Let The Fingerpointing Begin


House Democrats are lashing out at the White House, venting long-suppressed anger over what they see as President Obama's lukewarm efforts to help them win reelection -- and accusing administration officials of undermining the party's chances of retaining the majority in November's midterm elections.

The White House in turn, seems ready to blame "liberal bloggers".

The message to take from all this is that the Dems are going to get their clocks cleaned in November. The fight to avoid the blame appears to be the big story of the moment.

Speaking for me only

< Change You Can Believe In | Fingerpointing in Polanski Case Between DOJ and LA Prosecutors >
  • The Online Magazine with Liberal coverage of crime-related political and injustice news

  • Contribute To TalkLeft

  • Display: Sort:
    Hmmmm (5.00 / 2) (#2)
    by jbindc on Thu Jul 15, 2010 at 12:22:52 PM EST
    It's liberal bloggers fault now, but when they were praising the administration (and the campaign before that), the liberal blogs were Awh-Sum.

    And they're still (5.00 / 5) (#18)
    by BackFromOhio on Thu Jul 15, 2010 at 07:28:09 PM EST
    giving the Admin a lot more credit than, IMO, is deserved.

    I see. (5.00 / 2) (#3)
    by JamesTX on Thu Jul 15, 2010 at 12:24:27 PM EST
    (1) Liberal lamentations.

    (2) Unhinged from historical context (?).

    (3) Contemporary political realities.

    What makes us different? Conservatives lamented throughout the reign of their leaders that they didn't have summary biblical justice, theocracy, public beatings and hangings, and a complete end to education not based in theology. They were also completely and thoroughly p!ssed that they still had to pay any taxes at all. Sounds sort of unhinged to me, but that's what they wanted and I remember the constant whining and criticism of their leaders on that basis. Nonetheless, they had enough sense to know that they had to elect their party or they would get nowhere.

    It is (3) above which is more like it. We simply aren't a majority yet (if ever). We were propped up by "moderate" votes which had nothing to do with agreement with our underlying philosophy, but more with temporary dissatisfaction with Bush banking.

    It is unhinged from historical context (5.00 / 1) (#8)
    by Militarytracy on Thu Jul 15, 2010 at 02:04:35 PM EST
    that so many people could get together, dig for the truth about political situations and decisions, and then share that with so many other people the next day.  Government officials will have to meet new levels of accountability and nobody wants to and nobody really figured they were going to have to.  They picked one hell of a horrible time to leave the majority of Americans high and dry as hell too.

    Both parties are propped up by (5.00 / 3) (#9)
    by Militarytracy on Thu Jul 15, 2010 at 02:08:20 PM EST
    Independents.  IMO Independents vote for who is going to get results and if you lose their vote you really have to duke it out.

    you forgot (5.00 / 1) (#13)
    by cpinva on Thu Jul 15, 2010 at 02:56:44 PM EST
    public stonings and beheadings. good family fun.

    You are a hoot. (3.00 / 2) (#4)
    by sarcastic unnamed one on Thu Jul 15, 2010 at 12:44:41 PM EST
    or, (5.00 / 4) (#5)
    by bocajeff on Thu Jul 15, 2010 at 12:45:58 PM EST
    they can help create an environment where people can get jobs. Unless they're paying for fingerpointers, work on getting people back to work and all will be forgiven in 2012...

    Don't you think they would already have done (none / 0) (#17)
    by nyrias on Thu Jul 15, 2010 at 04:16:53 PM EST
    that if they know how?

    It is not like


    We needs a jobs guarantee (5.00 / 3) (#22)
    by lambert on Thu Jul 15, 2010 at 08:56:23 PM EST
    See here.

    Both legacy parties now accept permanently higher unemployment (10% nominal; 20% real). If you want that, vote for either one of 'em.


