Caveat Emptor

Krugman writes:

[P]rogressives are now in revolt. Mr. Obama took their trust for granted, and in the process lost it. And now he needs to win it back.

That may be, but I am against the idea of trusting any politician, including Obama, Ted Kennedy, Russ Feingold, Bernie Sanders, Nancy Pelosi and Anthony Weiner. Watch what they do, not what they say.

Speaking for me only

< Friday Morning Open Thread | Ethics Hearing Concludes for TX Judge Sharon Keller >
  • The Online Magazine with Liberal coverage of crime-related political and injustice news

  • Contribute To TalkLeft

  • Display: Sort:
    I know that bloggers are beginning to come (5.00 / 1) (#1)
    by Militarytracy on Fri Aug 21, 2009 at 11:25:35 AM EST
    to terms now with the fact that the base is going to demand something more out of them than Obama worship, but the only thing that I can even get to come to mind when I read Krugman today was that Bowers called him an Elite who is spreading memes that will destroy healthcare reform.  

    I'm more of a (5.00 / 1) (#2)
    by Makarov on Fri Aug 21, 2009 at 11:28:30 AM EST
    "trust, but verify" person when it comes to politicians.

    All very simple if ... (5.00 / 5) (#4)
    by Robot Porter on Fri Aug 21, 2009 at 11:45:19 AM EST
    you approach politics from a policy perspective.

    Then you can support politicians when they agree with you on policy, and not support them when they don't.

    Lather.  Rinse.  Repeat.

    That's hard (5.00 / 1) (#6)
    by Fabian on Fri Aug 21, 2009 at 11:46:50 AM EST
    when your initiation into politics was personality driven, not policy driven.

    Has anyone made the leap from personality to policy?  I'm curious how often it happens.


    Not me (5.00 / 3) (#7)
    by Militarytracy on Fri Aug 21, 2009 at 11:50:54 AM EST
    I do focus on policy but I'm always a sucker for personality and then I'm surprised, shocked, even cried when total betrayal goes down.  I have admitted that I'm powerless and that a power greater than myself can restore me to sanity...blah blah blah

    my mom (5.00 / 2) (#10)
    by CST on Fri Aug 21, 2009 at 11:57:36 AM EST
    is such a personality voter.  It really surprised me.  She was the biggest Obamafan I knew.  And she focuses on policy a lot too which is weird.  I think it has something to do with her Dad being a bit of a politician.  It definitely made it more of a personal profession.

    I got the same mishmash (5.00 / 1) (#15)
    by Militarytracy on Fri Aug 21, 2009 at 12:10:27 PM EST
    growing up, probably some faulty genes too.  Some guy starts talking smart and it turns me on.  My grandmother was very active in local Dem elections and issues.  But she also a framed numbered print of an artists profiles of Clinton and Gore....and Jimmy Carter had the highest I.Q. of any President we ever had...gush gush gush.  I lived in WY when Barney Iuppa got voted in as DA and every phone call she just went on and on and on.

    Exactly. But (5.00 / 5) (#8)
    by Cream City on Fri Aug 21, 2009 at 11:52:24 AM EST
    if the 2000 election is a precedent, and I know a lot of young voters who were first-timers then: No.  Many got whooped up about a personality again in 2008, but most still haven't transitioned to being policy thinkers.

    There are a few who have done so, and about the health care issue, but because they are among the few in that young age group who have need of health care -- and they're getting crushed by the bills.


    Amen on all of your points (5.00 / 4) (#11)
    by Militarytracy on Fri Aug 21, 2009 at 11:58:33 AM EST
    My daughter doesn't have a myspace anymore but I remember when her myspace was Obamafied and she was living in New York.  She still loves the idea of Obama.  Now she's getting divorced.  She has two children soon.  She looked at me the other day and asked me how I did it alone with her.  I told it was hard.  I was in a constant state of tired for years, but I did get it done and fairly well too because work actually had more worth then than it does now.  Truthfully though, with the available resources at this time, I don't know how she could do any of this without her father and I.

