The Firebagger On The Hill

The Chief of Staff of a Democratic Senator writes to TPM:

[I]nstead of pressing our political advantage--which was also clearly the right policy choice [. . .] we flinched[.. . .] Voters could have had a last and important impression about who was on their side and who wasn't, but gracious to a fault, we didn't want to anger anyone, and the result was predictably awful.

Now it appears that we may well make the same mistake again[. . .] If that's what we do, it will make President Obama's many comments about fiscal responsibility an utter joke -- how can we talk about decimating Social Security, raising gas taxes (which hit low and middle-income folks disproportionately hard), raising fees for veterans' health care, messing with student loans, etc., when we're going to blow a $700 billion dollar hole in the budget because of our concern for folks who make $250k and over, who are doing more than fine? Or because those bad Republicans are just too mean? [MORE . . ]

There is a prevailing view among many people that both parties are dominated by the rich, and that voting doesn't really make a difference. If we want low and middle-income Americans to think we don't have the spine to fight for them, then how are we going to convince them to vote for us? If David Axelrod has an answer for that, I'd like to know what it is.

(Emphasis supplied.) I suspect that Axelrod's answer is that the beatings will continue until morale improves.

Speaking for me only

< Kidnapping in Milan: A True Life Detective Story | The More Tax Cuts For The Rich Commission >
  • The Online Magazine with Liberal coverage of crime-related political and injustice news

  • Contribute To TalkLeft

  • Display: Sort:
    Yeah (5.00 / 4) (#1)
    by Ga6thDem on Thu Nov 11, 2010 at 01:55:35 PM EST
    you are reading Axelrod right.

    Until these people are willing to speak on (5.00 / 1) (#3)
    by ruffian on Thu Nov 11, 2010 at 02:06:43 PM EST
    the record, what the hell good do they think they are doing preaching to the choir? Maybe this man or woman of the people Senator, whoever they are, would like to show some leadership for a change.

    There's some serious gear grinding (5.00 / 6) (#11)
    by inclusiveheart on Thu Nov 11, 2010 at 02:21:10 PM EST
    going on inside the Democratic Party this week.

    Obama had a lot of control when he was in good stead with the public and the party voters, but me thinks that he's going to find that Democratic party members are going to start to come out against him because he is both crossing them and double-crossing the party ideology.  Obama needs only to be reelected once more.  The Senators and Representatives are mostly interested in keeping their jobs and their power for the long haul.

    I thought that Nancy Pelosi's statement about continuing on as Leader of the House Dem caucus was interesting because she went right to protecting Medicare and Social Security as her reasoning for sticking around.  I read that as something of a challenge to President Obama.

    I actually think we are likely to see more of that as we go forward.  The spell is broken.  People are waking up.


    I hope (5.00 / 4) (#16)
    by Ga6thDem on Thu Nov 11, 2010 at 02:29:20 PM EST
    you are right because that's about the only chance we have is for the party to rise up against Obama.

    For the time being though (none / 0) (#21)
    by Militarytracy on Thu Nov 11, 2010 at 02:47:56 PM EST
    someone behind the scenes is setting the narrative on CNN.  A hill reporter was just on saying that this is just an opening to the discussion and deciding what will be done.  But if you listened to her, not doing something via the commission recommendations is not an option...YET

    Same thing on (5.00 / 2) (#58)
    by BackFromOhio on Thu Nov 11, 2010 at 08:37:29 PM EST
    Morning Joe (MSNBC) this a.m. and Today show. I was so sorry I checked in, but wanted to confirm or disprove my suspicions of yesterday that the Admin would follow the same pattern it did on HCR, supposedly staying out of the discussion while the MSN and conservatives carried the water.

    This is NOT a Dem administration.  


    Well at least one person in D.C. (5.00 / 3) (#4)
    by MO Blue on Thu Nov 11, 2010 at 02:08:50 PM EST
    has some sense. Can find out who it is and have him/her replace Conrad?

    If we want low and middle-income Americans to think we don't have the spine to fight for them, then how are we going to convince them to vote for us?

    The answer is obvious. You don't?

    I'd like them to at least have the spine (none / 0) (#5)
    by ruffian on Thu Nov 11, 2010 at 02:09:57 PM EST
    to speak on the record on TPM. How much spine can that take? Apparently too much.