    I know (5.00 / 3) (#26)
    by Militarytracy on Fri Jul 16, 2010 at 01:52:32 AM EST
    It is a disgraceful state.  I'm so sick of leftwing Obama cheerleading bloggers pointing at my "cynicism" (analysis of the current reality) and calling me a hater.  Yet the administration and all those who play with them and answer to them are literally preached to to enforce such a screaming abusive cynicism about how much suffering THEY MUST NOW FORCE UPON ALL THE LOWLY CHUMPS.  What feeble, shameless, heinous, inhumane, gutless wonders rule from on high now.

    Huh? (none / 0) (#33)
    by lambert on Sat Jul 17, 2010 at 08:02:50 PM EST
    Who said Obama cheerleaders were left wing?

    Lyndon Johnson (5.00 / 2) (#7)
    by NYShooter on Thu Jul 15, 2010 at 12:59:04 PM EST
    Understood Washington-speak much better than the present occupant in the White House. He once chewed out an aide who, when discussing potential economic problems, used the word, "recession." Johnson told him to never, never use that word. When asked what word to use, Johnson said, "I don't care what you use, use the word, "banana" for all I care but never say the word "recession" again.

    And so it is with the word, "Liberal." An overwhelming majority of the population are "Liberals," whether they know it or not. How many polls do we need that show, when the questions are framed properly, that the public prefers Liberal solutions more than Conservative ones. But the Republicans are so much better than Democrats in word-mutation that the public often votes against themselves, and their interests.

    Just keep saying "Death Tax, Death Panels".....rinse and repeat.

    Huh? (5.00 / 1) (#10)
    by Abdul Abulbul Amir on Thu Jul 15, 2010 at 02:17:23 PM EST

    Obamacare is unpopular with the public.

    The administration's  DOJ suite against Arizona is unpopular with the public.

    The administration's Cap and Tax is unpopular with the public.

    The administration's out of control spending is unpopular with the public.

    The administration's plan to bring enemy combatants into the US for civilian trials is unpopular with the public.

    The administration's plan to tax the many to pay down the mortgages of a selected few is unpopular with the public.

    Lukewarm?  Frankly it looks as if the Obama administration is working with all its might to make Nancy Pelosi a back bencher.

    Add to that a rerun of the Herbert Hoover economic policy of raising taxes in a business slump and it looks really bad for Nancy.

    abdul, (5.00 / 2) (#14)
    by cpinva on Thu Jul 15, 2010 at 02:59:30 PM EST
    you really must cease your one-stop FOX news shopping. please provide actual, documented, arms-length, third party support for your assertions of all the listed "publicly unpopular" items.

    and no, a FOX "poll" doesn't qualify.


    Show me where he is wrong. (none / 0) (#21)
    by jimakaPPJ on Thu Jul 15, 2010 at 08:43:15 PM EST
    I agree with you (none / 0) (#23)
    by Untold Story on Thu Jul 15, 2010 at 10:11:47 PM EST
    I want to see what's wrong on that list also - well, I know what's wrong, but the list is quite explicit as to the wishes of the people - well, for those of us who aren't hiding our heads in the sand!

    Show Me The Poll First (5.00 / 2) (#24)
    by Blue Jean on Thu Jul 15, 2010 at 10:50:14 PM EST
    Cite me the specific poll first; don't just pull generalizations out of the air.  If the said positions are unpopular, which ones? And by what margin?  And what fraction of that percentage are Republicans, Democrats, and Independents?  How are the questions framed?  Is the poll asking, for example;

    "Are you in favor of President Obama's recent health care bill?  Yes or no?  And for what reason?"


    "The White House's recent so called "health care bill" would mean death panels that drag Grandma out of your home and throw her into the nearest volcano. Are you in favor of throwing Grandmas into volcanos?  Or would you prefer to leave her on an ice floe instead?"


    The health care (5.00 / 1) (#28)
    by Untold Story on Fri Jul 16, 2010 at 08:33:18 AM EST
    reform bill didn't attack any of the real problems, it is obvious.

    Medicare, which couldn't sustain itself, is now paying for more people via Medicaid.

    While these people need to be covered as they are the ones without insurance, taking from Medicare certainly is not the answer.  