    Best wishes to all of you (5.00 / 3) (#23)
    by shoephone on Fri Aug 21, 2009 at 12:33:04 PM EST
    I think it is clear why (5.00 / 6) (#19)
    by Anne on Fri Aug 21, 2009 at 12:28:12 PM EST
    the reform effort is failing:

    1.  the emphasis shifted from policy (CARE) to process (insurance);


    2.   the process has become about getting a win for Obama, instead of a win for the people.

    The first angers me and the second offends me.


    wow (none / 0) (#9)
    by CST on Fri Aug 21, 2009 at 11:54:22 AM EST
    people who voted in 2000 are still considered young? :)

    Gore was hardly a personality candidate though.  Do you mean they voted for Bush in 2000?


    And they look and act darned young (5.00 / 3) (#14)
    by Cream City on Fri Aug 21, 2009 at 12:07:59 PM EST
    from where I sit. :-)

    It is funny to hear them talk about their advancing ancientness.  On one's 25th birthday, he started referring to himself, wearily, as "in his late 20s"!  Now he's just past 30 and wed to a 25-year-old, whose exuberance he discounts as "well, she's so young yet."  

    And the young women in that group who aren't married, good goddess.  Some of their biological clocks must be ticking so loud that they can't hear common sense, as several are convinced that they never will marry and have children "in time."  How many times we point out to them that many of their parents were in their late 30s when they had them . . . but whaddaweknow, and everything is different now, dontchaknow, etc.


    Yea I am just messing around (5.00 / 1) (#17)
    by CST on Fri Aug 21, 2009 at 12:23:40 PM EST
    my sisters both voted in 2000 and I wasn't that far away.  My dad was the only Nader voter, although I doubt he would've had he lived outside a solid blue state like MA.

    I don't feel old yet.  Although I have coined the phrase "quarter-life crisis" and that pretty much sums up the last year or so.  Definitely not worried about the biological clock yet.  I'm more concerned with finding someone who will cook than someone who wants kids.  My mom on the other hand, has taken up knitting.  Baby clothes no less.


    Nader. (none / 0) (#12)
    by Cream City on Fri Aug 21, 2009 at 12:03:44 PM EST
    first timers 18-20 (none / 0) (#22)
    by coigue on Fri Aug 21, 2009 at 12:31:28 PM EST
    now they are 26-28. Yup. Still young

    My initiation into politics (5.00 / 4) (#13)
    by MO Blue on Fri Aug 21, 2009 at 12:04:03 PM EST
    started with JFK so it was definitely personality driven at the time.

    Somewhere along the line, I came to the conclusion that giving any politician "hero" status was counterproductive to producing results.

    My current viewpoint is that I am the employer and politicians are employees. They either meet my issue based performance goals most of the time or they do not. I'm all for replacing them if they do not produce good results.


    Don't the object of our crushes always disappoint? (5.00 / 1) (#42)
    by BrassTacks on Fri Aug 21, 2009 at 02:08:47 PM EST
    That fall from the high perch to the real world reality is always with a heavy thud.  

    As democrats so many of us fall for the slick talkin' man and it often ends badly.  Maybe we need to get into the real world of policy more often, BEFORE we vote.  


    My mother always told me (5.00 / 3) (#46)
    by shoephone on Fri Aug 21, 2009 at 02:13:49 PM EST
    "Don't be swayed by charm and good looks. Does he have a job? And what does his last girlfriend say about him???"

    Daily Kos just posted its weekly poll (5.00 / 5) (#16)
    by magster on Fri Aug 21, 2009 at 12:20:14 PM EST
    and the Dems and Obama are falling hard within their own party.

    If 2010 is a disaster, the Dems can't say that August 2009 wasn't a clear warning in time to make a meaningful change in direction.

