home

When MoDo Gets It . . .

By Big Tent Democrat, Section Economy
Posted on Sun Feb 08, 2009 at 05:57:20 PM EST
Tags: (all tags)
Share This: Digg! StumbleUpon del.icio.us reddit reddit

and the Democratic President does not, that defines a failed opportunity. MoDo wrote today:

[T]he prince got distracted, seeing Lincoln in the mirror, and instead gave the kiss of life to a bunch of flat-lining Republican tax-cut fetishists. Somehow the most well-known person on the planet lost control of the economic message to someone named Eric Cantor. In his first weeks padding around a White House that still has nails on the walls waiting for new pictures, and phone and e-mail kinks, Barack Obama could not locate the bully pulpit and ended up being bullied.

With a strong mandate for meaningful and effective economic stimulus, President Barack Obama failed to define the political debate. President Obama has done many good things in the start of his Presidency. But he bungled the economic stimulus plan. What is politics at its essence? Defining the middle:

[T]hat is FDR's lesson for Obama. Politics is not a battle for the middle. It is a battle for defining the terms of the political debate. It is a battle to be able to say what is the middle.

Some will not be able to acknowledge Obama's failure on this issue. But that does not change the fact that on the economic stimulus issue, President Obama failed.

Speaking for me only

< Military Lawyer: Gitmo Conditions Have Worsened Since Inauguration | Grammy's Live Thread >

  • The Online Magazine with Liberal coverage of crime-related political and injustice news

  • Contribute To TalkLeft


    • Display: Sort:
    When MoDo Gets It . . . | 187 comments (187 topical)

    Readers Must Login or Create an Account to Comment

    BTD, for all your (5.00 / 5) (#2)
    by Spamlet on Sun Feb 08, 2009 at 06:09:06 PM EST
    "media darling" advocacy during the primaries, you also pledged to hold Obama accountable if he won, and you've been true to your pledge.

    I could never imagine (5.00 / 3) (#9)
    by Jjc2008 on Sun Feb 08, 2009 at 06:32:38 PM EST
    ever agreeing with MoDo on anything but she nailed this.  

    But it was not just him...it is the Senate dems, the moderate ones,....they need to grow a pair and start fight FOR the people.  

    A spine (5.00 / 6) (#15)
    by Spamlet on Sun Feb 08, 2009 at 06:49:59 PM EST
    they need to grow a pair

    "Pair" obsession creates more problems than it has ever solved, and far more trouble than it has ever been worth.

    Parent

    When MoDo gets it - (5.00 / 1) (#12)
    by FreakyBeaky on Sun Feb 08, 2009 at 06:46:17 PM EST
    - it's luck.

    Raise your hand if you never considered the Republcians "flatlined."

    so what happens now? Is it too late (5.00 / 3) (#13)
    by Teresa on Sun Feb 08, 2009 at 06:48:06 PM EST
    for Obama to change his message and take it to the people? Is it possible to have several more bills without disaster happening in the meantime?

    I hate to have to count on Nancy Pelosi but I hope she puts every single bit of the spending back in. If the Senate wants to start all over, fine with me.

    I think it is remotely possible (5.00 / 2) (#16)
    by Big Tent Democrat on Sun Feb 08, 2009 at 06:51:09 PM EST
    to reinsert the state aid and cut some of the irresponsible and ineffective as stimulus  tax cuts.

    If Pelosi can get the 40B back for stae aid and get out the 70B for the AMT, the cost of this stimuls goes down by 30B but becomes much more effective stimulus.

    Parent

    Maybe Barney Frank and/or Rangel (5.00 / 2) (#18)
    by andgarden on Sun Feb 08, 2009 at 06:52:41 PM EST
    can talk her into it.

    Parent
    Yeah (5.00 / 3) (#20)
    by WS on Sun Feb 08, 2009 at 06:56:30 PM EST
    getting rid of the AMT will allow for $70 billion re-allocation back to spending.  

    Collins was on TV blabbering on about the cost is going to have to be $800 billion. Ok, take out AMT and the homeowner tax credits (those can be put into other bills in the future especially the AMT) and then put $40 billion for state aid and $30 for restoring some of the cuts that were made.  

    Voila, we have a little bit better stimulus and the dollar amount didn't change.  

    Parent

    Exactly (5.00 / 6) (#23)
    by Big Tent Democrat on Sun Feb 08, 2009 at 06:58:44 PM EST
    Take out the ineffective and irresponsible tax cuts, leave the ones for lower classes (folks making less than 100k), reinstate the state aid and other effective spending and we are back at 800B, but an effective 800 billioh..

    As is you have a 500B (at best) stimuluis plan being trumpeted as an 800 B plan.

    Parent

    Would you please (5.00 / 2) (#143)
    by Radiowalla on Sun Feb 08, 2009 at 09:58:07 PM EST
    go over there and explain that to the Democrats?  I'll chip in for bus fare.

    Parent
    Enough better to make a difference? (none / 0) (#24)
    by Teresa on Sun Feb 08, 2009 at 06:59:22 PM EST
    I'm feeling like we are doomed right now. I need some hope!

    Parent
    Still not nearly enough (5.00 / 6) (#28)
    by andgarden on Sun Feb 08, 2009 at 07:03:52 PM EST
    but restoring the aid to states would probably lessen the sting.

    Parent
    Might give you a second bite at the apple (5.00 / 1) (#32)
    by Big Tent Democrat on Sun Feb 08, 2009 at 07:09:21 PM EST
    in a few months.

    Parent
    The AMT fix is guaranteed to pass (none / 0) (#35)
    by andgarden on Sun Feb 08, 2009 at 07:11:49 PM EST
    and this is a really stupid vehicle for it. So yeah, save it for the next one.

    Parent
    Yup (none / 0) (#50)
    by WS on Sun Feb 08, 2009 at 07:49:18 PM EST
    I'm fine with getting rid of the AMT completely so long as the shortfall in revenue is made up somewhere else.  I remember the last time Congress tried it, and they got rid of the AMT in exchange for a "fatcat" tax.  The Republicans filibustered it last time, but we should have another go at it with our increased Democratic majority.  

    Parent
    Teresa, as one who spent (5.00 / 4) (#130)
    by NYShooter on Sun Feb 08, 2009 at 09:46:05 PM EST
    many years in SE Asia, and came home to the mass protests and demonstrations in the late 60's, I have been very distraught over the docile response to the Bush atrocities this past decade.

    BUT, now I feel it in my bones,  there's a stirring going on in our country that will only take a hero or two to ignite into a massive inferno of disgust, rejection, and demand for CHANGE; Not Obama's touchy-feely change, but the type of change how millions of average, everyday citizens understand the term. When millions of fathers see "the look" in their children's eyes, the pitchforks and torches won't be far behimd.

    When Frank Rich, MoDo, and your very own NYShooter, all agree on a subject on the same day.......CHANGE is coming, Baby!

    Take it to the bank  


    Parent

    Nancy taking the fall (5.00 / 6) (#25)
    by caseyOR on Sun Feb 08, 2009 at 07:01:02 PM EST
    What I am hearing and reading is that the WH is throwing Pelosi under the bus (gosh, will it ever thin out under here?) Obama gave the House a general outline, and told Nancy to get a bill passed. The process in the House and its committees was surprisingly open. The Republicans got to offer amendments, although most of them were voted down. And, as Nancy has pointed out, the House bill has not a single earmark. And its balance of spending to tax cuts is much better than the Senate. I think Pelosi pretty much delivered what Obama asked for.

    But now that things aren't going smoothly, and nobody is falling for Barack's charm, Obama is caving and laying the blame on Pelosi. Rahm, who has made no secret of his desire to one day be Speaker, totally knifed Nancy in the back when he went up to the Hill. The question is why did the WH turn on Pelosi?

    As an aside, I think anyone who can might want to give a little $$$ to Tom Geoghan, a great  liberal who is running for Rahm's former congressional seat. Digby has written good stuff about Geoghan. It seems Rahm thinks he can reclaim that seat whenever his time in the WH ends. Wouldn't it be great to have an actual liberal in that seat, and wouldn't it be great to keep Rahm out of elected office?

    Parent

    Speaking of 'pairs': per a foregoing comment (5.00 / 0) (#92)
    by FoxholeAtheist on Sun Feb 08, 2009 at 08:52:21 PM EST
    Why is Nancy under the Bus? Imo, if Pelosi had a "pair"of b@lls instead of a "pair" of ovaries she would no doubt get more of the kind of reflexive respect that goes along with having a "pair" of the former. As it is, she is besieged by the reflexive disrespect that goes along with having a "pair" of the latter.  

    Parent
    Look, I've been under this bus (none / 0) (#150)
    by weltec2 on Sun Feb 08, 2009 at 10:27:42 PM EST
    since coup 2000, and the last person I want down here with me is Nancy. If I catch just one glimpse of her down here I'm going to have my wine bottles out. She better be wearing her track shoes and a helmet. WAP! POW! CRUNCH!

    Parent
    We're getting her a different bus (5.00 / 3) (#151)
    by Cream City on Sun Feb 08, 2009 at 10:38:05 PM EST
    to be under.  We're just not going to tell her it's not the real bus.  She's easily fooled, after all.

