home

"Some Say" Dems Prefer Spinelessness

Matt Yglesias writes:

Why are Democratic leaders so spineless? Ezra Klein points to persuasive polling evidence that the Democratic [constituency] likes it that way [. . .] A more general point I would make about this is that left-wing intellectuals and writers often write as if left-wing intellectuals and writers are “the base” of the Democratic Party, then observe that the leaders of the Democratic Party aren’t very left-wing, and then write about the phenomenon of the Democratic Party leaders’ ignoring their base. [. . .]
(Emphasis supplied.) That's true. But Yglesias ignores the pundits who rationalize, defend, and even urge, spinelessness by Democratic leaders. I happen to not think much of the poll result that Ezra and Yglesias are trumpeting (what does that poll really mean?), but it is telling to me that that it is used to buttress the general Ezra Klein line that Dems should be spineless in their political bargaining with Republicans. Obviously I disagree with that strategy. But my point is Yglesias implies that it is only "base claiming" pundits that make unfounded claims of "support." But the Beltway Bloggers and Pundits do it too.

Speaking for me only

< Barry Bonds Closing Arguments: Guess You Had to Be There | Friday Night News Roundup and Open Thread >
  • The Online Magazine with Liberal coverage of crime-related political and injustice news

  • Contribute To TalkLeft


  • Display: Sort:
    Well (5.00 / 6) (#1)
    by Ga6thDem on Fri Apr 08, 2011 at 09:14:19 AM EST
    if they're talking about the same poll that I saw quoted, it said Dems should compromise but didn't say on exactly what. When you get down to the individual issues, the polling is much different.

    Obama has turned the party into a bunch of spineless mush that stands for nothing at all. I can see why activists on blogs can only come up with reasons to vote against the GOP and not for Obama.

    Activists (5.00 / 3) (#2)
    by star on Fri Apr 08, 2011 at 09:25:22 AM EST
    And regular dems like me and you are to be blamed IMO.
    Based on Obama's which Achievement did we elect him president? What experience or evidence did he present to us Before 07 that he is a principled democrat or liberal who will fight tooth and nail for our base?
    We were excited by his 'Words' which turned out to be just that. we knew he did not have enough experience legislatively or running anything - only running for stuff. We had enough evidence of his no votes on important issues. Why did we jump on his bandwagon when we knew nothing about his values and core principles?? why did we hand him our party based on couple of books and a few speeches??

    Parent
    Some didn't jump on the bandwagon (5.00 / 7) (#59)
    by honora on Fri Apr 08, 2011 at 12:19:14 PM EST
    and we were labeled racists.

    Parent
    Some of us were tepid (5.00 / 2) (#135)
    by Militarytracy on Fri Apr 08, 2011 at 03:32:00 PM EST
    We were tepid racists :)

    Parent
    He has none (none / 0) (#12)
    by mm on Fri Apr 08, 2011 at 10:15:39 AM EST
    core principles??

    Parent
    It's a pretty stupid poll (5.00 / 1) (#3)
    by Militarytracy on Fri Apr 08, 2011 at 09:32:28 AM EST
    to flaunt the way some pundits want to flaunt this right now.  It doesn't say anything about being "spineless".  Uh gee....do you think that legislators should work together and compromise in order to gain agreement on how to keep our government funded and running or not?  Democrats say yes, Independents say yes, and a majority of those who identify with being Republicans say NO!  They say they want their leaders to me fairly ignorant and d*ckish.

    Parent
    Of course Dems would say that in a poll (5.00 / 5) (#72)
    by MKS on Fri Apr 08, 2011 at 12:48:41 PM EST
    Liberals, bless their often naive hearts, believe in peace and harmony if only they can reason with and educate those who disagree with them.  To "compromise" is an exercise in Enlightenment Reason.

    Wonderful trait.  But can be undone by relentless dogmatists like the conservatives....

    I agree that a better poll would have had specific policy choices....

    How many Dems or Liberals would agree to compromise on funding for Planned Parenthood?  Cutting school lunches?

    Parent

    The dumbest thing about how (5.00 / 4) (#4)
    by Militarytracy on Fri Apr 08, 2011 at 09:41:52 AM EST
    Ezra is trying to sell this?