    Another Poll (5.00 / 3) (#20)
    by waldenpond on Fri Aug 21, 2009 at 12:28:38 PM EST
    Dan Balz WaPo was just on.  Approval for Obama's handling of healthcare has gone from 57 to 45%.  No one is going to be reassured by his 'belt and suspenders' analogy. Apparently he used the phrase 'wee-wee' recently. I'm suprised more aren't rebelling.

    Are you "a littlle excited," lefties (5.00 / 9) (#27)
    by Cream City on Fri Aug 21, 2009 at 12:47:49 PM EST
    about all this?  He actually did use that phrase yesterday, discussing the health care discussion:

    "Some folks on the left got a little excited."  

    It sounded pretty dismissive of lefties to some  whom I read.  Interestingly, some also just now caught on that when talking about the left, he's talking about other people, himself not included.


    More lefties (5.00 / 2) (#31)
    by waldenpond on Fri Aug 21, 2009 at 01:12:54 PM EST
    will be unhappy..... Olympia Snowe has announced there will be no public option.  I don't consider myslf a 'leftie' and I'm not satisfied with how this is going.

    Olympia Snowe (5.00 / 5) (#32)
    by cawaltz on Fri Aug 21, 2009 at 01:16:24 PM EST
    is a Republican. It's swell she has decided to weigh in but she doesn't get to decide on whether or not there will be a public option. She only can say whether she will or not vote for it. I'm guessing she is saying "will not vote for it"

    The Dems had better hope they (none / 0) (#40)
    by prittfumes on Fri Aug 21, 2009 at 02:03:17 PM EST
    can persuade Snowe to change her mind. Collins will be key too. IMHO.

    The Gang of Six (5.00 / 1) (#44)
    by shoephone on Fri Aug 21, 2009 at 02:10:32 PM EST
    is intent on killing health care reform. Doesn't matter that there are three of each party. All six of them are on the same side of this issue.

    The headline should be,
    Gang of Six to Citizens: "Go to H*ll, America!"


    Snowe's comment came (none / 0) (#50)
    by waldenpond on Fri Aug 21, 2009 at 02:24:10 PM EST
    after the gang of six had their 90 minute conference call.  Another made the same comment, I just don't remember the name.

    Meh (5.00 / 1) (#60)
    by cawaltz on Fri Aug 21, 2009 at 04:45:24 PM EST
    The Dems have 60 votes WITHOUT Snowe. She needs to get over herself and Reid needs to get the blue dogs to stop obstructing what the majority of the country wishes.

    Obama is dismissive! (5.00 / 1) (#47)
    by BrassTacks on Fri Aug 21, 2009 at 02:15:36 PM EST
    He said some rather dismissive things about old people and the progressives.  Sometimes he doesn't seem like a very nice guy, particularly if he isn't getting his way.  

    "All wee weed up" (5.00 / 1) (#45)
    by BrassTacks on Fri Aug 21, 2009 at 02:11:42 PM EST
    Was the phrase he used in describing people in Washington.  I guess I'm old because I have no idea what that means.  

    Maybe he meant (none / 0) (#52)
    by shoephone on Fri Aug 21, 2009 at 02:50:50 PM EST
    that we are all saying, "Oui, oui!"?

    because, like you, I have absolutely no idea what that other phrase means. And... I might not want to know.


    Hahahaha............. (none / 0) (#58)
    by BrassTacks on Fri Aug 21, 2009 at 03:39:12 PM EST
    Who knew he spoke French so fluently?!  

    I wondered if he was referring (none / 0) (#54)
    by Anne on Fri Aug 21, 2009 at 02:55:54 PM EST
    to Nintendo "Wii," seeing as how he is the cool president, but decided that didn't make much sense, either.

    Only thing that makes sense is that it's cool-president-speak for "wetting their pants."


    Some thought it might be a reference to weed! (5.00 / 1) (#59)
    by BrassTacks on Fri Aug 21, 2009 at 03:40:21 PM EST
    I knew that couldn't be right.  