    Parent
    Imagine her surprise (none / 0) (#178)
    by Inspector Gadget on Mon Feb 09, 2009 at 08:34:13 AM EST
    when nose-to-nose with the tread. She was perfectly fine with 50% of the Democratic voters being tossed away, though. I'm thinking it isn't too long before McCaskill finds herself smelling fumes, as well. She has to be one of the disposables for how she's being used.

    Parent
    LOL (none / 0) (#183)
    by coigue on Mon Feb 09, 2009 at 01:06:36 PM EST
    ouch!

    Parent
    If I'm not mistaken, he's going to Indiana (5.00 / 7) (#41)
    by Anne on Sun Feb 08, 2009 at 07:18:02 PM EST
    on Monday for a town hall, and then back to the WH for a prime-time presser.  Tuesday, he goes to Florida to do a town hall meeting, then later in the week, he goes to Illinois for a Lincoln's birthday thing, and then he's going to be in Chicago for Valentine's Day.  I certainly hope we can skip the whole Barack-and-Michelle-are-so-much-in-loooove thing, because I don't think that when so many are doing without that there is anything particularly uplifting about how-the-Obamas-spent-Valentine's-Day story.

    I guess we'll see whether he can make a difference, but I'm thinking that it may be too late.

    Parent

    Press conference on Monday. (5.00 / 1) (#43)
    by caseyOR on Sun Feb 08, 2009 at 07:23:08 PM EST
    Obama will hold a prime time press conference tomorrow night at 8 PM EST.

    On Tuesday, Geithner will announce the new TARP or TALF or whatever those kids are calling that rolling bailout.

    Parent

    Nice: "rolling bailout"... (none / 0) (#75)
    by FoxholeAtheist on Sun Feb 08, 2009 at 08:27:31 PM EST
    Spread it around!

    Parent
    Obama is going to be visiting an area (5.00 / 1) (#52)
    by tigercourse on Sun Feb 08, 2009 at 07:52:13 PM EST
    in Florida where 1/4th of the people are now on food stamps and there are actual bread lines. And his guys and gals were the ones pushing for food stamp cuts.

    Parent
    I'd like Obama to try a town hall meeting (5.00 / 1) (#155)
    by BackFromOhio on Sun Feb 08, 2009 at 11:27:50 PM EST
    in one of the states most affected by the elimination of the aid to states from the so-called stimulus bill and where residents are aware of the betrayal.

    Parent
    Yeah. (none / 0) (#176)
    by Fabian on Mon Feb 09, 2009 at 05:31:02 AM EST
    Have to wonder if the economy is one of the reasons ice fishing suddenly gained popularity this winter.

    (Over one hundred fishermen had to be rescued frin Lake Erie when the temps and wind caused the ice to break.)

    Parent

    Starting over will be tough to sell, (5.00 / 1) (#158)
    by dualdiagnosis on Mon Feb 09, 2009 at 12:31:03 AM EST
     everyone has been saying that if we don't do this immediately we will have Armageddon.

    Parent
    EVERYone? (none / 0) (#179)
    by Inspector Gadget on Mon Feb 09, 2009 at 08:35:31 AM EST
    I've heard McCaskill say that and get laughed down by the rest of the panel.


    Parent
    The filibuster really needs to be abolished (5.00 / 4) (#21)
    by s5 on Sun Feb 08, 2009 at 06:58:16 PM EST
    At this point, I can't think of any justification for keeping it around. It doesn't benefit dems when we're in the minority, and it kills us when we're in the majority. We're starting every debate with the other side getting 25% more voting power than us, just for showing up. It's even worse when you consider that Republican senators typically represent states with small populations. Their inflated voting power is truly a disaster for this country.

    Why is only lose/lose for us? (5.00 / 3) (#27)
    by Teresa on Sun Feb 08, 2009 at 07:03:18 PM EST
    It seems to work fine for Republicans.

    Parent
    They have better party unity (5.00 / 2) (#29)
    by andgarden on Sun Feb 08, 2009 at 07:05:18 PM EST
    partly because their activist base is more effective.

    Parent
    I know. Now is the time Obama needs (5.00 / 5) (#40)
    by Teresa on Sun Feb 08, 2009 at 07:17:09 PM EST
    to use his mandate, celebrity, whatever we want to call it. He's really got to convince the public not the Republicans in the Senate (except for what, two?). When 36 of them voted for that amendment to make the bill all tax cuts, including the very top brackets, that should send him a message loud and clear.

    My biggest fear is that Obama isn't as scared as I am.

    Parent

    T, my biggest fear is that Obama is (5.00 / 2) (#94)
    by FoxholeAtheist on Sun Feb 08, 2009 at 08:54:41 PM EST
    far more conservative than either you or I.

    Parent
    I'm sure he is. I admit to being a flaming (5.00 / 1) (#102)
    by Teresa on Sun Feb 08, 2009 at 09:03:04 PM EST
    liberal. I'm not even expecting that, but dang, he needs to use his head here. Can't he see what we see? My priorities in no way consider what any Republican thinks right now.

    I'm just crossing my fingers. If it's all down hill from here (Universal health care..haha), I would seriously move out of this country if I could.

    Parent

    I spend a lot of time in (none / 0) (#164)
    by FoxholeAtheist on Mon Feb 09, 2009 at 01:16:43 AM EST
    Canada. The country had its last big influx of disaffected Americans during, and after, Vietnam. Maybe there will be a new wave. Not perfect, but definitely a more humane, egalitarian, life-affirming place.

    Parent
    Leadership (none / 0) (#88)
    by mmc9431 on Sun Feb 08, 2009 at 08:47:42 PM EST
    And their leadership doesn't accept desent in the ranks. They must have a tight hold on the purse strings.

    Parent
    Leadership? (5.00 / 1) (#123)
    by BrassTacks on Sun Feb 08, 2009 at 09:36:42 PM EST
    When did Obama ever demonstrate leadership skills?  

    Perhaps he can learn such skills.  

    Parent

    better party unity (none / 0) (#101)
    by christinep on Sun Feb 08, 2009 at 09:01:56 PM EST
    Hmmm. There comes a time when party unity helps (even when we have to hold our noses.)

    Parent
    Why stop there? Abolish the Senate. (5.00 / 1) (#160)
    by FreakyBeaky on Mon Feb 09, 2009 at 12:36:00 AM EST
    You think I'm kidding, don't you ...

    The problem with the Nuclear Option, which I would otherwise support, is that absent the filibuster the representatives of a minority of the country could pass anything, just as they now can block anything.  Now, is the House a sufficient check against that?  I'm not convinced.

    So it's the Senate that's got to go.  We'll never get rid of it absent a constitutional convention, but I fantasize about seeing it gone.  

    Parent

    So you're FOR (none / 0) (#79)
    by Spamlet on Sun Feb 08, 2009 at 08:38:06 PM EST
    the so-called nuclear option?

    The filibuster really needs to be abolished

    Mr. Smith would disagree with you if he should ever happen to return to Washington.

    Parent

    the filibuster would benefit us (none / 0) (#105)
    by kenosharick on Sun Feb 08, 2009 at 09:06:06 PM EST
    when in the minority if we had leadership with balls.

    Parent
    I was with you until. . . (5.00 / 5) (#33)
    by LarryInNYC on Sun Feb 08, 2009 at 07:09:38 PM EST
    I saw Maureen Dowd was also with you.  Now, I'm not so sure. . .

    Heh (5.00 / 3) (#34)
    by Big Tent Democrat on Sun Feb 08, 2009 at 07:10:50 PM EST


    Parent
    Larry, you know what ... (5.00 / 5) (#39)
    by Robot Porter on Sun Feb 08, 2009 at 07:16:40 PM EST
    they say about broken clocks.

    Parent
    Modo gets it? Must have been a (5.00 / 2) (#54)
    by ThatOneVoter on Sun Feb 08, 2009 at 07:54:44 PM EST
    good hair day.

    A failure AND bunk (5.00 / 2) (#56)
    by ap in avl on Sun Feb 08, 2009 at 08:00:22 PM EST
    Etymology
    I recently moved back to my roots in Western NC after living for 20 years in NYC/CT metropoitan area.  Having endured Chris Shays and Joe Lieberman speaking for me as an average citizen, I now have the honor of being represented by Blue Dog Heath Shuler.  (At least I can find comfort in the fact that Liddy Dole is off my radar).

    I am underwhelmed by Obama's efforts to date.  His failure to take a bold stand in the face of our country's impending financial collapse is unacceptable.  And our congressional leaders?  Give me a break.....

    Let the Republicans filibuster until they wet their pants and need feeding tubes.  Make them show their resolve to destroy the middle class, the lower middle class, the unemployed, the uninsured, the disenfrachised, the homeless, our brothers/sisters/parents/children that we all know and love.

    We, the people, need 51 votes only.  Make them filibuster.  Show the world their load of Bunk.

    Having recently moved back to Buncombe County, NC I have learned one interesting nugget of US political history.  The origin of the term BUNK:

    From Buncombe, a county in North Carolina. On 25 Feb 1820, Felix Walker, a US Congressman (whose territory included Buncombe County, NC) gave a rambling speech on the Missouri question with little relevance to the current debate. Walker refused to yield the floor, informing his colleagues that his speech was not intended for Congress but that he was "speaking for Buncombe."

