t true. “Oh the democrats just put on that table because the republicans are unreasonable but we have no intention of reducing the american standard of living. It is 11 dimensional chess, ya see.”

    Let’s stop pretending that nothing is happening. It is happening to ALL of us. In fact the elites got the democrats gassed talking about deficit like it mattered to us plebs,what a diabolical con that was.

    Middle Class is no longer a interest for either political party. We either accept it now or later. The only question is: How do you defeat a rigged corrupt system that wants to drastically reduce our standard of living in order for there not to be a decline of the wealthy oligarchs? You think that is far fetched? I would really love to hear how a corrupt economic system will be salvaged if the oligarchs run the levers and own the playing field.

  208. 208.

    Marc

    October 27, 2011 at 7:10 pm

    @Catsy:

    He’s authored 39 posts in this thread. 39 *verbose* posts. At least the unintended comedy quotient is high.

    I’d like to see the site auto-pie anyone who writes more than 10 posts in one thread. Or any IP address block that does so.

  209. 209.

    soonergrunt

    October 27, 2011 at 7:41 pm

    @Marc: matoko_cudlip would die of loneliness.

  210. 210.

    William Hurley

    October 27, 2011 at 11:27 pm

    @NR:

    The White House memos of those very meetings, meetings which the White House for weeks denied had ever occurred, testify to the facts of the meetings, the participants in the meetings and the content of the meetings and the bargains the President struck with health care and insurance industry reps in those meetings.

    So, anytime you hear anyone suggest that a public- or single-payer option or Medicare for all would not have passed through Congress you can be certain that you’re talking to a liar. Those alternatives of O’Romneycare didn’t “pass” Congress because the President unilaterally and secretly took them off of the table.

    At times, the entries across this blog read like the fact-free blatherings of TeaTards or unrepentant righties. It’s truly a despairing thing to witness so-called “liberals”, Democrats and “lefties” try to out do the right when it comes to demonstrations of unwavering faith despite the empirical evidence.

  211. 211.

    William Hurley

    October 27, 2011 at 11:36 pm

    @eemom:

    You’re truly an odd fellow, consistently so – assuming of course that you’re a fellow and not a filly.

    What’s so distinctly odd about you is your habit of posting vapid non sequiturs in which you are obviously laboring to humorous effect. The distinctiveness of your habit is that you play dumb, for effect possibly, regardless of the “proper” or colloquial English used in any given post your reply to.

    Are you, perchance, an English major who can’t find meaningful or gainful employment commensurate with your “skills” and education?

  212. 212.

    William Hurley

    October 27, 2011 at 11:53 pm

    @Mike Lamb:

    Au contraire!

    There were many options available but were never put before sub-committee nor other legislative panel because the President, secretly and unilaterally, gave them away in negotiations he alone had with industry executives.

    In the end, you can claim that Pelosi was allowed to deliver the best, most progressive bill possible – but in holding that view you’d be in conflict with the facts.

    White House declines to disclose visits by health industry executives

    Citing an argument used by the Bush administration, the Secret Service rejects a request from a watchdog group to list those who have visited the White House to discuss the healthcare overhaul.


    Obama Has Met At Least 27 Times With Private Health Care Industry Executives

    PS – remember as you read the material linked above that the President repeatedly took to the podium to tout his efforts to work with Congress on HCR by letting Congress (e.g. Max Baucus) take the lead on the effort. Remember too that as he was making such statements, he knew he was lying.

    The fact that Obama lied may not bother you. The ends, may for you, justify the means in this case. However, if Obama does face Romney in the general, the ability to use health care as a point of differentiation is gone. Also keep in mind that that when Obama is faced with the choice of signing the Cat Food II’s deficit proposal, and the Medicare/Medicaid/SocSec cuts it will include, or watching the automatic cuts to those programs take effect as a result of the legislation he pushed for and made law – the GOP nominee will be laughing loudly at the fatal, self-inflicted wound Obama – using the magic of his “11th Dimension Chess” skills – boxed himself into.