    Guess like everyone else in D.C. (5.00 / 3) (#6)
    by MO Blue on Thu Nov 11, 2010 at 02:15:35 PM EST
    they want to keep their job.

    I would also prefer that this statement was given on the record but can understand why they did not.


    My guess is that the staffer (5.00 / 6) (#12)
    by inclusiveheart on Thu Nov 11, 2010 at 02:24:20 PM EST
    is trying to see how much support he or she might have if his or her boss does come out against the President on this issue.

    Testing the waters.

    It is always a risky move taking on a sitting President - and if you are more liberal than this one is - it is really risky.  The White House has engaged in some pretty serious character assassination over the past two years - against people within the party that is.


    IMO (5.00 / 8) (#14)
    by Capt Howdy on Thu Nov 11, 2010 at 02:26:42 PM EST
    the risk of taking on this president is shrinking faster than cotton shirt in an industrial dryer

    shrinking faster (5.00 / 1) (#25)
    by Capt Howdy on Thu Nov 11, 2010 at 02:57:21 PM EST
    than a bottle of scotch at a Kennedy family gathering. ...

    Yep (none / 0) (#17)
    by Ga6thDem on Thu Nov 11, 2010 at 02:30:08 PM EST
    with Obama sinking like a stone there's really not much reason anymore to go on the record against him.

    shrinking faster (none / 0) (#24)
    by Capt Howdy on Thu Nov 11, 2010 at 02:56:52 PM EST
    than a snowman in April

    shrinking faster (none / 0) (#26)
    by Capt Howdy on Thu Nov 11, 2010 at 02:58:10 PM EST
    than the polar ice caps

    Agreed - which is why it is going (none / 0) (#28)
    by inclusiveheart on Thu Nov 11, 2010 at 02:59:56 PM EST
    to start happening more and more now.

    shrinking faster (none / 0) (#34)
    by jbindc on Thu Nov 11, 2010 at 03:04:08 PM EST
    than a man coming out of the cold ocean.

    shrinking faster (none / 0) (#35)
    by Capt Howdy on Thu Nov 11, 2010 at 03:06:28 PM EST
    than a pie on Rosie O'Donnell's snack-plate

    Well I look forward to the day when he (5.00 / 3) (#15)
    by ruffian on Thu Nov 11, 2010 at 02:29:15 PM EST
    whips off his disguise and says 'Not so fast Mr. President!'

    Rep Weiner (5.00 / 1) (#59)
    by BackFromOhio on Thu Nov 11, 2010 at 08:41:00 PM EST
    did so last night.  On Olbermann; came out and said that none of the proposals is a Democratic proposal, and that they would save money for the government on the backs of those least able to afford same.  He was blunt about a public option too, but where did it get him.

    If Nancy would pledge to fight all the proposals that save tax cuts for the rich at the expense of everyone else, I would support her run for minority leader.  Any bets here?


    Very risky (5.00 / 2) (#37)
    by Militarytracy on Thu Nov 11, 2010 at 03:17:56 PM EST
    You would need a coalition of sorts I would think between what they have done these past two years and the joint Republican attack that would likely kick off as well.  But the Democratic party is about to implode so whatcha gonna do?

    I'm sort of some people throwing (none / 0) (#42)
    by inclusiveheart on Thu Nov 11, 2010 at 03:28:40 PM EST
    caution to the wind figuring that it is their last chance to save the party.

    Especially as (5.00 / 1) (#19)
    by jbindc on Thu Nov 11, 2010 at 02:32:41 PM EST
    There are about to be about 1000 Democratic staffers out of a job come January anyway....

    They'll be bored - many unemployed (5.00 / 1) (#30)
    by inclusiveheart on Thu Nov 11, 2010 at 03:00:54 PM EST
    and some are going to start talking.

    It will be interesting to watch.


    I know a few of them personally (none / 0) (#33)
    by jbindc on Thu Nov 11, 2010 at 03:03:03 PM EST
    But maybe I can convince them to write books!

    (Probably not though, as they are young, still enthusiastic, and want to continue to work in Democratic politics).


    I was assuming this chief of staff (none / 0) (#61)
    by ruffian on Thu Nov 11, 2010 at 08:44:06 PM EST
    had the Senator's permission to say such things anonymously to friendly media. If a Senator is afraid to say such things out loud on the record - things that we used to accept as Democratic party dogma - the party is too far gone to save.