    ]Noun
    bunkum (countable and uncountable; plural bunkums)
    (slang) senseless talk; nonsense

    (Washington circa 1828) any bombastic political posturing or an oratorical display not accompanied by conviction; speechmaking designed for show or public applause.

    Let those b*stards engage in "senseless talk, nonsense, speechmaking designed for show or public applause".

    Bunk is bunk

    51 votes for a bill that does the job is all that is needed.
    Let them talk and dig their own graves.

    60 votes, capitulation,  and ineffectual legislation to avoid "senseless talk" serves no one.

    It's the old Latin student in me, (5.00 / 1) (#90)
    by Spamlet on Sun Feb 08, 2009 at 08:50:35 PM EST
    but I think the plural of (countable) "bunkum" should be "bunka."

    Parent
    You're probably right (5.00 / 1) (#104)
    by ap in avl on Sun Feb 08, 2009 at 09:05:45 PM EST
    Bunka?
    Bunkae?
    Bunki?

    However, my peeps in these mountains don't say "Ya'll".
    They say "you'uns".....which my family 60 miles down the mountain consider a sign of illiteracy.   Go figure.

    Parent

    Sheeze (5.00 / 3) (#126)
    by BrassTacks on Sun Feb 08, 2009 at 09:41:38 PM EST
    Everyone knows that the plural of ya'll is ALL ya'll.  

    Parent
    "You'uns" (none / 0) (#136)
    by Spamlet on Sun Feb 08, 2009 at 09:50:34 PM EST
    becomes "yins" in Pittsburgh. I knew a couple from Los Angeles who moved to Pittsburgh for professional reasons. They were horrifed by "yins" and decamped within months.

    Parent
    I have transplanted friends here in (5.00 / 1) (#153)
    by ap in avl on Sun Feb 08, 2009 at 10:59:10 PM EST
    Asheville from the northern Appalachians who grew up with "yins".  

    The Eastern seaboard from north to south is so different from their Appalachian mountain cousins.  

    On a serious note, however, the rural communities here in the Appalachians will not be well-served by the stimulus bill.

     Job losses and a lack of stimulus funds for the local economy in general will cause the MAJORITY of these citizens to fall through the cracks.  Those who once had jobs cannot possibly afford COBRA.  Unemployment benefits help for a while but when they run out and there are no local busiinesses hiring.....what do people do?

    As a psychologist, I see good people every day who want to do better for themselves and their children but they have no where to turn.  Many of these people no longer show up in the unemployment data.  I and  my colleagues see these clients for free because there are no state funds to help them.  My client list grows every day.  And my ability to keep this up is limited.  We are all living on a prayer.........

    Parent

    What do people do? (5.00 / 1) (#162)
    by oldpro on Mon Feb 09, 2009 at 01:04:15 AM EST
    Beyond cope, there are a number of other possibilities historically...especially for the younger folks...most especially for the younger, single ones.

    Move.  Move in with family/friends and share expenses. Sign up for retraining/community college while the unemployment lasts.  Change careers, change goals, change towns/states/countries.  That is the history of most Americans or their ancestors.  Whatever happened to that 'get up and go?'

    Parent

    But "bunka" would be (none / 0) (#152)
    by Cream City on Sun Feb 08, 2009 at 10:41:44 PM EST
    the feminine singular, "bunkae" the feminine plural!

    Parent
    Hey, kids, let's do declensions! (5.00 / 1) (#171)
    by Spamlet on Mon Feb 09, 2009 at 02:00:27 AM EST
    FIRST DECLENSION (sorry, no macrons)

    bunka
    bunkae
    bunkae
    bunkam
    bunka

    bunkae
    bunkarum
    bunkis
    bunkas
    bunkis

    Who's ready to step up to the blackboard and show what this word looks like as as a second-, third-, and fourth-declension noun? First one done gets to clap erasers.


    Parent

    Haha okay (none / 0) (#182)
    by CST on Mon Feb 09, 2009 at 12:33:38 PM EST
    But if it is Bunkum it is not the first declension.  It is probably the 2nd declension in which case Bunka would be the nominative plural form.

    Parent
    In one hand and out the other (5.00 / 1) (#62)
    by mmc9431 on Sun Feb 08, 2009 at 08:10:12 PM EST
    Here it goes again. The last "rebate" I got from the Feds cost me over $1500. Deals like that are hard to pass up! Due to cuts from the Feds to the states and school, my taxes (state, county and village) will all go up again.

    Please no more tax cuts. I can't afford them

    Much worse than failing (5.00 / 5) (#106)
    by pluege on Sun Feb 08, 2009 at 09:14:54 PM EST
    on economic stimulus is Obama's breathing life into the republicans and blue dogs. The bad stimulus bill will ensure that the economy is much worse than it could been, but maybe it won't be as bad as feared and maybe some correction can be made soon. But what will be far more difficult to undo is Obama saving the republicans from irrelevance. This is something he will not easily undo, nor can he be forgiven for it.

    500,000 to a  million Iraqis gave their lives and their country destroyed,
    New Orleans residents lost their lives and their homes,
    the US' reputation ruined,
    the rule of law eviscerated, and
    a couple $ trillion flushed down the toilet with nothing to show for it
    and the only positive that could be said of the whole mess was that those who were responsible, i.e., the republicans were revealed as the craven cretins that they are. Without the Obama bungling of the last couple weeks, republicans could have been neutered for many years. But Obama breathed new life into their ability to foist their sick, demented outlook on us. Its a horrible thing Obama has done.

    For whom does he argue? (5.00 / 2) (#109)
    by Missblu on Sun Feb 08, 2009 at 09:18:49 PM EST
    The American people or himself? I think the problem lies in the adulation of this man.  Is he fighting for this bill for the American people or is he fighting for positive affirmation because it is of him.  Sometime back during the primary some columnist made the observation that between the three leading candidates at the time for the presidency with McCain having won already the R side, that Hillary Clinton was the candidate who had most lived through the full experiences of the last 40 some years in America. Not that she was more American but had physically experienced her country's terribly tedious decades.

     In the sixties, she had seen the poor people's march, the assassinations, the Viet Nam war that tore us apart and the civil rights struggles.in her young adult world.   The sixties decade for anyone that can remember it, spoke to a lot of what we now struggle with in terms of so many things to comprehend work on and fix. She spoke so passionately about Lyndon Johnson's work because she had taken on the struggle too and watched it play out.. Obama did not have that experience and I have never seen him express true empathy.  Expression of concern but not empathy. John McCain too was unfortunately absent from us for a good period of time as a prisoner of war. He exhibits empathy that is true for the military man. I question if the smooth talking good looking P Barack Obama is really a committed leader?  The trips this week to Indiana and Florida are encouraging.  We'll see.

    Fighting for positive affirmation? (none / 0) (#173)
    by rghojai on Mon Feb 09, 2009 at 03:50:52 AM EST
    People with young-age, unfortunate turns of fate relative to a parent or parent, parental abandonment, etc., they often tend toward the affirmation-seeking side of the fence--lack of affirmation in the early years leading to an oversized need for it later on.

    Parent
    Another column gets it today (5.00 / 1) (#157)
    by BackFromOhio on Mon Feb 09, 2009 at 12:04:17 AM EST
    See Frank Rich's column.  http://www.nytimes.com/2009/02/08/opinion/08rich.html?_r=3

    When MoDo makes sense (4.80 / 5) (#3)
    by caseyOR on Sun Feb 08, 2009 at 06:12:55 PM EST
    It is a bit disorienting to have MoDo making sense. It's like the world's turned upside-down.

    And it is a sad commentary on Obama's total failure on the economy.

    She's just jumping aboard again (5.00 / 8) (#11)
    by Cream City on Sun Feb 08, 2009 at 06:39:44 PM EST
    because it's okay to say this now, several days after many have said it -- and more than a week after the wisest (Krugman) said it.

    To paraphrase Henry Luce, who said it of editors:  A good journalist is two weeks ahead of the rest.  

    Sooner than that, and you could end up an Elijah Lovejoy, a martyr for the cause.  But later than the rest?  MoDo continues to just be the caboose.  Of course, if this train wreck starts at the front, she'll continue to emerge from it all just fine, safe in her little Beltway world where anything that goes well is to their credit . . . but anything that goes wrong, they take no blame.

    And she, as much as anyone, is to blame.

    Parent

    Even if she were (5.00 / 6) (#22)
    by mg7505 on Sun Feb 08, 2009 at 06:58:38 PM EST
    ahead, she would get no credit. She would simply be proving that she's an otherwise-intelligent person who chooses the worst times to lose (or regain) a grip. Her columns have never been about finding/knowing the truth, but merely putting into snarky language the lowest-hanging-fruit du jour.

    For the record, I read this column as a testament to how stubbornly she's lodged in the tank; did it honestly take her this long to realize that Obama isn't the transformational juggernaut he "promised" to be? What a bald-faced lie on her part; a complete reversal of her earlier positions.