    Seniors who worked all their lives and have contributed to social security and medicare should not be left now without doctors (who won't take assignments as medicare doesn't pay to cover their costs), except for patients who have already had doctors.  Or, without treatment because they have reached a certain age and a hip replacement will be no longer covered!

    We have senators and congressmen who continue their employment without concern for age - of course, they only have to show up now and again for a vote here and there, but age is only a concern for the 'smelly' public it would seem insofar as Washington is concerned.

    So, what it now means is new seniors are having a problem getting doctors - they did agree to up some payments so for this year it may continue as usual, but in the future this is going to be a huge problem with as they say so many baby boomers turning 65.

    Conflict of interest was not addressed at all.  If doctors can make multi-million dollars from diagnostic clinics then why doesn't the government buy them, run them and from that profit pay for health care for those that cannot afford health care?

    Why can't the government run hospitals for profit just as so many companies do - listed on the stock market since there is so much profit involved, and pay for health care?

    Why didn't they continue with a government option of insurance rather than giving in to the insurance companies who make huge profits, while withholding necessary treatment?

    Why didn't they fill in the loopholes of all behind the back (or is it under the table, but legal) of paybacks from drug companies to physicians?  

    Why didn't they disallow prescription drugs from being advertised on tv - as if they were simple aspirin - especially since there seems to be a problem with prescription drugs within the war on drugs, and also, to cut down on prescription costs to the consumer.  

    One example, are these drug trials.  For each patient the physician recommends he or she gets about $2,500 to $6,000.  The patient will get $250.00 to $500.00.  While some drugs newly approved by the FDA would seem warranted to document side effects, the vast number of these trials are on drugs on the market for years.  Again, it is a bonding of that particular drug and the physician - hence, the prescription stating that drug rather than a competitor's drug - again, conflict of interest.  Again, less these payments, perhaps the cost of prescription medicine could be lowered somewhat.

    Oh, I could go on and on with this failure.

    While I worked hard to get Obama elected, I do feel he failed us on this - perhaps he wanted to get something passed - just can't understand why he allowed this to happen the way it did.


    Assuming you are alive and watch something (none / 0) (#32)
    by jimakaPPJ on Sat Jul 17, 2010 at 06:54:55 AM EST
    besides network and CNN/MSNBC "news" you know the answer.

    I would feel sorry for Dems whose (5.00 / 9) (#11)
    by Anne on Thu Jul 15, 2010 at 02:20:06 PM EST
    political fortunes and job security are circling the toilet if most of them had not had their grubby little paws on the handle to begin with; it's not like they didn't have a choice, not like they aren't an independent branch of government, fully capable of telling the president-who-isn't-really-a-Democrat to take a flying leap,  It's not like they didn't have the ability to enact real reform of the health care system or real reform of the financial industry, roll back the most odious provisions of the Patriot Act, "fix" that FISA law that Obama promised would be one of his priorities, demand accountability for war criminals, stop rolling over for anyone in a three-piece suit, custom-made shoes and a big checkbook, propose stimulus and spending that would really help the country, extend unemployment and COBRA benefits for as long as they are needed...

    This may be the most worthless bunch of politicians we've seen in a long, long time.

    They can do some pretty startling (none / 0) (#15)
    by Militarytracy on Thu Jul 15, 2010 at 03:04:10 PM EST
    things when THEY want them.  They can get any war funding they want and what is the current level of unemployed and underemployed and people who just gave up?  And at a time that Republicans have made gay marriage such a wedge they are about to have it the law in the military.  When DADT is overturned officially, the military will recognize marriages from states that have legalized it, full family benefits follow.  That's pretty earth shattering.  But you can't have West Point cadets chaining themselves to the White House fences and heckling you when you are giving speeches because you jerked them around :)

    I'm about as startled as anyone at (5.00 / 2) (#16)
    by Anne on Thu Jul 15, 2010 at 03:14:08 PM EST
    just how bad - how truly bad - the Democratic Congress has been.