    So, what's the choice? (5.00 / 2) (#66)
    by NYShooter on Thu Nov 11, 2010 at 09:14:18 PM EST
    Seriously, I can't believe every single Congressman & Senator is an immoral piece of crap. But in our current environment, America circa 2010, it's either toe-the-line or find another line of work.

    Yes, yes, I know, we need government financed elections. But I also know that ain`t gonna happen.

    So why do we go on pretending like there's some kind of debate going on, like things can change? They cannot; it's over; the Oligarchs have won, and "The People" have lost.

    Why can't we get it through our heads that 99% of our discussions are nothing more than wishful thinking.  We waste billions of words repeating redundancies like Obama should do this, or the D's have to do that. No.....body.....is.....listening.

    The streets; the only place any of this will ever be solved.


    I think the problem is that people still (5.00 / 2) (#74)
    by Anne on Fri Nov 12, 2010 at 08:40:03 AM EST
    want - maybe need - to hope that somehow this is all going to turn around, that Obama will reveal himself to be a "real" Democrat, that the last two years have been about the brilliant political gamesmanship of setting up Republicans for failure, that now that the Dems have suffered losses in their numbers, their eyes have been opened, they will stiffen their spines and take up the cause of everyday Americans with renewed vigor and commitment.

    That isn't going to happen, so for the love of God, or not-God, or goddess, people: take off the rose-colored glasses, put down the Kool-Aid, hike up your Big Boy or Big Girl pants and face the painful reality that Obama is not a liberal, is not progressive, doesn't care to be either of those things, isn't interested in your pain and suffering.  And neither, for the most part, are our not-so-esteemed Democratic members of Congress; the few who are cannot get any traction.

    I understand needing to not let go of hope completely, but at some point, it just gets in the way of figuring out how to change the direction in which things are headed.  And when I really think about what the options are to getting what I think most of us want, I am pretty much stymied - I don't see any good options, no obvious strategies.  If Congress would detach itself from Obama, that would be a start, but they've shown no signs of doing that, so then what?  

    Yes, the real answer, ultimately, is publicly-financed elections, so good people who don't happen to be backed by the corporatocracy or have personal fortunes, can have a chance to serve the people, but whether or if that ever happens, doesn't help us now.  Now, we're ending up being stuck with candidates who aren't worth voting for, and being guilted into choosing the marginally less evil of them - and for what?  

    I don't know what the answer is - I wish I did.  National strike of some kind?  Taking to the streets?  Mad-as-Hell-and-Not-Going-to-Take-It-Anymore Day?  Maybe that's where this needs to go, because the current process isn't helping us - in too many instances, participating in the orderly, civil exercise of our right to vote has allowed us to be little more than enablers of our own eventual demise.  "I voted for you, and you're voting to screw me - thanks so much!"

    To our credit, we're still engaged, still thinking about what to do; millions more have given up, checked out, turned off; what do we do to get them to check back in?  How do you get people fed up with being punk'd over and over again to risk being suckered again?  For sure, the answer is not, "be patient," because that's what they heard in 2006, in 2008 and now in 2010.  "Patient" is what "they" want us to be because it allows them the freedom to keep doing the things we keep telling them we don't want them to do.

    Now isn't the time to give up; it's the time to rise up.


    You are probably (none / 0) (#72)
    by cal1942 on Fri Nov 12, 2010 at 06:47:51 AM EST

    But the way this may play out is apathy and then a demagogue.


    better off the record (none / 0) (#7)
    by Capt Howdy on Thu Nov 11, 2010 at 02:17:14 PM EST
    than not at all.
    but I agree it will change nothing until its on the record.  and you know what.  I think they soon will be.

    Totally agree (none / 0) (#10)
    by shoephone on Thu Nov 11, 2010 at 02:20:55 PM EST
    I don't pay attention to such statements unless they are signed. Of course, excuses will be given for the cowardice.