    Parent

    I remember (5.00 / 2) (#77)
    by Spamlet on Sun Feb 08, 2009 at 08:33:44 PM EST
    the primaries, when she was seething with
    CDS and referring to Obama as a "golden child." Guess she has finally discovered what Shakespeare knew.

    Parent
    perspective (none / 0) (#89)
    by christinep on Sun Feb 08, 2009 at 08:49:50 PM EST
    I'm not so sure that, 3 weeks in, we should be wringing hands and lamenting about utter disasters, etc. Perhaps, and probably, the Administration has learned from beginner's mistakes.  In this case, it may have been wiser--as some have suggested--for the President to submit to Congress in advance his idea for what the stimulus should look like at the outset. That would have diminished the contretemps with the House and their broader objectives.  Different personalities, however, act differently. President Obama obviously opted for letting the "other guy" move first--a legitimate negotiating strategy in many cases (since it allows one to gauge the field at once.)  The President does need to define clearly what his package means for the American economy and the American people. And, it does seem that he has now started down the offensive pike--somewhat belatedly, but not(I don't think) too late. The TV time tomorrow should be quite interesting: My hope is that President Obama speaks directly to the whys and wherefores--not just the "we-must-or-the-world-will-fall-apart." (The problem with the language of catastrophe today is that we heard that same kind of language from Bush yesterday.) It may come down to my longtime friend Carolyn--single, in need of an economic upturn, educated, not particularly involved with politics tho she had grown to deeply dislike anything that Bush represented--and how her questions about "what jobs does this really create" "how much of this is like the bank bail-out this past fall" "what about that extra wasteful stuff (she heard that on cable)" and "how does this really work" are answered. I think that Obama needs to talk directly to people like Carolyn...he needs to describe factually, explain what happens with massive expenditures and what would happen without them, talk about the differences between his view and the Republican view, and define what he expects to see as a result. Adjectives to prop up our view--his view--are fine; but, the emphasis should be on an audial and visual presentation of the importance of his stimulus plan.

    Parent
    Not so obvious (5.00 / 3) (#93)
    by Spamlet on Sun Feb 08, 2009 at 08:54:33 PM EST
    President Obama obviously opted for letting the "other guy" move first--a legitimate negotiating strategy in many cases (since it allows one to gauge the field at once.)

    From where I sit, it looks like Obama made the first move toward the "other guy" when he went to the Hill, met with GOP leaders, and capitulated in advance. Also from where I sit, it looks like that is also what the GOP saw, just before they stiffed Obama on the House vote.

    Parent

    Obama entered office with (5.00 / 2) (#97)
    by ThatOneVoter on Sun Feb 08, 2009 at 08:56:56 PM EST
    really urgent problems to attend to.
    3 weeks and no stimulus bill is definitely something to complain about, IMO.


    Parent
    That's what I'm hoping for christinep. (none / 0) (#96)
    by Teresa on Sun Feb 08, 2009 at 08:56:32 PM EST
    I saw a graph that Nancy Pelosi has on her website that he needs to use to show people how serious our job losses are. I'm afraid that more people will have to lose their jobs before people get it.

    My mom (who supported Hillary) just loves Obama now. She believes that anything he proposes is the right thing to do. He needs to convince his own supporters as well as those that aren't diehards like she is.

    Parent

    Yeah. . . (4.66 / 6) (#1)
    by andgarden on Sun Feb 08, 2009 at 05:59:28 PM EST
    He should have written a $2.5T plan and nobly permitted Specter and Collins to talk him down to 2. It was obvious how this was going to work out from the moment the proposal was released.

    Let's see here, President Obama wanted a $775B (none / 0) (#4)
    by RussTC3 on Sun Feb 08, 2009 at 06:13:11 PM EST
    package with a 60/40 spending/tax cuts split and he's going to get about $800-820 billion with about a 60/40 split in terms of spending/tax cuts.

    He got what he wanted.  And the package still looks like it'll create between 3-4M jobs.

    When 60 votes is a requirement, you'd have to be incredibly foolish to believe that everything would have worked out better had he only started higher.

    Yeah, that would have worked out wonderfully because I'm sure he would have had no problem selling that idea to Republicans and EVERY SINGLE DEMOCRAT in the Senate.

    Let's see (5.00 / 6) (#6)
    by Big Tent Democrat on Sun Feb 08, 2009 at 06:19:25 PM EST
    Where in Hades did you get your information? Even Obama INITIAL proposal only had a 1/3 "tax cuts." And most of that was EITC and targeted for persons making less than 100k/yr.

    The House increased his spending AND tax number.

    But the Senate bill utterly destroyed Obama's spending/tax mix - particularly since they added terrible unstimulative tax cuts - the AMT fix alone costs 70 billion dollars.

    My gawd, I have been critical of President Obama, but you paint him a buffoon.

    Parent

    Making stuff up isn't going to help your cause any (none / 0) (#116)
    by RussTC3 on Sun Feb 08, 2009 at 09:27:49 PM EST
    JANUARY 4, 2009
    Obama Eyes $300 Billion Tax Cut

    WASHINGTON -- President-elect Barack Obama and congressional Democrats are crafting a plan to offer about $300 billion of tax cuts to individuals and businesses, a move aimed at attracting Republican support for an economic-stimulus package and prodding companies to create jobs.

    The size of the proposed tax cuts -- which would account for about 40% of a stimulus package that could reach $775 billion over two years -- is greater than many on both sides of the aisle in Congress had anticipated. It may make it easier to win over Republicans who have stressed that any initiative should rely more heavily on tax cuts rather than spending.

    President-elect Barack Obama and congressional Democrats are crafting a plan to offer as much as $310 billion of tax cuts.

    LINK

    The House bill ended up eliminating some of his tax cuts (down to $275 billion) and now we're back up to about $330 billion in tax cuts.

    Considering the ease at which you freely distorted the facts, I think my point has quite effectively been made.

    Parent

    It's that REALLY Obama original postion? (none / 0) (#118)
    by Big Tent Democrat on Sun Feb 08, 2009 at 09:31:52 PM EST
    I think NOT.

    That was PRECISELY the pre-compromise that was ROUNDLY criticized.

    Try again.

    Parent

    Try this one (none / 0) (#121)
    by Big Tent Democrat on Sun Feb 08, 2009 at 09:34:18 PM EST
    Republicans plan to test President Barack Obama's commitment to bipartisanship as his $825 billion stimulus package heads to the floor of the House of Representatives this week, with the House Republican leader saying Sunday morning that many in his party will vote no unless there are significant changes to the plan.

    Parent
    I'm pretty sure (none / 0) (#139)
    by RussTC3 on Sun Feb 08, 2009 at 09:53:39 PM EST
    January 4, 2009 came before January 25, 2009.

    On January 4th, there's an article about President-elect Obama putting forward a $775B economic stimulus package (which would contain up to $310 billion in tax cuts).  On January 25th there's an article talking about the HOUSE bill based on now President Obama's original proposal.  The House bill being discussed was $825 billion.

    On January 28th, the HOUSE passed an $819 billion economic stimulus package (I believe the tax cut total was $275 billion--that's either in the original $825 billion or the $819 billion, I'm not entirely sure).

    Obama's original proposal called for a 60/40 spending/tax cuts split.

    What am I missing here?

    Parent

    Also: (none / 0) (#144)
    by RussTC3 on Sun Feb 08, 2009 at 10:00:05 PM EST
    If you look back further (mid-December), you find reports for a package in the neighborhood of $800/850B.  Later in the month, you see reports at around $675-775 billion.

    In mid-January, after negotiations with House Dems, the package grew to about $850 billion.

    In the end, he's getting a package with nearly everything he wanted and at a price he wanted (looking like $827 billion at the moment).

    Parent

    If I open a car dealership (5.00 / 3) (#7)
    by andgarden on Sun Feb 08, 2009 at 06:19:46 PM EST
    will come and buy from me?

    Parent
    Best line of the day. (5.00 / 3) (#10)
    by Cream City on Sun Feb 08, 2009 at 06:35:06 PM EST


    Parent
    BTW, can I borrow your time machine BTD? (none / 0) (#5)
    by RussTC3 on Sun Feb 08, 2009 at 06:17:12 PM EST
    After all, how else could you come up with this gem:

    Some will not be able to acknowledge Obama's failure on this issue. But that does not change the fact that on the economic stimulus issue, President Obama failed.
    That you need a time machine (5.00 / 5) (#8)
    by Big Tent Democrat on Sun Feb 08, 2009 at 06:20:03 PM EST
    to know this is my point exactly.

    Parent
    The answer is (5.00 / 5) (#47)
    by NYShooter on Sun Feb 08, 2009 at 07:41:35 PM EST
    Do you believe Krugman deserved his Nobel Prize in Economics?

    We need a standard to go by; Krugman is mine. The fact that he's been right from the beginning just puts a period to it.

    Parent

    Krugman for President! (5.00 / 2) (#99)
    by FoxholeAtheist on Sun Feb 08, 2009 at 09:00:08 PM EST


    Parent
    Two year term (none / 0) (#134)
    by NYShooter on Sun Feb 08, 2009 at 09:49:35 PM EST
    Benevolent Dictator....suspend Congress (drown SCOTUS)

    Parent
    There is No (none / 0) (#14)
    by SOS on Sun Feb 08, 2009 at 06:48:24 PM EST
    easy, instant, and painless way out of this mess.