    Democrats, meanwhile, can work to prove their openness to compromise because that's what both their base and independents want them to do

    How can they work to prove anything about themselves, everything is done behind closed doors?  Much of Obama's base doesn't even trust him anymore because of that.  Debate the a-holes item by item in the public arena, let the public see you making certain compromises and let them see the Republicans simply being d*cks. This would let the public voice be heard on specific issues they want Democrats to stand their ground on.  All our leaders want to do is lump everything together, make dirty backroom deals, and nobody comes out clean and trustworthy on the other side and the Democrats consistently STINK of complicity with Independents and now much of the Democratic base.

    As for Matt...the Democrats and the Indies said they don't want Democratic legislators to be stoopid d*cks.  Spinelessness was not polled.

    Ezra Klein has proved to be a (5.00 / 4) (#165)
    by caseyOR on Fri Apr 08, 2011 at 04:41:43 PM EST
    perfect hire by the WaPo. He is a seamless fit with their editorial beliefs. I expect that any day now we will hear that young Ezra has been appointed to the David Broder Chair of Bipartisan Fetishism.

    Parent
    He's all over the television (5.00 / 1) (#206)
    by Militarytracy on Fri Apr 08, 2011 at 07:18:24 PM EST
    right now and he is most often a flat undefined emotionaless fool as far as I'm concerned.  He isn't a study in winning any argument.  He's a study in pithless intellectualizing. Cenk was on earlier in this house.  I told my spouse that in the interest of intimacy and trust I just wanted him to know that I had a crush on Cenk and he says, "I know babe, that's why he's on our television right now :)"

    Parent
    I very much doubt (5.00 / 5) (#9)
    by andgarden on Fri Apr 08, 2011 at 10:07:23 AM EST
    that anyone in the Democratic base--however defined--supports compromising for the sake of any compromise.

    I think that is the question (5.00 / 2) (#14)
    by ruffian on Fri Apr 08, 2011 at 10:21:53 AM EST
    I've always wondered where the political gains supposedly are for being seen as willing to compromise. If the gains are only among some, but not all, Dems, which Dems are they? Are they likely to not support Dems that do not compromise for the sake of it? That is hard to believe.

    I think the whole thing gets wrapped around the axle when it is not tied to specific deals.

    Parent

    Depends on what the compromise is. (5.00 / 2) (#89)
    by inclusiveheart on Fri Apr 08, 2011 at 01:38:53 PM EST
    If it is a choice between Burger King and MacDonald's, they'd expect compromise.

    If it is a choice between Social Security and no Social Security, they'd like compromise a lot less or not at all.

    Parent

    Completely agree (5.00 / 2) (#20)
    by sj on Fri Apr 08, 2011 at 10:37:43 AM EST
    but watch ABG swoop in here, declare he's a liberal and therefore the base, and then advocate compromise for the sake of compromise.

    It get's exhausting scrolling past all those comments.

    Parent

    I'm in your head (none / 0) (#108)
    by AngryBlackGuy on Fri Apr 08, 2011 at 02:18:08 PM EST
    Harry Reid (5.00 / 2) (#61)
    by MKS on Fri Apr 08, 2011 at 12:25:09 PM EST
    has been pretty good.....

    He flatly said there is no problem with Social Security on MTP.  The look of shocked incredulity on David Gregory's face was priceless.

    He has drawn a line in the sand this morning on riders and even the amount (as grossly overdone and totally unnecessary as that was in the first place.)

    Parent

    It would have been nice (5.00 / 6) (#129)
    by Zorba on Fri Apr 08, 2011 at 03:15:24 PM EST
    if Harry had drawn a line in the sand two years ago.  We had all better hope that the tide doesn't come in and wash away Harry's line.

    Parent
    The Republican (5.00 / 5) (#70)
    by MKS on Fri Apr 08, 2011 at 12:42:54 PM EST
    (stated) willingness to crash the whole economy over Planned Parenthood is in some ways quite impressive.  As is, in the same vein, Scott Walker, as Nixonian as he is.

    It is of course disgusting.  But one has to admire the brinksmanship here.  The Dems offered up billions more in cuts to save Planned Parenthood, and when the Dems caved, they moved the goal posts.

    One wonders how things would have turned out if the Dems had taken such a hard stance on Iraq funding in 2006.

    And, that quaint notion in 2009 of eschewing reconciliation on most things to avoid appearing too heavy handed.  The Republicans would have never done such an idiotic thing.

    Say what you want, the Republicans know how to exercise power and are not scared of their own shadow.  