    Wouldn't it have been kind of hard (5.00 / 4) (#8)
    by Anne on Thu Nov 11, 2010 at 02:18:03 PM EST
    for Dems to pick a pre-election fight with the GOP over deficits when their own Democratic president established a "serious" commission headed by Social Security-hater Alan Simpson, co-chaired by Erskine Bowles, who famously attempted changes to SS in the Clinton administration, who were joined by the following additional members named by Obama:

    Cote, a Republican, has served as Honeywell International chairman, chief executive and president since 2002. He is a member of the U.S.-India CEO Forum, which Obama asked him to co-chair in 2009. He adds a business perspective to Obama's slate of representatives on the panel.

    Rivlin is a former Federal Reserve vice chair who was also budget director under Bill Clinton. She was the founding director of the nonpartisan Congressional Budget Office from 1975 to 1983. Now a senior fellow at the Brookings Institution, she would bring budget savvy to the panel.

    Fudge worked as chairman and chief executive of Young & Rubicam Brands from 2003 to 2006. She previously held executive positions at General Mills and Kraft. Fudge would bring business experience to the budget panel.

    Stern is president of the Service Employees International Union, which covers 2.2 million workers such as healthcare staffers, security officers and public employees. Stern would bring a labor perspective to the panel.

    Harry Reid, Democratic Majority Leader, added these members to the commission:

    Dick Durbin, Kent Conrad and Max Baucus.

    Nancy Pelosi, Speaker of the House, added these members:

    John Spratt, Xavier Bacerra and Jan Schakowsky.

    I mean, come on...where was this chief of staff's Democratic Senator when Obama was contemplating the creation of this commission?  How come the same president who took single-payer off the table faster than you can blink, didn't feel any need to protect the people who depend on social safety-net programs to keep from going over an economic cliff?  

    The truth is that when Obama created the commission, he cut Democrats off at the knees, added credibility to old and tired Republican arguments and set the average American up for more "sacrifice" - sacrifice, I might add, that has not been asked of those at the top of the income scale, or of those who helped drive this economy into the ditch.

    The anonymous chief of staff is right about one thing: people don't feel like their votes matter, but if he doesn't know that the answer to his question about how Dems will get average people to vote for them in 2012 is to come up with policies and programs that improve the lives of those average people, and reject this conservative crap coming from Obama and the commission, then Dems are even more clueless than even I thought.

    true enough (5.00 / 1) (#9)
    by Capt Howdy on Thu Nov 11, 2010 at 02:20:38 PM EST
    you dont put someone like Simpson in charge of something like this without knowing what you are going to get.

    this is either 14 dimensional chess or a total sellout.


    Simpson was singing the PPUS song (5.00 / 1) (#13)
    by ruffian on Thu Nov 11, 2010 at 02:26:14 PM EST
    at the right time, now that so many Republicans have gone bats*** crazy. Made Obama forget, if he ever knew, that Simpson was just as extreme in his day.

    I will always remember (none / 0) (#23)
    by Capt Howdy on Thu Nov 11, 2010 at 02:55:12 PM EST
    him challenging Tweety to a duel

    His brother tried to pick me up once :) (5.00 / 2) (#27)
    by Militarytracy on Thu Nov 11, 2010 at 02:59:22 PM EST
    He told me I reminded him of his wife.  I guess this line works in Red States but not so much with liberal girls trying to survive the Red State :)

    a guy (5.00 / 2) (#29)
    by Capt Howdy on Thu Nov 11, 2010 at 03:00:33 PM EST
    said the same thing to me once.

    and I am no ones (5.00 / 1) (#31)
    by Capt Howdy on Thu Nov 11, 2010 at 03:01:35 PM EST
    idea of pretty or petite.

    Ha! (none / 0) (#32)
    by Militarytracy on Thu Nov 11, 2010 at 03:01:45 PM EST
    That wasn't Simpson (none / 0) (#38)
    by gyrfalcon on Thu Nov 11, 2010 at 03:19:25 PM EST
    for heaven's sake, it was Zell Miller.

    sorry (5.00 / 1) (#39)
    by Capt Howdy on Thu Nov 11, 2010 at 03:21:16 PM EST
    the all look the same to me

    I think Zell Miller (none / 0) (#40)
    by Militarytracy on Thu Nov 11, 2010 at 03:23:04 PM EST
    and Pete Simpson are the same the person.  They look like the same person.