    That's right (5.00 / 1) (#17)
    by Spamlet on Sun Feb 08, 2009 at 06:51:15 PM EST
    But there are ways that can move us forward, and there are ways that will set us back.

    Parent
    We're going to (none / 0) (#19)
    by SOS on Sun Feb 08, 2009 at 06:54:09 PM EST
    have to put the nose to the grindstone.

    Parent
    Start over (5.00 / 1) (#169)
    by Donna Darko on Mon Feb 09, 2009 at 01:55:59 AM EST
    Obama, his economic team and Krugman should start over and write a bill that works.  

    Parent
    Key Word-- Failed (none / 0) (#26)
    by liberalone on Sun Feb 08, 2009 at 07:02:17 PM EST
    I have read the economic posts here over the past weeks and failure was the consistent theme from the beginning.  I agree that the current economic stimulus plan will not work.  I am not sure anything will slow this recession.  

    Yes, Obama failed to get Congress to support the stimulus package as originally proposed.

    My problem is that we seem to think that it is the president's job alone to create, pass and sign legislation.  What happened to Pelosi? Reid?  The financial guru Frank? The list gones on.  The goal here is to make success or failure of the bill entirely Obama's fault.  (Vague recollections of "Bush's War")

    Yes we can admit that Obama failed.  Obama failed to do Pelosi's job, Reid's job, as well as tax evading Geither's job.  Obama failed.  Obama's recession continues.

    Um, what country are you living in? (5.00 / 7) (#31)
    by Big Tent Democrat on Sun Feb 08, 2009 at 07:08:07 PM EST
    We have had an imperial PRresidency since FDr.

    You know the PResident sets the agenda. And has throughout our lifetime.

    For crissakes, even Clinton did it in the face of Gingrich.

    Parent

    Bingo (5.00 / 3) (#36)
    by andgarden on Sun Feb 08, 2009 at 07:12:53 PM EST
    We don't have to settle for Prime Minister Susan Collins.

    Parent
    I never expected (5.00 / 1) (#38)
    by SOS on Sun Feb 08, 2009 at 07:15:19 PM EST
    Obama to be a miracle worker. I knew we would be going through this kind of sh*t and worse right from day one.

    Parent
    I thought I was in America (none / 0) (#37)
    by liberalone on Sun Feb 08, 2009 at 07:14:54 PM EST
    No, we haven't had an imperial presidency.  Tip O'Neil would definitely not agree.  Secondly, the bully pulpit is only affective with a good amen corner, which increasingly has become the whiners corner.

    As far as Clinton is concerned, he worked the impeachment hearings proved that he didn't simply call all the shots.

    Yep, I think I am still in America.  

    Parent

    The bully pulpit is missing its preacher. (5.00 / 2) (#42)
    by Teresa on Sun Feb 08, 2009 at 07:22:09 PM EST
    I'll give him all the amens I can if he will fight for this. I'll even help get him reelected, I'll donate money if I have any by then.

    Parent
    Tip O'Neill would NOT agree? (5.00 / 3) (#46)
    by Big Tent Democrat on Sun Feb 08, 2009 at 07:25:55 PM EST
    Hell, that explains how he steamrolled Reagan on that whole tax cut thing. Sheesh. You did not live in another country. You lived in another reality.

    Parent
    The veto is very strong (none / 0) (#44)
    by andgarden on Sun Feb 08, 2009 at 07:23:53 PM EST
    Governors have honed it over the years, and it can be used very strategically.

    Parent
    Another Constitutional Reality (none / 0) (#55)
    by liberalone on Sun Feb 08, 2009 at 07:58:33 PM EST
    Sure you are right.  The three branches of government exist no longer exist.  There is the presidency and nothing else.

    As far as another preacher, I think that is my point entirely.  There is nothing that Obama can or will do that will satisfy some of you.  So, the discussions should always start with what he has done wrong now.

    The rest of this is absolutely senseless.  If you are saying that neither Tip O'Neil nor Newt Gingrich had any so say on legislation, you are right I am on another planet.

    BUT, then again, I am not a constitutional scholar.

    Parent

    He can satisfy me by (5.00 / 1) (#57)
    by andgarden on Sun Feb 08, 2009 at 08:01:32 PM EST
    putting forward and passing good policy.

    You give the impression that you wouldn't know good policy if you tripped over it.

    Parent

    With all the respect i can muster.. (none / 0) (#63)
    by liberalone on Sun Feb 08, 2009 at 08:10:28 PM EST
    Puhleez.  I have read thread after thread of Clinton era hyperbole.  (Yes, those were great times and NO I am not trying to discount any of his accomplishments.) No real emphasis on legislation or serious critique.

    If legislation was the issue here, the discussion would have been about the bill from the beginning. These discussions have been about post partisanship, defining the center, controlling the message.  This is NOT about legislation.  

    Parent

    I am not "thread after thread." (5.00 / 2) (#67)
    by andgarden on Sun Feb 08, 2009 at 08:16:46 PM EST
    And once again, you wouldn't know substance if you tripped over it.

    Parent
    Really (1.00 / 1) (#70)
    by liberalone on Sun Feb 08, 2009 at 08:19:36 PM EST
    True legal scholar aren;t you.  Veto makes it imperial.  You are right I don't know substance

    Parent
    Oh for frak's sake (none / 0) (#74)
    by Big Tent Democrat on Sun Feb 08, 2009 at 08:24:54 PM EST
    Have you REALLY never heard the term imperial presidency before?

    well, we know you are no scholar for sure.

    Parent

    yet another ad hominem attack (2.00 / 1) (#76)
    by liberalone on Sun Feb 08, 2009 at 08:32:38 PM EST
    yes, indeed i have heard of imperial presidency.  
    I am responding to your warning, which I find extreme considering I am BooHooing about Obama.

    FYI, your wiki has a comment about "not citing references and sources."

    I guess this makes you the scholar


    Parent

    For frak's sake (none / 0) (#85)
    by Big Tent Democrat on Sun Feb 08, 2009 at 08:42:25 PM EST
    Have you heard of the term or not?

    Parent
    Comments here seem to be predominantly (5.00 / 3) (#73)
    by ap in avl on Sun Feb 08, 2009 at 08:22:44 PM EST
    concerned with averting the impending national/international disaster due to the failure of ALL of our elected officials failure to do what is necessary during these difficult times.

    Does that task seem less important that protecting Obama's ego?

    Parent

    Um (5.00 / 2) (#86)
    by Spamlet on Sun Feb 08, 2009 at 08:42:42 PM EST
    If legislation was the issue here, the discussion would have been about the bill from the beginning. These discussions have been about post partisanship, defining the center, controlling the message.  This is NOT about legislation.

    Obama f*cked up on every single one of these counts, to the detriment of the legislation. These discussions have been totally about legislation.

    Parent

    In case you didn't notice, (4.33 / 3) (#65)
    by ThatOneVoter on Sun Feb 08, 2009 at 08:13:23 PM EST
    Obama said we must listen to Republicans' good ideas while crafting the stimulus bill.
    Obama's ideas of postpartisanship are quite germane.

    Parent
    Making false statements (none / 0) (#69)
    by Big Tent Democrat on Sun Feb 08, 2009 at 08:18:36 PM EST
    puts you in real danger of being removed from my threads.

    The LEGISLATION has always been what this was about and what the discussion has been about.

    The person who will not discuss the legislation is you.

    You point to one time where Clinton has figured in my posts on the economic stimulus plans.

    I detest people who make sh*t up when they have nothing to defend their argument with.

    I will not tolerate it in comments about my posts.

    You are now warned. Do it again and you will be removed from my threads.

    Parent

    Imperial Indeed (5.00 / 1) (#78)
    by liberalone on Sun Feb 08, 2009 at 08:34:11 PM EST
    I am not making things up.  Several posts about "post partisan unity schitck."  The legislation was secondary to the arguement about bipartisanship.  

    Secondly, I find it odd that you are so sensitive when your comments have been extremely rude and baseless.  ad hominem attacks.  And, the comment on Clinton was in passing that's all.

    Ban me for standing up for myself. I am not going to be bullied by you or anyone else.  MY point from the beginning is that you are not discussing the legislation and I stand by it.  The legislatioin is tangential to your central theme which is Obama's failure...

    Parent

    I have followed BTD's comments (5.00 / 1) (#83)
    by ap in avl on Sun Feb 08, 2009 at 08:41:27 PM EST
    and find that his arguments ARE focused on the legislation and not Obama.  To the extent that Obama and his team are responsible for driving the legislation, the criticism falls to its rightful owners, in my opinion.  

    You appear to be an Obama apologist.

    I would be one too.....if only he would take a stand I could apologize for.

    Parent

    really, we are forwarding comments (none / 0) (#138)
    by liberalone on Sun Feb 08, 2009 at 09:53:18 PM EST
    hmm, i thought the purpose of the board was to have an open discussion.  All this is about are people defending BTD... glad that you made that clear.  