    One wonders (5.00 / 5) (#133)
    by Zorba on Fri Apr 08, 2011 at 03:30:10 PM EST
    how things would have turned out if the Dems had taken a hard stance on just about everything for the past number of years.

    Parent
    but that would require defining their principles (none / 0) (#198)
    by kempis on Fri Apr 08, 2011 at 06:35:06 PM EST
    And that's too scary. What if people don't share them? They might get called socialists.

    :p

    Parent

    I have a different take (5.00 / 4) (#201)
    by NYShooter on Fri Apr 08, 2011 at 06:54:31 PM EST
    on the current negotiations.

    Just before the Allies launched D-Day on the Beaches of Normandy they first sent a diversionary, mock invasion force further up North. The purpose, of course, was to get some idea of Germany's defensive tactics and capabilities before launching the massive real invasion.

    And so, I smell a rat in these "negotiations" (read charade) taking place in Congress today. Just look at all that "intelligence" the republicans have tricked the dems into revealing. Who is strong, who is weak, who can be flipped, who is committed, who is ideological, etc, etc. And, of course, how obama manages a crisis.

    They'll be going over the tapes with microscopes 24/7 from now till the REAL battle next year.

    As to Obama: Last night Charlie Rose had as a guest some British financial/political mucky-muck. He asked him how the world leaders assessed Obama these past couple of years. The Brit, as is their wont, said, ever so politely that most are o.k. with him on foreign affairs. But (paraphrasing) "I must admit, they are quite confused as to his apparent floundering, invisibility, and lack of leadership concerning domestic affairs."

    I couldn't have said it better myself.

    Parent

    I fully expect the Dems to cave. (5.00 / 1) (#100)
    by Chuck0 on Fri Apr 08, 2011 at 02:06:49 PM EST
    On everything. There will give away the store to the GOP. No guts, no glory. No spine. Worthless the whole lot of them.

    Right, and Obama will claim (5.00 / 3) (#101)
    by observed on Fri Apr 08, 2011 at 02:09:07 PM EST
    victory for averting  a government shutdown.


    Parent
    I gave up on this administration (5.00 / 4) (#110)
    by Chuck0 on Fri Apr 08, 2011 at 02:20:56 PM EST
    and the Democratic party when they caved on the Bush tax cuts. More money in the pockets of the rich at the same time the GOP was squealing about the deficit. It's a no-brainer, the lunatics do indeed run the asylum. The US is doomed. Me, I'm looking for an exit door.

    Parent
    Maybe Dems should dump ... (5.00 / 3) (#130)
    by Robot Porter on Fri Apr 08, 2011 at 03:15:46 PM EST
    the donkey and replace him with an invertebrate of some sort.

    My vote goes to the nematode!

    LOL. Yes, donkeys are known for being stubborn (5.00 / 4) (#143)
    by ruffian on Fri Apr 08, 2011 at 03:40:57 PM EST
    Certainly does not describe the party today.

    Parent
    Two issues. (5.00 / 3) (#151)
    by lentinel on Fri Apr 08, 2011 at 03:59:23 PM EST
    One is the issue of Democrats behaving in a spineless fashion with respect to Republicans.

    Another is the issue of Democrats who believe in civil liberties, peace and economic equality dealing in a spineless fashion with respect to Democrats to whom these concepts are irrelevant.

    c'mon. it i$ the leafy 'hood upper middle $ocial (5.00 / 1) (#195)
    by seabos84 on Fri Apr 08, 2011 at 06:32:17 PM EST
    cla$$ of college "educated" professionals and managers who run this party, AND, they genetically do NOT know how to play hardball.

    they've all won in the post WW2 affluence of bureaucracy - better prep school essays, better prep school prep for interviews, better prep for college entrance, better SAT prep and scores, better GRE and LSAT prep and scores -

    they have NOT been part of the bottom 80% and 90% getting $crewed for 30 years - BUT - they read "Nickled and Dimed"!

    I grew up on welfare & I've been a support serf for 30 years in Boston and in Seattle (and I ain't complaining) - fine dining cook for yuppies in Boston 20+ years ago, email server support & database support  at Microsoft for all kinds of yuppies, math teacher suffering the slings and arrows of deformist yuppies from Bill Gate's crowd of michelle rhee toadies -

    oh yeah - and a fly on the wall - grunt in sundry Democratic campaigns over the decades.