    Old, cranky white guys (5.00 / 2) (#43)
    by Joan in VA on Thu Nov 11, 2010 at 04:18:23 PM EST
    all look alike to you? :)

    Dried up old hosers :) (none / 0) (#47)
    by Militarytracy on Thu Nov 11, 2010 at 06:26:47 PM EST
    I had been warned that Pete was a little slutty.  They were right :)  He tried to run for a couple of state offices and couldn't swing it.  If there had been blogs back then his family would not have even allowed him to think about it.  His brother wasn't too crazy about him running for any office even then cuz he I guess he never could keep his britches on :)

    Allen Simpson (none / 0) (#41)
    by Capt Howdy on Thu Nov 11, 2010 at 03:25:19 PM EST
    you are worse than me

    And really, it's even worse than that. (5.00 / 5) (#18)
    by Anne on Thu Nov 11, 2010 at 02:31:48 PM EST
    Read, if you can stand it, David Dayen's latest post about the administrative staffing for the commission:

    I wanted to highlight something about the Cat Food Commission to permanently shrink government, something we've all known about, but which hasn't been laid out in specific detail in a while. This Presidential commission has been borrowing paid staffers from groups that are ideologically committed to destroying the social safety net in America. This hasn't been well-reported in the traditional media until today.

    Instead, about one in four commission staffers is paid by outside entities, many of which have strong ideological points of view about how to tackle the deficit.

    For example, the salaries of two senior staffers, Marc Goldwein and Ed Lorenzen, are paid by private groups that have previously advocated cuts to entitlement programs. Lorenzen is paid by the Peter G. Peterson Foundation, while Goldwein is paid by the Committee for a Responsible Federal Budget, which is also partly funded by the Peterson group.

    The outsourcing has come under sharp criticism from seniors' organizations and liberal activists, who say the strategy is part of a broader conservative bias favoring painful entitlement cuts over other solutions. The fears of some liberal groups appeared to come true on Wednesday, when the commission's two leaders recommended significant reductions for Social Security and other social-welfare programs.


    And this played out in the outside coverage of the commission report, which mirrors the position of the commission because it's paid for by the same person. One of the first words of praise for the Bowles-Simpson report came from the Committee for a Responsible Federal Budget, a Peterson-funded group. Almost nobody else was so quick with a comment about the hastily drawn press event and report, so CRFB featured heavily in many of the stories today. There's almost no question that they had a heads-up, along with other ideological compatriots like Third Way. On NPR today, they invited one person on to comment about the co-chair's mark - David Walker, who has been paid by the Pete Peterson Foundation for many years. The rollodexes of practically every major reporter in Washington are filled with "experts" with ties to the Peterson Foundation. A pernicious feedback loop has developed: Peterson staffers are inside the commission as well as commenting from outside the commission. They're all speaking with one voice.

    Add to that the $20 million dollar investment in paid media by Peterson himself with the "OweNo" campaign, and it's possible to watch a segment on cable TV on the cat food commission featuring a Peterson staffer, followed by a paid Peterson commercial, followed by turning to your morning paper to read about the commission in an article full of quotes from Peterson staffers. The man has bought a large chunk of the media, and the result will be that his views will get a much wider airing than anyone else's.

    And now we know why the media is so one-note...


    Or it is daylight (none / 0) (#45)
    by christinep on Thu Nov 11, 2010 at 05:02:32 PM EST
    Now, its open for everyone to see. (And, from what I'm hearing near where I live, people are stunned to laughter. The giveaway--by a vote of 5 to 1 this am on the dog walk--is the Chairs' proposals respecting the Defense Dept, civilian & military contractors, etc. Quote: "No way.") The old sunshine concept. Nothing like a highly visible Presidential Commission to do that. No chess...it takes away the game-y pretense. Has Boehner said anything yet?

    Everyone (5.00 / 2) (#49)
    by kmblue on Thu Nov 11, 2010 at 06:42:27 PM EST
    is reading the media quotes by flaks Anne laid out for us in her post.  Christine, you need some sunshine between your ears, all due respect.

    Now we are reduced to insults, are we? (none / 0) (#55)
    by christinep on Thu Nov 11, 2010 at 08:25:20 PM EST
    Oh, for the love of God... (5.00 / 6) (#54)
    by Anne on Thu Nov 11, 2010 at 08:17:16 PM EST
    the "highly visible Presidential commission" is being interpreted and explained by representatives of the very people and organizations that support this nonsense, the media are presenting them as if they are some disinterested, impartial voice, and you think everthing's on the up-and-up?  No game-y pretense?