    Have all of you been given talking points?

    Parent

    Enough (none / 0) (#142)
    by Big Tent Democrat on Sun Feb 08, 2009 at 09:57:29 PM EST
    save your insults for me.

    Parent
    This legislation is the result of (5.00 / 2) (#91)
    by Teresa on Sun Feb 08, 2009 at 08:50:54 PM EST
    "post partisan unity schitck."  How can we not discuss it as part of how we feel about the bill?

    I've been here a pretty long time and I know not one poster on this thread wants Obama to fail.

    Parent

    Please, don't go any further (5.00 / 2) (#95)
    by NYShooter on Sun Feb 08, 2009 at 08:55:21 PM EST
    Yes, BTD gets a little animated sometimes, but it doesn't come from nowhere. He is obsessively passionate about POLICY, and he has emphasized that point over and over again.....to anyone who can read. But we don't live by meat alone. Of course there are contributing threads as to how this failed policy, that Obama considers a victory simply because it will get "passed," feeds into the post partisan unity schtick that he is so proud of.........even though it is failed POLICY.


    Parent
    So I have read (none / 0) (#107)
    by liberalone on Sun Feb 08, 2009 at 09:15:04 PM EST
    that BTD is obsessed with policy. Can you make a comment without some weak snide remark?  Then again if your arguement is weak why would your put down be any better.  

    The rest of your comment merely points to what I have said... the only goal is to discuss any area of failure.  Did you not read that?  

    Now your only goal is to try to intimidate those who comment on the incessant Obama failed mantra.

    Parent

    Obama has failed so far (none / 0) (#113)
    by ap in avl on Sun Feb 08, 2009 at 09:26:04 PM EST
    He needs to do better.
    I hope he finds his bully pulpit and uses it.
    We all hope for, and desperately need, his success.
    If he succeeds, so do we.

    How's that?

    Parent

    Perhaps the reason you are (none / 0) (#114)
    by ThatOneVoter on Sun Feb 08, 2009 at 09:26:23 PM EST
    not up to snuff on policy discussions is that you haven't been reading TL.
    Stick around, and you'll learn a lot.

    Parent
    Snide comment? (none / 0) (#140)
    by NYShooter on Sun Feb 08, 2009 at 09:55:12 PM EST
    Like "never challenge an unarmed opponent to a battle of wits?"

    You win

    Thank you

    Parent

    You are defintiely making it all up (none / 0) (#84)
    by Big Tent Democrat on Sun Feb 08, 2009 at 08:41:39 PM EST
    Every bit of it.

    Parent
    "There is nothing that Obama can (5.00 / 3) (#58)
    by tigercourse on Sun Feb 08, 2009 at 08:02:34 PM EST
    do or say that will satisfy you". That's not true, but even if it was, so what? Are you satisfied by our President's full and complete support (as proven by his sending Rahm out to force it through, and his taking a victory lap to push it with the public) of a all around bad bill? It doesn't matter if I hate his guts and everything he does... the Obama/Nelson/Collins bill is a bad piece of legislation, full stop.

    Parent
    Fine (5.00 / 1) (#80)
    by liberalone on Sun Feb 08, 2009 at 08:38:09 PM EST
    We can discuss how the bill is bad.  We can discuss the areas where the bill fails.  These threads rarely delve into HOW the bill is bad.  

    You can hate his guts and say so every day.  I am not seeing any substantive discussion on the bill.  So, far I have had more personal attacks than I have anything remotely related to the legislation.

    Parent

    It's easy to play martyr, isn't it? (5.00 / 1) (#81)
    by andgarden on Sun Feb 08, 2009 at 08:39:48 PM EST


    Parent
    whose playing (none / 0) (#110)
    by liberalone on Sun Feb 08, 2009 at 09:19:27 PM EST


    Parent
    Someone owns you? (none / 0) (#111)
    by andgarden on Sun Feb 08, 2009 at 09:22:18 PM EST


    Parent
    In all due respect (5.00 / 1) (#98)
    by NYShooter on Sun Feb 08, 2009 at 08:58:38 PM EST
    You deserve the attacks.

    To say we haven't discussed HOW the biill is bad makes your nonsensicle comments suspicious.

    Parent

    Thank you (none / 0) (#129)
    by liberalone on Sun Feb 08, 2009 at 09:43:16 PM EST
    i disagreed completely that post partisanship is the central theme of this legislation.  I feel that the entire media discussion of post partisabship is a distraction.  It certainly does not merit... goodness how many posts... sa much attention as it has been given.  We can easily avoid the real issues of accountibilty and the specifics, which I am glad BTD is now discussing on another thread.

    So, your assumption that I have not read the other posts is wrong.  I simply feel that post partisanship discussion (its FAILURE) helps to address the far more pressing issues.  

    Unfortunately, I cannot say exactly what YOU deserve.

    Parent

    So you think that this bad policy bill (5.00 / 1) (#132)
    by Teresa on Sun Feb 08, 2009 at 09:48:02 PM EST
    was offered up, not because Obama wanted to be post-partisan, but because he really believes is will work? That's worse in my opinion.

    What do you think we should do?

    Parent

    Education, Food Stamps (5.00 / 3) (#108)
    by Jjc2008 on Sun Feb 08, 2009 at 09:15:09 PM EST
    are cut.  Why?   Because malnourished and illiterate kids don't have a voice?  Or because the status quo has been on the right that teachers don't really work, therefore, putting money into education does not create jobs?  

    Meanwhile every economist that is not shilling for the right explains over and over how Food Stamps are a big return putting $1.83 back into the economy for every $1 in Foodstamps.
    Historically (and Obama has said this himself), tax cuts for corporate interests and/or the rich do not help the economy.  Reagan did it.  IT FAILED.   Bill Clinton raised taxes on the rich and guess what..there was a surplus.

    So there, I am talking about the bill. McCaskill has basically said they are cutting the "silly stuff."  So if Obama's team (McCaskill, Nelson) think education, food stamps are "silly" stuff, what am I supposed to assume the president is thinking?

    Parent

    Start reading previous posts (none / 0) (#82)
    by ThatOneVoter on Sun Feb 08, 2009 at 08:40:38 PM EST
    and you will know concrete objections to the bill.


    Parent
    A Democratic president (5.00 / 14) (#45)
    by Cream City on Sun Feb 08, 2009 at 07:25:17 PM EST
    failed to get a Democratic Congress to do what he proposes.  

    And you don't think that's a failure.

    Add that it's a Democratic president with a solid win in November, with a mandate and with an approval rating in almost-historic numbers in the 80s only two weeks ago.  Add in that this is still his honeymoon, this is his first big bill -- this is as good as it gets.

    And you don't think that's a failure.

    Well, I don't want to think about how bad this Democratic president and Democratic Congress have to get before you think that they failed.  Help us all.


    Parent

    There are people who still think GWB (5.00 / 5) (#48)
    by Anne on Sun Feb 08, 2009 at 07:42:00 PM EST
    was the Best President Ever, so I imagine that for some people, it could get that bad, or worse, and they will still not see anything Obama does as failure.

    Obama has an interesting way of setting things up so that when things do go wrong, it's never his fault; it's our fault for not doing enough.

    Even his "I screwed up" confession last week was just words designed to be the sound-bite that would make him out to be the humble president - if you listened to what surrounded that admission, it made no sense at all.

    Parent

    George Bush (5.00 / 6) (#49)
    by Big Tent Democrat on Sun Feb 08, 2009 at 07:47:44 PM EST
    passed every thing he wanted.

    from a political success perspective, he was very effective.

    Of course, his policies were terrible so he was a epic failure policywise, and eventually, politically.

    Think of it this way, FDR and Bush both enacted their agendas. One saved the country, one destroyed the country.

    But both enacted their agendas.

    Parent

    As between Nancy, Steny, and Harry (5.00 / 1) (#51)
    by andgarden on Sun Feb 08, 2009 at 07:52:06 PM EST
    there isn't a Tom DeLay.

    Parent
    Do you think Nancy is (none / 0) (#156)
    by BackFromOhio on Sun Feb 08, 2009 at 11:50:40 PM EST
    sufficiently pissed to change her ways? Her comment about having been thrown under the bus and ridden on over & over sounded to me like seething snark?

    Parent
    Not only did the Congress pass (5.00 / 9) (#53)
    by Anne on Sun Feb 08, 2009 at 07:53:05 PM EST
    everything Bush wanted, but neither Bush nor the Congress ever broke a sweat doing it, which makes this Democratic exercise in futility particularly galling.

    Good leadership, a focused message, a price to pay for straying off the reservation - all of that might have meant a slam-dunk for the stimulus.

    Why is that so hard for Democrats?  Even when we win, we lose.

    Parent

    Anne, why do you think that is? (5.00 / 1) (#122)
    by FoxholeAtheist on Sun Feb 08, 2009 at 09:34:22 PM EST
    Even when we win, we lose.

    Riffing off your observation, let's assume for a moment that many House Democrats are not inherently spineless. How then do we explain the posture of spinelessness.