    THE strategy and THE tactic has been - FIT IN. Don't rock the boat, you won't get to know the people who kick it on Beacon Hill or Queen Anne. FIT IN = we're smarter, we're nobler, we're better ... they're meaner, they're untruth-ier, they're un-trust-full-ier.

    DON'T call lying stealing scum doing the dirty work of rich pigs on top what they are, cuz in leafy neighborhoods it is all about obfuscation and being positive and being un-negative and un-angry -

    DON'T call thieving scum who are helping pigs stay pigs and stay on top stealing lying scum.

    Let's one-up each other on our eco-trip to Amazonia ...

    Kevin Drum wrote a conventional wisdom piece about the split in the Dim party between unions the rights crowd - he missed the FACT that the "leaders" of ALL orgs Dem are upper middle cla$$ veal penish dilettantes.

    rmm.  

    New poll shows opposition (5.00 / 2) (#196)
    by MKS on Fri Apr 08, 2011 at 06:32:49 PM EST
    to defunding Plannned Parenthood at 64-28.

    Here is the poll.  This is Front Page Diary at Big Orange.

    But hand it to the fanatical GOP--they don't give a damn about what the people want, they know best.

    Tentative deal being reviewed by WH (5.00 / 1) (#207)
    by Anne on Fri Apr 08, 2011 at 09:06:51 PM EST
    per Marc Ambinder:

    Numerous GOP and Democratic sources on and off Capitol Hill tell National Journal that the outline of the deal is as follows: up to $39 billion in cuts from the 2010 budget, $514 billion for the defense budget covering the remainder of this fiscal year, a GOP agreement to abandon controversial policy riders dealing with Planned Parenthood and the EPA, and an agreement to pass a "bridge" continuing resolution tonight to keep the government operating while the deal is written in bill form [...]

    The proposal under review could form the basis of an agreement on a six-month continuing resolution that averts a government shutdown of longer than a few days. The prospective measure would cut spending by about $39 billion from current levels, two aides said. It would not include a ban on federal funding for Planned Parenthood, but part of the arrangement would likely be an unspecified and symbolic procedural step intended to give Boehner and conservatives political cover on the issue, the aides said. Democratic appear to have accepted an increased level of cuts in exchange for the GOP dropping the rider.

    Who wants to calculate the cost of "saving" Planned Parenthood and the EPA?

    David Dayen and Ryan Grim:

    You have to go back to the initial numbers to see the magnitude of this policy loss. In December, when a continuing resolution for the rest of the year was getting negotiated, the level of funding for FY 2011 was markedly higher than it will be under this deal. Ryan Grim runs the numbers.

    The difference comes from the starting point. Democrats are working off of the president's requested budget for the fiscal year, which was $1.128 trillion. That's the same baseline that House Republicans used when they cut $102 billion with their first bill, H.R. 1, bringing the spending down to $1.026 trillion.

    But there is a number that realistically could have become law, and that's the one that was proposed by Sens. Jeff Sessions (R-Ala.) and Claire McCaskill (D-Mo.). Known as the Sessions-McCaskill level, it blew up in December over a fight over earmarks, but it had the broad support of both parties in general.

    That figure was $1.108 trillion -- $58 billion above what Democrats are now willing to accept.

    That was written before this latest deal, so it's actually $59 billion. And the benefit for exchanging the Making Work Pay tax cut with the payroll tax cut, one of the only changes in the tax cut deal that didn't simply extend current law? $60 billion. So if you accept that Democrats could have gotten Sessions-McCaskill into the tax cut deal, four months later almost the ENTIRE stimulus from the payroll tax cut is gone. Completely. As Ryan notes, "The focus on Planned Parenthood may be distracting from a dramatic GOP victory on spending."

    The $513 defense budget is precisely the level that Senate appropriators targeted back in December. So the defense budget is basically getting out of this untouched. Republicans tried to up that defense budget above the Pentagon's request, so that was beaten back.

    This means that all $29 billion in cuts - remember $10 billion have already been enacted - will come from the non-defense budget. The latest on that is that about half will come from the discretionary budget, and half from mandatory spending. This spreads the pain, but there's a great deal of uncertainty about what those cuts will mean in the specifics.

    Hard to know what to say to this...