    Jesus, Mary and Joseph...you are completely detached from reality.


    Lets talk some more when (none / 0) (#56)
    by christinep on Thu Nov 11, 2010 at 08:27:23 PM EST
    this "process" is all over. I gave up hysteria sometime ago. But...to each his/her own. (BTW, why the need to smear, slur, and cast personal insults? Fascinating, uh?)

    Yeah, waiting for Obama to act (5.00 / 1) (#70)
    by observed on Fri Nov 12, 2010 at 05:52:22 AM EST
    worked so well on HCR.
    If you can't see that Obama's clear intention is to gouge SS, then you might as well not even read the news.

    And, I thank you too. (none / 0) (#75)
    by christinep on Fri Nov 12, 2010 at 11:36:08 AM EST
    Almost forgot (none / 0) (#57)
    by christinep on Thu Nov 11, 2010 at 08:30:57 PM EST
    Never said nor thought that any of this was on the "up-and-up." To the contrary, I believe that this calls the bluff.  We'll see where it goes.
    My real question: Why the need to rush so often?  Why the need for immediacy on this Commission? Ain't gonna happen? (Usually, it the professional opposition that pushes for immediate response.  But then, you have written as if you are not that....)

    I find it beyond ludicrous that (5.00 / 5) (#60)
    by Anne on Thu Nov 11, 2010 at 08:43:33 PM EST
    you want me to believe that Obama convened this commission, and never misses an opportunity to mention the "problems" with Social Security, or the people who might not "deserve" help with their mortgages, and flips and flops on whether the top 2% should have the Bush tax cuts extended, just so that he could call his own commission's bluff on their report and/or recommendations.

    Is he calling his own bluff?  Wow, what a brilliant politician that makes him!

    The report is due December 1.  It will have recommendations or it won't.  It was set up to be delivered post-election, to a lame-duck Congress.  No debate, no amemdments, no filibuster.  Obama-named members weighted heavily against entitlements.

    But you choose to believe this was all designed for one result only: putting Republicans on the hot seat.  That all of Obama's kow-towing to the deficit hysterics is gamesmanship.

    And you wonder why I think you have lost touch with reality.


    If the 14 votes are there for these proposals (none / 0) (#64)
    by christinep on Thu Nov 11, 2010 at 08:47:38 PM EST
    then you make a strong point Anne. If those votes are not there for these proposals, I'll be listening for your response. It is not that far off.

    We are all too familiar with the moves (none / 0) (#62)
    by BackFromOhio on Thu Nov 11, 2010 at 08:44:47 PM EST
    so the chess game is worthless.

    Andrew Stern no longer (5.00 / 1) (#22)
    by MO Blue on Thu Nov 11, 2010 at 02:53:53 PM EST
    president of the Service Employees International Union. Some current activities of Stern.

    New York, New York, June 21, 2010 -- SIGA Technologies, Inc (NASDAQ: SIGA), a company specializing in the development of pharmaceutical agents to combat bio-warfare pathogens, announced today that Andy Stern, labor leader and prominent advocate for reform, joined SIGA's board of directors.  Mr. Stern is the former president of Service Employees International Union (SEIU), the largest and fastest-growing healthcare union in North America. siga

    An April 30th Press Release issued by Leading Authorities, Inc.

    "Leading Authorities, Inc. has signed Andrew (Andy) L. Stern, the former president of the 2.2 million-member Service Employees International Union (SEIU), the fastest-growing union in North America. Stern turned SEIU into a powerful political force, and Stern and SEIU were widely credited for helping elect Barack Obama in 2008.

    Obama is really, really, really (5.00 / 1) (#36)
    by robotalk on Thu Nov 11, 2010 at 03:06:33 PM EST
    losing the left now.  I can't even fathom what 11 dimensional chess is subserved anymore. Perhaps he is just a wimp and not all that clever of one either.  Primary or third party challenge becoming more apparent.