    Imo, there is something systemically wrong, but it has more to do with the manner in which the GOP and their media coterie have preempted the public interest in favor of private interests. In this thoroughly draconian environment it is next to impossible to be heard if you're promoting a populist agenda. The public is obviously yearning for that kind of message but the public has been removed from the public square along with their most vocal advocates in the Democratic Party.

    Ultimately, the undoing of this hideous dynamic has to happen from the ground up and it involves a lot more radical 'participaction' than most Obama supporters have exhibited thus far.

    In FDR words, we have the power to "make them do it".

    Parent

    I doubt it's only the GOP (5.00 / 3) (#147)
    by hookfan on Sun Feb 08, 2009 at 10:02:36 PM EST
    that preempts the public's interest for private. The democrats have been complicit for many years now. That includes the years they have been in the minority as well. They didn't fight or filibuster or even slow Bush's agenda. All we have been getting from them for years and years has been theatre followed by capitulation. Token resistance followed by capitulation. Now with control of both chambers of congress, we are getting the same from Obama-- saying one thing while doing another. Saying that he's against the failed policies of tax cuts, while sending Rahm to argue for them and succeeding in getting them in the bill at the expense of what he says he is for is theatre. Couple that with the continuing roll out of billions to the banksters without any requirements for lending, while cutting food stamps, school nutrition, and education construction is complicity. I would be happy to be proven wrong.

    Parent
    Agreed Hook, I'm also inclined to say that (none / 0) (#163)
    by FoxholeAtheist on Mon Feb 09, 2009 at 01:09:12 AM EST
    the Dems are WAY too complicit with corporate/private/moneyed interests. But hey, when it comes to that issue, the GOP really takes the cake - and they eat it too.

    Parent
    Foxhole - I wish I knew why (5.00 / 2) (#154)
    by Anne on Sun Feb 08, 2009 at 11:01:02 PM EST
    it seems that even when we should have everything going our way we manage to get in our own way and then lose our way and then end up asking what the heck happened.

    The only thing I can attribute it to is just plain poor leadership, which, strangely enough, stems from our liberal tendency to keep an open mind and entertain all ideas.  We never seem to know when and where to draw the line and settle on what our position is - and then get everyone on board and standing firm to fight for it.

    It does not bode well for us, I don't think, that Obama is pathologically unable to settle on one plan, one idea, one agenda; he wants everyone to be happy, for everyone to believe that he made it all happen.

    I think we are just so screwed...sure wish I meant that in a good way.

    Parent

    I've considered that as well... (5.00 / 1) (#161)
    by FoxholeAtheist on Mon Feb 09, 2009 at 01:02:28 AM EST
    Like the idea of Democrats wanting to be more diverse and inclusive, with a big-tent kind of vision - which makes us less singularly/narrowly focused than the GOP.

    No doubt that factors in. But, I'm still inclined to think our primary problem is that the "establishment" doesn't want to see the Dems running the country. And the "establishment" is now more firmly in control of the message than it has ever been in my lifetime.

    I really thought Hillary was breaking through back in the primaries. The more she was trashed by the beltway insiders the more popular she became with the public. And, she kept rising in spite of, or perhaps because of, patently unfair press - much as Bill did. To my mind that trumped the whole ephemeral "media darling" phenomenon any day of the week.

    Thanks for the chuckle in your last sentence.

    Parent

    "he wants everyone to be happy, (none / 0) (#170)
    by weltec2 on Mon Feb 09, 2009 at 01:57:33 AM EST
     for everyone to believe that he made it all happen."

    I think you've hit the main problem on the head, Anne. And I think it has always been there even in the vagueness of his campaign speeches. I think that's why many of us were hesitant about supporting him even after HRC was railroaded out.

    I don't want to start anything off topic with that mention of HRC. I'm just saying...

    Parent

    Unsettling, any way you slice it (none / 0) (#174)
    by rghojai on Mon Feb 09, 2009 at 03:59:50 AM EST
    I'm open to other thoughts, but the only ones that come to mind are, as the always-thoughtful Anne said "just plain poor leadership" or they don't really want what they say they want.

    Parent
    I used the word failed several times (3.00 / 2) (#59)
    by liberalone on Sun Feb 08, 2009 at 08:05:17 PM EST
    Even IF he had gotten the Democratic Congress to pass the legislation, there would be failure somewhere else.  I am no discounting any failure.  

    The problem here is that all many of you can see is failure.  Perhaps that is all that you want to see.  PERHAPS that is all you want.

    SO, Obama failed. Obama failed. Obama failed.

    Is there anything else?  

    Parent

    Oy (5.00 / 1) (#60)
    by Big Tent Democrat on Sun Feb 08, 2009 at 08:09:20 PM EST
    It there anyTHING at all you can add to the discussion?

    All I see is "boo hoo, you are saying mean things about Obama." Pretty pathetic really.

    Parent

    Haha (none / 0) (#68)
    by liberalone on Sun Feb 08, 2009 at 08:17:34 PM EST
    I didn't even boo hoo when you insulted me.  Why would I boo hoo over your comments regarding Obama?  Give me a break... either you are going to argue your point or we can continue to make this personal.

    Parent
    Are you kidding? (none / 0) (#71)
    by Big Tent Democrat on Sun Feb 08, 2009 at 08:19:40 PM EST
    You've been sobbing all over this thread.

    Say something to the point here about the economic stimulus plan please.

    Parent

    Sobbing? (none / 0) (#119)
    by liberalone on Sun Feb 08, 2009 at 09:32:37 PM EST
    Please, I am having too much fun responding.  I just wish I could type faster.  I had my say in my first post.  That was all I wanted to say.  

    As far as the rest, this is just an exercise in futility in my opinion.  I have responded in kind to each response.

    Parent

    You enjoy a good cry do you? (none / 0) (#128)
    by Big Tent Democrat on Sun Feb 08, 2009 at 09:42:23 PM EST


    Parent
    And you enjoy the last line don't you (none / 0) (#133)
    by liberalone on Sun Feb 08, 2009 at 09:48:41 PM EST


    Parent
    Especially when it is good one (none / 0) (#135)
    by Big Tent Democrat on Sun Feb 08, 2009 at 09:49:54 PM EST


    Parent
    Yes. Enormous human suffering (5.00 / 4) (#61)
    by ThatOneVoter on Sun Feb 08, 2009 at 08:09:52 PM EST
    is at stake. No one here takes pleasure in watching a Democratic President fail to pass Democratic legislation which helps people.

    Parent
    "Obama failed...Is there anything else?" (5.00 / 2) (#64)
    by ap in avl on Sun Feb 08, 2009 at 08:13:05 PM EST
    Yes.

    You left off the rest of the sentence.

    "......we all lose"


    Parent

    Wrong (none / 0) (#66)
    by liberalone on Sun Feb 08, 2009 at 08:16:09 PM EST
    We failed because we honestly believe that only the president is capable of making the types of decisions for our country.

    We are free to petition our Congress people.  We are free to put pressure on any part of government we choose.

    Yes, we will indeed fail if we think that only Obama can correct all that is currently wrong with the country.

    Parent

    Can we ask Obama to correct (5.00 / 1) (#72)
    by Big Tent Democrat on Sun Feb 08, 2009 at 08:22:04 PM EST
    HIS mistakes in your world? Of course not.

    Why are you here anyway? It is obvious you can not take even a smidgen of criticism of Obama.

    You know there are other sites that take your approach. Wouldn't you be happier there?

    Hell, there are posters on this site that you know you will enjoy more. Why come to mine?

    Parent

    I am taking loads of criticism (5.00 / 1) (#100)
    by liberalone on Sun Feb 08, 2009 at 09:00:42 PM EST
    I have no problem with criticism of me or of Obama or of Democrats.  I don't respond well to personal attacks, which most of these comments have been.  (I guess that is normal.)

    I come here to read, to learn and to discuss.  The only reason that I wanted to add my ONE comment (the original one) was to express my opinion.

    Obviously, having people agree with me is not necessarily my goal.  MY WORLD allows this type of discussion.  SO, please continue to do what you do.  If you choose to ban me, please do so, BUT I am rarely detered by personal attacks.

    Parent

    For frak's sake (none / 0) (#103)
    by Big Tent Democrat on Sun Feb 08, 2009 at 09:03:59 PM EST
    Look at the responses to your original comment.

    Not a single one attacked you.

    When confronted with cogent points rebutted your comment, you attacked everyone as an "Obama hater."

    The comments are right there.

    Sheesh.

    Parent

    Please READ the first line of (none / 0) (#115)
    by liberalone on Sun Feb 08, 2009 at 09:26:51 PM EST
    Your comment in response to my comment.  Then read every subsequent poster.  If I was that rude to you or anyone else, I would have been banned.  I cannot respond to the alleged cogent points for  responding to the snide statements.  

    And no, I don't think that everyone is an Obama hater.  Actually, that does not matter.  IF the central theme is the economy THEN the discussion should be the economy.  As far as post partisanship being the defining issue of this legislation, it is NOT.  Post partisanship is a distraction from the far more important details of the bill and how it will work.

    Parent

    Let's read my entire first comment (none / 0) (#117)
    by Big Tent Democrat on Sun Feb 08, 2009 at 09:28:35 PM EST
     Um, what country are you living in? (5.00 / 5) (#31)
    by Big Tent Democrat on Sun Feb 08, 2009 at 07:08:07 PM EST
    We have had an imperial PRresidency since FDr.