    Prediction (1.00 / 1) (#81)
    by AngryBlackGuy on Fri Apr 08, 2011 at 01:11:04 PM EST
    No/limited shut down

    Planned Parenthood and other social issues protected by Dems

    GOP gets the level of cuts everyone has been discussing.

    Extremes of both parties are angry.  Everyone else breathes sigh of relief.

    I really don't think (5.00 / 4) (#83)
    by lilburro on Fri Apr 08, 2011 at 01:15:10 PM EST
    people are going to be breathing a sigh of relief when 40 billion or more of spending is cut...it is going to affect people's lives you know.

    Parent
    The $$$ cut level (none / 0) (#149)
    by christinep on Fri Apr 08, 2011 at 03:47:01 PM EST
    Significant $$billions agreed to as cuts in the early round of this phase appear to come from unspent earmarks. Some other $$represent outdated water projects. The real question: How much of a particular program (not administrative planning, development, and all that)--but what programs will have the cut-to-the-bone when all is said & done?

    Parent
    Earmarks (5.00 / 1) (#159)
    by lilburro on Fri Apr 08, 2011 at 04:11:29 PM EST
    can create jobs.  And 40 billion is gonna hurt.

    Parent
    When the poor do without food and heat, (5.00 / 1) (#85)
    by MO Blue on Fri Apr 08, 2011 at 01:34:15 PM EST
    the infant mortality rate raises and we lose even our pitiful #30 ranking, and more people lose their jobs due to government cuts, I'm sure that those effected by these cuts will breathes a sigh of relief. Or maybe they will receive your "extreme" designation.

    Parent
    Most of the time, much of what (5.00 / 3) (#103)
    by Anne on Fri Apr 08, 2011 at 02:12:42 PM EST
    ABG says just makes me roll my eyes and shake my head; every now and then, he delivers a comment that is just stunning in its ignorance - and this, above, was one of them.

    How anyone with an ounce of compassion could believe that sighs of relief will be the result of the GOP getting the cuts it wants is just beyond my ability to understand.  Sure, I get that making yet another Deal would keep federal workers on the job - at their frozen pay levels - and I appreciate that they have bills to pay and families to feed and that they have become economic hostages to this thing, but...the effect of the budgets cuts will be to inflict hardship to a degree we haven't yet seen.  That hardship will increase the speed at which the economy spirals down, and will spread to affect millions and millions of people.

    If ABG does represent "the majority" of what the Democratic party thinks and wants (and I have to believe that it doesn't - that this is just the way he excuses Obama from any accountability), I am not only disgusted and repelled by such cold indifference, I may have run out of reasons to keep my membership.

    Parent

    ABG is a troll, plain and simple (3.00 / 2) (#167)
    by shoephone on Fri Apr 08, 2011 at 04:51:30 PM EST
    He represents no one except the corrupt a$$es$ of the political and corporate status quo.

    Parent
    No, that goes too far (none / 0) (#173)
    by MKS on Fri Apr 08, 2011 at 04:55:51 PM EST
    He is an Obama supporter.....

    He argues substance--although you may disagree, it is a take on the issues.....If you are right, then it will appear so.....

    Parent

    Heh (5.00 / 5) (#87)
    by Big Tent Democrat on Fri Apr 08, 2011 at 01:35:32 PM EST
    Bust tax cuts extended, tens of billions cut out of the federal budget to help the neediest.

    "Extremes" upset.

    "Reasonable" people like ABG thrilled.

    This is how bargaining works.

    Now, who do you think won the negotiation?

    I know. ABG seems to think his side won.

    That's how you do it.

    Kudos to the GOP.  

    Parent

    Is ABG a Reagan Democrat or (5.00 / 1) (#93)
    by observed on Fri Apr 08, 2011 at 01:53:48 PM EST
    a Reagan Republican? That's the only question.
    Maybe he's a Gingrich libertarian.

    Parent
    He's just an Obamafan (5.00 / 1) (#199)
    by kempis on Fri Apr 08, 2011 at 06:44:54 PM EST
    If Obama suddenly started digging in his heels and fighting for poor people, refusing to "compromise" with the GOP on things like tax cuts for the wealthy and a government healthcare option for all and the weakening of environmental regulations, then ABG (and other "rational" defenders of Obama) wouldn't miss a beat in changing their tunes right along with him.

    Their principle is to support whatever Obama does. If Obama became a lefty "extremist" tomorrow, so would they. Just as whenever he acts like Son of Reagan, they defend his policies as "pragmatic progressivism."