    Politicians are mere mortals just like the (5.00 / 4) (#18)
    by inclusiveheart on Fri Aug 21, 2009 at 12:23:50 PM EST
    rest of us.  I've hired some people who turned out great; others who didn't; and some who were uneven.  This hiring representation in our government thing we do is no different.

    Well (5.00 / 5) (#25)
    by Ga6thDem on Fri Aug 21, 2009 at 12:42:36 PM EST
    why wouldnt Obama take their trust for granted? I mean they've acted like abused spouses for quite a while now continually making excuses for him and continuing to support him even though he's done a lot of things they apparently or claim to not agree with.

    Have you read Greenwald's Sat. column? (5.00 / 2) (#26)
    by oculus on Fri Aug 21, 2009 at 12:47:14 PM EST
    It is all about the money (not from us) and what we think is irrelevant.

    Oops. Friday column. (5.00 / 1) (#28)
    by oculus on Fri Aug 21, 2009 at 12:48:02 PM EST
    No (none / 0) (#48)
    by Ga6thDem on Fri Aug 21, 2009 at 02:17:59 PM EST
    I havent read i but thanks for the heads up.

    I keep my eyes focused on (5.00 / 5) (#29)
    by cawaltz on Fri Aug 21, 2009 at 12:51:45 PM EST
    being issue based. I don't play the cult of personality game. It's far less disappointing. That being said I have no problem picking up a set of pom poms and cheering a person on when I do see a person doing right.

    And Caveat venditor ... (5.00 / 1) (#30)
    by Robot Porter on Fri Aug 21, 2009 at 12:59:02 PM EST
    for the pols.

    Only blame is the mirror, (5.00 / 1) (#33)
    by bocajeff on Fri Aug 21, 2009 at 01:35:22 PM EST
    Obama was never the progressive candidate. Kucinich was. Edwards (yuk!) was more so. HRC, not! By voting for the most likely to win candidate and then hoping they would be different is foolish. Why do you think most conservatives turned on Bush? He didn't act like a conservative (deficits, medicare, etc...)

    HRC (5.00 / 1) (#36)
    by TeresaInSnow2 on Fri Aug 21, 2009 at 01:44:29 PM EST
    was a bit to the left of Obama, especially on the healthcare issue.

    And, as much pressure as Obama is getting here, Clinton would have gotten far more and the pressure would likely have ensued from the time she entered office.

    We have no idea how she would have been as president, but I'm hard pressed to believe any Democrat would have been worse in terms of Democratic issues than Obama.

    Heck, he never really ran as a true Democrat.  In fact he was constantly running away from Democratic ideals.

    And the infuriating inkblots Obama created all through the campaign are even more infuriating when he uses them to deliberately poorly define policy.

    I guess I'm off on a tangent.


    See I'd argue the opposite (none / 0) (#55)
    by Socraticsilence on Fri Aug 21, 2009 at 02:58:04 PM EST
    and state that for all of Obama's shortcomings he's coming through like he said in Iraq (staying on base and out of the cities given events on the ground over the past two weeks is a good sign), attempting to close Gitmo, and doubling down in AF-Pak, but then again for me the deciding factor between the two major Dem canidates (after Bill Richardson dropped out) was foriegn policy whereas for you it was domestic policy.

    Support for his Afghanistan policy is (none / 0) (#62)
    by oculus on Fri Aug 21, 2009 at 04:58:46 PM EST
    dropping per latest polls.

    I thought HRC was the best realistic choice (5.00 / 3) (#41)
    by FreakyBeaky on Fri Aug 21, 2009 at 02:06:18 PM EST
    She was never my ideal candidate, but like I told people, FDR wasn't running.  

    It's true the ostensible policy differences between her and Obama were at the margins, but she was to the Democratic side of him across the board on domestic policy, so those marginal differences added up.  I thought she "got it" about health care, about the middle class being in crisis, and about confronting the Republicans, and Obama didn't.  I thought she would fight tooth and nail.  I never got that from Obama, who seemed (and still seems) to think he could compromise, conciliate, and jawbone his way to the promised land.  It was never going to happen.