    You don't get much more strident and direct than this from Krugman:


    Forget the left (5.00 / 1) (#63)
    by BackFromOhio on Thu Nov 11, 2010 at 08:47:25 PM EST
    he's lost most people who are middle class or below, old people, members of the armed services, veterans, those home owners struggling to hang on to their property and need the mortgage interest deduction on taxes to assist in freeing enough income to make mortgage payments, and those who need same to pay for other things and.....

    bwahahahahahaha (5.00 / 3) (#44)
    by Capt Howdy on Thu Nov 11, 2010 at 04:19:43 PM EST
    just reading a thing by Frum on Romneys chances for the nomination and one sentence just struck me funny in the context of todays discussions:

    Even if Hillary Clinton had every advantage, her campaign was ultimately sunk by two holes beneath the water line: Her vote for the Iraq war and the perception of her husband's administration as too conservative on economic issues.

    Clearly obama & co.were a republican plant (5.00 / 5) (#46)
    by pluege2 on Thu Nov 11, 2010 at 05:16:34 PM EST
    funded by the plutocrats to destroy the huge advantage democrats had after the disastrous bush years. Now that obama has been successful beyond their wildest expectations in restoring republicans and decimating democrats, the plutocrats are good with wasting obama.

    Masterful really.

    BTD, I think it is a lot more than $700 billion (5.00 / 2) (#48)
    by cpa1 on Thu Nov 11, 2010 at 06:39:19 PM EST
    I believe the $700 billion is related to the extra 4.6% (from 35% to 39.6% for those whose taxable income is over $250,000).  I don't think it pertains to the 0 to 15% tax on Dividends, Long Term Capital Gains and Hedge Fund Managers Income, those poor babies who make hundreds of millions and need breaks.  Oh yes and also the return of the 55% top tax bracket on Estates is coming back. I think the total savings over 10 years is over $3 trillion.  But if the government would have that much more money it would rebuild, educate and innovate and that would also create many more jobs and so much more taxes.  It could make the Earned Income Credit moot.  So, it's far more than $700 billion over ten years.

    I would like to report that I got thrown off the Dailykos again, this time as cpa2.  All I did was report that Obama is dead politically if he continues the Bush Tax Cuts and I did say that we need Hillary back.  I am beginning to think that to those people the Dailykos and Obama is their only life.

    Obama (none / 0) (#50)
    by Ga6thDem on Thu Nov 11, 2010 at 07:04:57 PM EST
    is their only life. After being away for a while, I can see the huge holes they are ignoring.

    Voting Matters! I PROUDLY Voted 'Medicare ForAll' (5.00 / 1) (#51)
    by seabos84 on Thu Nov 11, 2010 at 07:16:31 PM EST
    for all Federal all State wide offices this year (except some judges) cuz I couldn't take providing ANY support to these worthless sacks of crap disgracing FDR's memory and FDR's accomplishments.

    I've voted for Dems since I was 18 in '78,

    except when I was voting Lessor Of Two Evils,

    until this year!

    (well, I wrote myself in for Maria Cantwell in '06 - that was the first break on a major office for me)

    It was really really weird NOT checking off Jim McDermott's name or Patty Murray's name, BUT, I'm done supporting sell out scum, and I'm done supporting the politically incompetent, and it feels GREAT!

    (By the way - "Medicare ForAll" lost! oh well! better luck next time! )


    Voting doesn't matter (none / 0) (#52)
    by Rashomon66 on Thu Nov 11, 2010 at 07:45:05 PM EST
    Voting doesn't matter one bit if you vote for a candidate that has no chance to win. Remember all those proud Nader voters in 2000? Especially the deluded ones in Florida who helped bring Bush into office? Yeah, I'm sure you do.

    I blame them for the Bush years.

    Glad it feels great though....


    Here's a thought- (5.00 / 4) (#67)
    by Joan in VA on Thu Nov 11, 2010 at 09:16:58 PM EST
    why not blame the Bush voters for Bush? There were certainly many more of them than Nader voters so your blame can encompass many more people. Not to mention that FL wasn't Gore's only loss-it was just the last-and SCOTUS had more to do with that than Nader voters.

    Oh, and only voting for the candidate who can win means you only ever vote for the candidate chosen for you by those whose interests aren't yours. Way to go.


    LOL (5.00 / 2) (#68)
    by TeresaInSnow2 on Thu Nov 11, 2010 at 10:47:10 PM EST
    Blaming the voters is such a great strategy.

    We should always ever vote for only 2 candidates, else it's our fault if YOUR chosen candidate loses....