  213. 213.

    Mike Lamb

    October 28, 2011 at 12:39 am

    @William Hurley: Yawn. First, I never said that Pelosi delivered the best bill, just that there was a much more progressive option available (and it never had a chance).

    The meetings aren’t evidence of much. I certainly don’t like that you they were conducted in secret. You, of course, attribute the worst possible motives to the meetings. At least in the HuffPo article there is no support for your contention that he “secretly and unilaterally” gave anything away. (Constitutionally speaking, you’ll have to educate me on how the President can give away anything, legislatively speaking, on his own). The tone of the article is that these meetings were necessary in order to win passage of some types of needed reforms. And that is an equally plausible scenario.

    At the end of the day, what you absolutely cannot get around is that all it took was one of Lieberman, Bayh, B. Nelson, Lincoln or Landrieu to break ranks, and the “filibuster proof” majority goes buh-bye. Until you can come up with a plausible scenario that gets those folks on board, everything you postulate about primaries and electoral prospects falls apart. (And you’ve also studiously ignored the fact that if he doesn’t compromise on taxes, legislative DADT repeal doesn’t happen; we lose the extension on unemployment benefits, etc.)

    Finally, the idea that in Obama v. Romney, Obama can’t differentiate himself on healthcare is absurd. Romney has to run from healthcare as fast as his little legs will carry him or he doesn’t get the nomination. He will do the work of differentiation for Obama.

    Wait…one more, you’ve also ignored my question on what a primary challenge accomplishes. How would a successful primary challenge yield a more electable candidate?

Comments are closed.

Primary Sidebar

On The Road - dmkingto - SF Bay Area Scenes 7
Image by dmkingto (7/31/25)
Donate

Recent Comments

  • Chris T. on Late Night Open Thread: Obama Speaks (Jul 15, 2025 @ 6:39pm)
  • bbleh on Excellent Read: Unbridled Joylessness (Jul 15, 2025 @ 6:39pm)
  • satby on Excellent Read: Unbridled Joylessness (Jul 15, 2025 @ 6:38pm)
  • sab on Excellent Read: Unbridled Joylessness (Jul 15, 2025 @ 6:35pm)
  • Ohio Mom on GOP Stupidity Open Thread: He’s Not *My* Daddy, You Weirdos (Jul 15, 2025 @ 6:32pm)

Balloon Juice Posts

View by Topic
View by Author
View by Month & Year
View by Past Author

Featuring

Medium Cool
Artists in Our Midst
Authors in Our Midst
No Kings Protests June 14 2025

🎈Keep Balloon Juice Ad Free

Become a Balloon Juice Patreon
Donate with Venmo, Zelle or PayPal

Calling All Jackals

Site Feedback
Nominate a Rotating Tag
Submit Photos to On the Road
Balloon Juice Anniversary (All Links)
Balloon Juice Anniversary (All Posts)
Fix Nyms with Apostrophes

Social Media

Balloon Juice
WaterGirl
TaMara
John Cole
DougJ (aka NYT Pitchbot)
Betty Cracker
Tom Levenson
David Anderson
Major Major Major Major
DougJ NYT Pitchbot
mistermix

Keeping Track

Legal Challenges (Lawfare)
Republicans Fleeing Town Halls (TPM)
21 Letters (to Borrow or Steal)
Search Donations from a Brand

Feeling Defeated?  If We Give Up, It's Game Over

Donate

Site Footer

Come for the politics, stay for the snark.

  • Facebook
  • RSS
  • Twitter
  • YouTube
  • Comment Policy
  • Our Authors
  • Blogroll
  • Our Artists
  • Privacy Policy

Copyright © 2025 Dev Balloon Juice · All Rights Reserved · Powered by BizBudding Inc

Share this ArticleLike this article? Email it to a friend!

Email sent!