    Parent

    He's a troll. (1.00 / 1) (#168)
    by shoephone on Fri Apr 08, 2011 at 04:52:13 PM EST
    A sigh of relief (5.00 / 1) (#111)
    by AngryBlackGuy on Fri Apr 08, 2011 at 02:21:57 PM EST
    doesn't mean that we won.  It means that disaster was averted and we probably got the best deal we could expect.

    You've always inserted your thinking of my position for what my (and others) position actually is.

    I say what I mean.  If this was a huge win. I would have said so.

    Stop creating strawmen that you can easily knock down just because the real deal is more difficult to attack.

    Parent

    One disaster was traded for another (5.00 / 1) (#127)
    by ruffian on Fri Apr 08, 2011 at 03:08:03 PM EST
    Just kicking the pain down the road and shifting it to people more defenseless than government employees.

    Parent
    Actually, 40 billion in cuts will lay off (none / 0) (#128)
    by ruffian on Fri Apr 08, 2011 at 03:09:15 PM EST
    many many employees. Maybe they would have been preferred being 'shutdown' for a while rather than laid off.

    Parent
    And the winner is . . . (5.00 / 5) (#132)
    by Big Tent Democrat on Fri Apr 08, 2011 at 03:29:27 PM EST
    That's how you win negotiations.

    When "reasonable" people are relieved that extreme measures are agreed to.

    The Republican won.

    The Tea PArty won.

    And "reasonable" people are relieved.

    To be sure, this applies to all negotiations.

    I would love to be across a negotiating table with you.

    Parent

    I sure (5.00 / 1) (#160)
    by Ga6thDem on Fri Apr 08, 2011 at 04:12:20 PM EST
    wouldn't want Obama for my lawyer.

    If you were the same kind of negotiator you'd probably already settled the cases and the other side would be declaring victory!

    Parent

    He is the original (none / 0) (#203)
    by NYShooter on Fri Apr 08, 2011 at 07:07:38 PM EST
    "Metaphor Man."

    If what passes for today's hip, wired, "serious" Progressive pundits could design and build the ideal,"serious" Democratic voter...."Cyber-Dem," we've got the perfect Poster-Vote-ster right here on TL.

    Would make for a great movie.

    Parent

    "the level of cuts everyone has been (5.00 / 2) (#92)
    by observed on Fri Apr 08, 2011 at 01:51:59 PM EST
    discussing"(!)
    This is probably your most incisive analysis yet!

    Parent
    That is the best case scenario (none / 0) (#88)
    by MKS on Fri Apr 08, 2011 at 01:38:01 PM EST
    at this point....It could get worse....

    And, look how close to our own goal line the GOP is; we are playing on our own ten yard line, hoping we can punt it past our own 40.....

    Parent

    Bottom Line (none / 0) (#5)
    by AngryBlackGuy on Fri Apr 08, 2011 at 09:55:21 AM EST
    Which obviously isn't popular here but is something I've been saying for months now to much outrage:

    The views expressed here do not represent the views of the majority of the democratic party.

    Full stop.

    Now we can argue back and forth about whether the democratic party needs to move to the left in the way that the GOP was moved right, first by the christian coalition, and now by the tea party.  But that's a different argument than the reality of the party right now.

    Which is fundamentally why it appears to some that my sole goal here is to be some kind of Obama cheer leader. I like the guy but the bigger point I try to make is that Obama is a reflection of the core of the party.  What is being attacked isn't just Obama, but the core beliefs of people like me and the majority of the party.  When he is accused of betraying the democrats, what I think is really meant is that he is betraying more left wing members of the democratic party who hoped he'd pull the party left.

    As a general matter, I think he's governing pretty much the way that the large base of the democratic party wants him to govern.  There is no betrayal.  He's doing what he said he'd do from the start. He ran on "change" and the central plank of that change wasn't to drag the country left on everything.  It was pragmatism. Bipartisanship.  This is what he campaigned on. This is what his base wants from him.

    My point is that, whether you agree with the democratic base or not, the idea that he is betraying the party or ignoring his base is pretty weak.  If you have issues with the concessions made and general approach, your gripe is with the bulk of the party, not with the guy they elected to implement their positions.