    You know the PResident sets the agenda. And has throughout our lifetime.

    For crissakes, even Clinton did it in the face of Gingrich.

    What part offended you? Are you fraking serious?


    Parent

    what fraking country are YOU living in (none / 0) (#120)
    by liberalone on Sun Feb 08, 2009 at 09:33:24 PM EST


    Parent
    Umm (none / 0) (#127)
    by Big Tent Democrat on Sun Feb 08, 2009 at 09:41:50 PM EST
    you added the fraking.

    That really offended you? Boy, thin skin you have there.

    And hardly comparable to your comments.

    I think the record is clear.


    Parent

    I don't have thin skin at all (none / 0) (#131)
    by liberalone on Sun Feb 08, 2009 at 09:47:38 PM EST
    That was the beginning of your outrageously silly comments.  Each and every one was more obnoxious  and rude.  So yes I added fraking... as, it was a term YOU were using so much.  

    I am fine... your opinions of me or anyone else does not bother me.  I will just give  some of your fraking stuff back at ya.

    Parent

    Heh (none / 0) (#137)
    by Big Tent Democrat on Sun Feb 08, 2009 at 09:50:42 PM EST
    Well no hard feelings then.

    Need to sharpen your game though.

    Parent

    puhleez (none / 0) (#141)
    by liberalone on Sun Feb 08, 2009 at 09:56:00 PM EST
    I am taking on how many... ALONE... and I hear there are talking points floating around... my game is far sharper than those whose only goal is personal attacks.  "Sobbing"  "Playing the marty"... Baby, if you all were coming at me with real cognent arguements in stead of snide comments, maybe I would have taken this seriously

    Parent
    "Playing the marty"? (5.00 / 1) (#146)
    by Cream City on Sun Feb 08, 2009 at 10:01:33 PM EST
    I think we've got a winner here, a new term to describe such blogclogging -- it's "playing the marty"!

    Parent
    Success doesn't come easy (none / 0) (#30)
    by SOS on Sun Feb 08, 2009 at 07:07:54 PM EST
    and rarely the first time.

    Parent
    Obama took responsibility for the Daschle debacle (none / 0) (#87)
    by AX10 on Sun Feb 08, 2009 at 08:45:04 PM EST
    but did not define the debate around the jobs/stimulus bill.  I would prefer he had defined the debate around the economy rather than apologize for Daschle, if given the option of course.

    Nah, MoDo doesn't get it. (none / 0) (#112)
    by masslib on Sun Feb 08, 2009 at 09:25:53 PM EST
    She still thinks Obama's the next FDR.  Heh.

    I stole this from a new diary on DKos (none / 0) (#124)
    by Teresa on Sun Feb 08, 2009 at 09:36:59 PM EST
     Like the House-passed bill, the Senate "compromise" contains less tax relief than requested by President Obama, and will provide "tax rebates" to people who don't actually pay taxes.  This is welfare, not tax relief.

    From John Boehner. Is this true? Did Obama want even more tax cuts in the bill or is he spinning about the cuts Obama talked about in the campaign?

    There was pre-talk (5.00 / 1) (#125)
    by Big Tent Democrat on Sun Feb 08, 2009 at 09:40:05 PM EST
    where, you will se the dispute below I am habing on the point, where Obama wa sfloating a REALLY crappy plan.

    but he never formally proposed it.

    And he eventually just set broad outlines, of about 1.3 going for tax cuts - and those cuts going to the lower classes.

    Parent

    "Lower classes" might (none / 0) (#159)
    by oculus on Mon Feb 09, 2009 at 12:31:16 AM EST
    read better as "low(er) income."  Or maybe, having just returned from India, I'm hypersensitive.  "Untouchables," indeed.  

    Parent
    Call things by their names. (none / 0) (#165)
    by oldpro on Mon Feb 09, 2009 at 01:19:51 AM EST
    Classes...lower, middle, upper.

    Yes.

    And if we can't do that, and focus with clarity, we will never solve our real domestic problems of race and class...and yes, they are related.

    Class warfare was more than a little visible during both the primary and general election.  

    The Daschle debacle revealed its presence even in the new administration.

    Parent

    I disagree. (none / 0) (#166)
    by oculus on Mon Feb 09, 2009 at 01:23:14 AM EST


    Parent
    As you have a right to do. (none / 0) (#167)
    by oldpro on Mon Feb 09, 2009 at 01:35:01 AM EST
    I do not see, however, how class distinctions in this country can reasonably be denied.  There is evidence everywhere.

    Sarah Palin?

    Parent

    Don't get me started on how (5.00 / 1) (#168)
    by oculus on Mon Feb 09, 2009 at 01:43:23 AM EST
    she was treated here.  College graduate, daughter of a high school teacher, Governor, making a good living, but, to read about her, one would assume she was "poor white trash."

    Parent
    Yes (5.00 / 1) (#172)
    by Spamlet on Mon Feb 09, 2009 at 02:04:15 AM EST
    College graduate, daughter of a high school teacher, Governor, making a good living, but, to read about her, one would assume she was "poor white trash."

    And don't you agree that much more than income goes into attributions of class status? I'm with oldpro. Euphemism kills truth, and where there's no truth, there can be no change.

    Parent

    Well, then! I believe you've (none / 0) (#177)
    by oldpro on Mon Feb 09, 2009 at 05:46:32 AM EST
    made my point!

    Yes...her treatment (including on this site) by progressives and liberals was shocking in its hostility and meanness.

    Reminded me of the treatment of the Clintons by the DC establishment...disdain and rejection of the country mice by the city mice...or, city rats, if you prefer.  Trailer trash, even those sporting a Rhodes scholarship, were not 'our sort' and not acceptable in the social swim.  Even worse, the Clintons didn't care...so they had to be punished.

    And they were.

    Parent

    Whatever. I gathered BTD's reference to (none / 0) (#180)
    by oculus on Mon Feb 09, 2009 at 10:48:01 AM EST
    "lower class" was limited to stratification by income and his view of the best allotment of stimulus package funds.  

    Parent
    It was (none / 0) (#181)
    by Big Tent Democrat on Mon Feb 09, 2009 at 10:53:11 AM EST
    I think your point is well taken personally.

    Parent
    the term "class" is easy to play with (none / 0) (#184)
    by coigue on Mon Feb 09, 2009 at 01:10:13 PM EST
    income is a number.

    Class is about education, status, etc. So igree, call things as they are, but I disagree that class is the correct term

    Parent

    So, (none / 0) (#145)
    by JThomas on Sun Feb 08, 2009 at 10:01:12 PM EST
    the much-reviled MoDo finally gets the thumbs up on this site? All she had to do was write a column critical of President Obama to become an instant hit here,huh?

    Very quick to declare failure for President Obama here.
    Anybody,including Krugman that says they can pick the number that is the correct number to strike the perfect balance between stimulating the economy and threatening our credit worthiness by too big of a deficit.
    Arm-chair quarterbacks are everywhere these days.

    Can you spell (5.00 / 1) (#149)
    by Spamlet on Sun Feb 08, 2009 at 10:06:03 PM EST
    I-R-O-N-Y?

    the much-reviled MoDo finally gets the thumbs up on this site


    Parent
    Heh (none / 0) (#148)
    by Big Tent Democrat on Sun Feb 08, 2009 at 10:03:06 PM EST
    Soooo, you rip people based on who they are, not what they write?

    I doubt it. You rip anyone who does not join the Cult.

    Parent

    RE: the cult (5.00 / 1) (#185)
    by coigue on Mon Feb 09, 2009 at 01:14:32 PM EST
    it's so weird. Most people I know are concerned and many are out of work or underemployed. Every once in awhile there is someone with a big smile on their face talking about how great the world is with Obama in it.

    I mean, I am ecstatic that Bush is gone, and I like Obama very much, but people are hurting. It seems rather weird to be whistling passed all the lives on the wire.

    (BTW, this is exactly why the GOP should get slammed for claiming that the Dems are chicken littles on the economy....they should be slammed hard)

    Parent

    Here's what I don't understand. (none / 0) (#186)
    by oculus on Mon Feb 09, 2009 at 01:22:34 PM EST
    So many years of watching Spector proclaim loudly what he'll do and seeing him do the opposite.  Why on earth would Obama trust Spector to shepherd anything through the Senate?  Or laud him?  Is he really that gullible?

    Parent
    Oh gawd...... (none / 0) (#187)
    by coigue on Mon Feb 09, 2009 at 01:29:44 PM EST
    I am just shaking my head, He couldn't be.

    Parent
    Maureen Van Winkle (none / 0) (#175)
    by lentinel on Mon Feb 09, 2009 at 05:23:04 AM EST
    MoDo, who has been in a drunken stupor for years, flailing aimlessly at the likes of Clinton, Clinton and Palin, has begun to shake her head and blink her eyes.

    She has awoken to find that we have a new President and he doesn't know wtf he is doing.

    Hello MoDo.

    When MoDo Gets It . . . | 187 comments (187 topical)

    Readers Must Login or Create an Account to Comment