    Sometimes it sucks to be right.  Just ask Kucinich, he's right about medicare for all, and look where that gets him ...


    I think (none / 0) (#37)
    by Steve M on Fri Aug 21, 2009 at 01:44:50 PM EST
    that most conservatives turned on Bush when his administration became wildly unpopular.

    Medicare Part D was enacted in 2003.  Sure, some small-government conservatives grumbled about it, but hardly anyone "turned on Bush" until Katrina and all that.  Once Bush became unpopular, suddenly it became important to make sure everyone understood that Bush was the farthest thing from a conservative.

    Even at the end of the day, when Bush enjoyed approval ratings in the neighborhood of 30%, I'm pretty sure the vast majority of that 30% would call themselves conservatives.  Who else supported him until the bitter end?  The moderates?


    If I was a conservative (none / 0) (#39)
    by The Last Whimzy on Fri Aug 21, 2009 at 02:00:53 PM EST
    I'd turn on Bush cause he proved that conservative policies don't work.

    One could hypothetically argue though (none / 0) (#61)
    by cawaltz on Fri Aug 21, 2009 at 04:47:11 PM EST
    he didn't actually apply conservative policy. Sure, he cut taxes, but he still grew the government.

    Capability (5.00 / 2) (#35)
    by mmc9431 on Fri Aug 21, 2009 at 01:43:37 PM EST
    I use the same premise with politician that I used in hiring.

    I didn't have to like the person. I just want someone that I feel confident will do the job I required.

    Regardless of party? (none / 0) (#43)
    by prittfumes on Fri Aug 21, 2009 at 02:09:15 PM EST
    Definitely no (none / 0) (#53)
    by mmc9431 on Fri Aug 21, 2009 at 02:53:39 PM EST
    Party matters totally. I don't agree with the party platform of the Republican's at all, so regardless of how likable or capable the candidate seemed that would be irrelevant. As I stated I would select the person I felt fulfill my needs.

    A Republican could never do it. I'm pro choice, pro gay rights, advid for separation of church and state, and pro gun control. N


    Let's look on the bright side (5.00 / 4) (#38)
    by FreakyBeaky on Fri Aug 21, 2009 at 01:52:33 PM EST
    At least we don't have to listen to "pwogwessives" whine about how partisan and nasty everything is because we elected that nasty Clinton woman instead of Mr. Hope & Change.  

    Also, I regard this week's revolt as good news in and of itself.  Strangely, it gives me hope.  

    Even Franken??? (none / 0) (#3)
    by The Last Whimzy on Fri Aug 21, 2009 at 11:40:20 AM EST
    Say it ain't so????

    The sleeping (none / 0) (#5)
    by TeresaInSnow2 on Fri Aug 21, 2009 at 11:46:30 AM EST
    The sleeping Naderites have awakened.

    What's happening now is good, very good (none / 0) (#34)
    by s5 on Fri Aug 21, 2009 at 01:38:26 PM EST
    Progressives are starting to become a serious bloc of pressure that can't be taken for granted. I have no idea if this was Obama's intentional strategy or not (who cares!), but it does seem like it's the outcome. And I feel like it's long overdue.

    Don;t trust me either (none / 0) (#51)
    by Big Tent Democrat on Fri Aug 21, 2009 at 02:27:49 PM EST

    This isn't true (none / 0) (#56)
    by Socraticsilence on Fri Aug 21, 2009 at 02:59:36 PM EST
    I can trust some pols on the other side- Inhofe will always be stupid about the enviroment, and Michelle Bachmann will always be crazy.

    I hope you saw Steve M's comment (none / 0) (#57)
    by Cream City on Fri Aug 21, 2009 at 03:32:27 PM EST
    yesterday on Bachmann coming over to pro-choice reasoning . . . and not realizing it.

    Yeh, what you said.


    we finally agree (none / 0) (#63)
    by diogenes on Fri Aug 21, 2009 at 11:09:25 PM EST
    I don't trust anything that these Democratic politicians say either.