    Huh Uh (5.00 / 1) (#6)
    by Militarytracy on Fri Apr 08, 2011 at 09:58:10 AM EST
    Who is the Democratic base? (5.00 / 3) (#7)
    by jbindc on Fri Apr 08, 2011 at 10:01:30 AM EST
    I agree that many of the views represented here are not the full panolpy that make up the Democratic Party.  But what base are you taking about?

    Women?  He's thrown them under the bus several times.

    Unions?  They aren't very happy with him?

    Seniors?  Falling away faster than a prom dress after the dance.

    ACLU-types?  Not happy with him either.

    Environmentalists?  I would say they are probably neutral - more in the mind set that "he is better than the other guy."  Not exactly a ringing endorsement.

    Minority groups?  What has he done for them lately?


    Parent

    Minority groups (5.00 / 0) (#8)
    by star on Fri Apr 08, 2011 at 10:05:27 AM EST
    "Minority groups?  What has he done for them lately? "

    When did he DO something for minority ?I do not have anything that Obama has done or contributed for the minority community.

    Parent

    I was being generous (none / 0) (#10)
    by jbindc on Fri Apr 08, 2011 at 10:08:15 AM EST
    A key question, isn't it...who is the base? (5.00 / 1) (#122)
    by christinep on Fri Apr 08, 2011 at 02:48:10 PM EST
    You list components, jbindc. And, those components surely are part of the base. But the real conundrum has to do with "big tent" politics...the bigger the tent, the greater the diversity of opinion(s). And, taking that further: The number of competititve parties as well as government structure in this country play determinative roles.

    The structure promotes, and ultimately,thrives on compromise. Yet, to some, "compromise" would be equated with spineless surrender. We all have our own ideas on where that line is crossed.

    Recognizing that polls and other sampling techniques are ephemeral, one thing we do know is that Obama is not polling like LBJ when the latter was truly losing the whole party (and a lot of others) in the spring of 1968. What we also know is that the vast majority of self-identified Democrats polled by the major pollsters support President Obama...generally, at this time, that percentage ranges throughout the 80s% level.  A healthy number, historically speaking; a number that usually grows & solidifies as the race heats up and the Repub is identified. I suppose that to get at the components level of support, the available polls will break that down by age, gender, region, possibly economic category, & educational level. Organizations also poll their members from time to time to ascertain support levels. At this point, I know of no data in the components' areas (or base) that shows the "real bad news" for Obama. Perhaps, there are data points that would be relevant....

    There may be anecdotal data, as you indicate above. And, I do accept that a leader of anything usually has weak spots after a few years...and strong spots compared to unknowns.  For example: As for environmentalists (particularly the organized groups), my contacts show strong environmental community support...even in light of BP...and a push to retain will come everytime the Repubs open their mouths to reveal again the contrast.  Another example: The unions were, indeed, feeling put aside...but, once again, the intervention of contrast (especially in Wisconsin; tho also in Ohio, Michigan, NJ; see also "teachers") has sparked full-throated support.

    A bit of pushback: Maybe interaction with ABG would be helpful in clarifying data points, potential strategies, what people "can live with" and where they forever part company with the party. ABG's statement here is well-put. (Whether one agrees with other Democrats who say things we don't want to hear is not the issue...it's the red herring.  BTW, my comment here is reponsive to your comment not by chance nor by special design. Rather, you demonstrate the give & take of discussion/debate that seems productive.)

    Parent

    Base (none / 0) (#15)
    by AngryBlackGuy on Fri Apr 08, 2011 at 10:23:33 AM EST
    Women:  You think he's thrown them under the bus but women as a whole do not. Women are his strongest supporters in the party and disagree with your assessment by almost all polls taken.  They are his base and they are largely happy with him.

    LGBT: After being skeptical at first have swung strongly back in his favor, despite the ongoing pressure he gets from some advocate groups.

    Minorities: His popularity amongst the AA and hispanic populations is steady (and growing in the hispanic community, which is going to be IMHO, the game changer for the dems going forward).

    Seniors: After what the GOP is pulling, Obama is going to look like a card carrying member of AARP. They will appreciate the push back on SS and other issues.

    ACLU/Greewald types: well they don't trust him right now but the counter to that is that they aren't the base of the party.  People enraged about Gitmo, for example, and having that as their highest priority are not a large portion of the party.

    Environmentalist: I'll concede that point, but the GOP is, again, far worse and they'll support him in the end.