    And I'm trying to imagine a minority Democratic Congress suddenly stiffening its collective spine to push back against a GOP majority, and not really seeing it.

    I'm sort of at the point where I think that if we're damned - or doomed - with Dems, and damned without them, then what's the difference?  I'm sure most will land quite softly in highly compensated jobs in the industries they sold us out for.


    Speaking of accountability (none / 0) (#19)
    by BackFromOhio on Thu Jul 15, 2010 at 07:30:30 PM EST
    is anyone accountable for anything any more in the real world?  Blaming "liberal bloggers" is finger-pointing, not accountability.

    Interesting to me that the White House (none / 0) (#20)
    by BackFromOhio on Thu Jul 15, 2010 at 07:32:05 PM EST
    has asked Bill Clinton to assume an active schedule stumping for Dem candidates and had him over earlier this week for a 1-hour meeting to discuss solutions to economic woes.  

    Why would they want (5.00 / 3) (#29)
    by jbindc on Fri Jul 16, 2010 at 12:16:50 PM EST
    A racist to help them win elections?  Or is it a pre-emptive move so when they DO lose, they can say, "Even the Big Dog couldn't help!"

    The Big Dog (none / 0) (#30)
    by BTAL on Fri Jul 16, 2010 at 01:18:04 PM EST
    has longer coat tails and fewer negatives.

    As to the economic discussions - just a little POTUS OJT time.


    Hmmmmmm....I wonder when Booman (none / 0) (#31)
    by Militarytracy on Fri Jul 16, 2010 at 11:26:57 PM EST
    will write about how Obama has decided that he needs Big Dog to help save him, and how the kind Big Dog showed up?  If he does ever write anything positive about it, he will have to write something just horrid about Clinton three days later.  Thinking positively about a Clinton can only survive in his noodle for 72 hours before such thoughts begin to become caustic :)

    Looking at things in historical context, (5.00 / 3) (#12)
    by observed on Thu Jul 15, 2010 at 02:44:15 PM EST
    I think Obama has a tremendous opportunity to earn a rung among the bottom 5 Presidents---not because he's so inept, but because his ineptness and spineless Hooverism could be just the right medicine to cause a historic crash of the economy.

    Obama's Team is Petty and Immature? (5.00 / 2) (#27)
    by BernieO on Fri Jul 16, 2010 at 07:55:33 AM EST
    In today's NYTimes oped page, Roger Cohen has a piece taking Obama to task for allowing his foreign policy to be controlled by Denis McDonough whose strength is as a campaign operative more than a foreign policy expert. According to Cohen it is McDonough who is responsible for the dangerous fragmentation of Obama's foreign policy.

    Cohen also says that the Obama team is still holding a serious grudge against the Clintons for the campaign. Nothing more immature and pathetic than sore winners, particularly when they call on the people they beat to help them out.

    Helene Cooper has a profile of McDonough in Saturday's Times that Cohen refers to. A quote:
    "Forget Secretary of State Hillary Rodham Clinton or Defense Secretary Robert M. Gates. When it comes to national security, Mr. Obama's inner circle is so tight it largely consists of Mr. McDonough, a 40-year-old from Minnesota who is unknown to most Americans."

    Democrats were rightly appalled that Bush put inexperienced politicos in charge of important policies. They should be even more upset when Obama does the same. Not that most know about this outrage. The media is too busy with Bristol Palin's love life to bother to tell us about this.

    Yup (none / 0) (#1)
    by andgarden on Thu Jul 15, 2010 at 12:19:19 PM EST
    The infightig is a story that speaks for itself.

    um, fingerpointing (none / 0) (#6)
    by Capt Howdy on Thu Jul 15, 2010 at 12:49:17 PM EST
    what fun


    So, the complainers are trying to (none / 0) (#25)
    by Jack E Lope on Fri Jul 16, 2010 at 12:17:20 AM EST
    ...catch a ride on Obama's popularity train?

    Please see post #3, item #3:

    (3) Contemporary political realities.