    It has nothing to do with the notion that YOUR candidate and YOUR party didn't motivate those voters to vote for him.

    My strategy from here on out is to NEVER vote for the Democrat or the Republican until a political party actively changes my current mindset that it really doesn't matter who wins anymore.  Thus please feel free to look me up and blame me when YOUR candidate loses.



    Because your Magic Spreadsheet (none / 0) (#53)
    by seabos84 on Thu Nov 11, 2010 at 07:56:29 PM EST
    Idiot.xls automatically translates my vote into the Dem column !!

    Gore lost cuz he ran a piece of crap campaign - it was inept, it was cowardly, it was pathetic.

    Nader voters voted for Nader, and Nader lost. Adding their votes to some other candidate is S.T.U.P.I.D. or delusional.

    HOWEVER, if repeating STUPID arguments makes you feel better about tossing your vote away on political incompetents, OR, sell outs, keep making it!



    Actually, Gore won. (5.00 / 2) (#65)
    by masslib on Thu Nov 11, 2010 at 08:49:24 PM EST
    WHERE? He appointed WHO? He signed (none / 0) (#79)
    by seabos84 on Sat Nov 13, 2010 at 08:41:59 PM EST
    what legislation?

    He f'king LOST cuz he let those thieves take it -

    IF gore won, THEN in that phake world we have retirement security, we have health security, all kitties have warm homes, all the teenagers behave, all the adults are nice ... yawn.

    dream on.



    Reading between the lines, (5.00 / 1) (#71)
    by observed on Fri Nov 12, 2010 at 05:56:54 AM EST
    Obama let us know that the Bush tax cuts will be extended.
    He said he's committed to middle class tax cuts, and is against PERMANENT tax cuts to the wealthy.
    It's not even subtle kabuki, but of course the press completely misreports the significance of his remarks.

    how much of a bubble (none / 0) (#2)
    by Capt Howdy on Thu Nov 11, 2010 at 02:01:08 PM EST
    must they live in to think they will get republican votes by doing this.  

    that must be it, right?  

    Well whoever that is... (none / 0) (#20)
    by lilburro on Thu Nov 11, 2010 at 02:38:42 PM EST
    it ain't Rahm!

    global warming? (none / 0) (#69)
    by diogenes on Thu Nov 11, 2010 at 10:53:49 PM EST
    I thought that raising gas taxes was the envirofriendly way to decrease gasoline use and reduce global warming.  I guess that libs don't worry too much about that any more.

    you flinched? you think you flinched? (none / 0) (#73)
    by Bornagaindem on Fri Nov 12, 2010 at 07:16:30 AM EST
    The dems and Obama laid right down on the floor and begged the repugs to kick them. If you were going to pass healthcare reform without a single repug vote you should have passed a decent bill and not something worse than the thing Mitt Romney signed. That was the first test and you failed. Then you should have tackled the tax cuts and extended them only for the middle class (or only temporarily for even them ) and hammered the repugs for for making the country so uncertain for 10 years and for not paying for two wars. But flinched-LOL

    Circular firing squad. (none / 0) (#76)
    by LeftLeaner on Fri Nov 12, 2010 at 04:15:07 PM EST
    I fear if we keep on whining about Obama, we will see a 7/ 2 SCOTUS.

    I think the reality is that, while the Right is extremely hypo critical of Republicans,  both the Left AND the Right are extremely hyper critical of Democrats.

    For those who do not pay close attention,  they only hear  that some people like the Republicans, but that  NOBODY likes the liberals,(it doesn't matter if you say Obama is not a liberal; most people THINK he is).

    We can be pure, like the tea people, but I think it only helps them.

    Obama (none / 0) (#78)
    by Ga6thDem on Sat Nov 13, 2010 at 09:51:58 AM EST
    could avoid a lot of this by doing the right thing and by leading. He's brought a lot of it on by himself.

    In trying to think who the senator is --Kaufman (none / 0) (#77)
    by jawbone on Fri Nov 12, 2010 at 06:41:00 PM EST
    came to mind. I could imagine one of his staffers saying this, loud and proud. But needs to find a job soon....

    Ted Kaufman, being replaced by Coons (who sounded pretty middle of the road to rightish on financial issues on NewsHour last night), has been one of the most liberal senators, based on the fairly limited attention I've paid to him.