    Military: Now this is one the you didn't list but one that I think is going to swing surprisingly more in his direction.  They now want the wars to end and when Obama pulls troops from Iraq at the end of the year, it will be a huge accomplishment even with the personnel that will remain.

    Parent

    I think (5.00 / 1) (#16)
    by jbindc on Fri Apr 08, 2011 at 10:28:28 AM EST
    All the groups listed will vote for him, not based on his support for their principles or their love of him, but rather for what you advocate - "he's better than the other guy."

    Parent
    It's all relative right? (none / 0) (#22)
    by AngryBlackGuy on Fri Apr 08, 2011 at 10:38:27 AM EST
    ACCA, for example, because of the demographics, will be hugely helpful to minorities and women below the poverty line for a number of reasons.

    Lily Ledbetter, female supreme court justices, DADT repeal, etc.

    Obviously, if Obama wanted to be a crusader for black people, he could go much further, but most blacks understand the limits of how far he is able to go and appreciate what he has done. They are pragmatic about it.

    The core democratic voter, as a general rule, understands the president's limitations in this environment and doesn't expect the ideological allegiance being demanded here.  They balance, weigh the pros and cons, and come out in support of him.

    Here, conversely, single issues tend to dominate. Think BTD and the Tax Deal.  Nothing Obama does after that will erase the bad taste left in his mouth but to be frank, that is not the way most voters, including democrats, think.

    Parent

    I thought this post was about the base. (5.00 / 2) (#33)
    by dk on Fri Apr 08, 2011 at 11:05:08 AM EST
    Now, you are talking about "most voters."  Which is it?

    My opinion is that "most voters" vote for the person they perceive will do more to help them with the issues they care about, and that "most voters" care most about their own economic well being and safety.

    You seem to be a good example of "most voters" from your writing at least.  Take the health insurance support act.  Leaving aside your baseless assertions (which are easily disputed by facts) of its greatness as policy, the only genuine reason I've seen you give as to why you support it is that it has provided needed short term economic assistance to your own brother with regard to his healthcare needs.  In other words, it was good for you and yours in the short term, so you support it, and extrapolate to consider it generally good policy for the nation.  That's an understandable reaction, lots of people have it, and I'd agree that's how "most voters" tend to analyze things.

    However, I would also point out that a) the "base" probably tends to be more focussed on issues in a general sense than you are and b) I think even many in the "most voters" category (at least, enough of them to sway elections) want not only short term economic goodies thrown at them, but also sound policy that will help them in the medium- and long-term, and even help others than just themselves.  Thus, the real failure of the current Democratic national leadership is their adoption of conservative policies (particularly in the economic sphere) that will not have such effects.

    Parent

    DK (none / 0) (#42)
    by AngryBlackGuy on Fri Apr 08, 2011 at 11:23:19 AM EST

    1. Do I require you to provide detailed support and backing for every single position that you take on a topic?  The idea that my support of HCR is weak and unsupportable because I haven't given you enough of my own justifications is arrogant as hell. Let's flip it around. How about you provide all of the "facts" for why HCR is a terrible policy, I'll judge whether those facts are valid and then I'll judge whether your position is logical or supportable.

    Flip the default around as it should be. All of the democrats in congress voted for healthcare reform and all of the dems in congress will be telling us why it is a great policy and I agree with them. If you disagree, the burden is on you to show why the democratic party (which is what we are talking about) enacted something that hurts the country.

    Anyway, what you keep missing is that only the far left sees the democrats positions as "conservative."  The conservatives certainly don't see the dem's positions that way.  The moderates and independent's don't.

    Those that have this "the dems are conservatives!" ideology or a relatively small group and always has been.

    The issue, to be blunt, is that people on the far left speak as if their position is universal instead of beliefs held by a small percentage of the country relatively speaking.

    Most people, republican or democrat, simply don't believe what you do.

    I believe that the anger hurled at me (everything from calling me a paid Obama shill to not knowing anything about the issues to being a closet republican) stem in large part because I am a stark reminder that you don't represent the majority of democrats, let alone the majority of the country.

    I do.

    And it infuriates.  But I can't help that. That's the reality.

    Parent

    I guess my response to (5.00 / 0) (#47)
    by dk on Fri Apr 08, 2011 at 11:37:00 AM EST
    that non-response is BTD's "pols are pols and they do what they do."

    Do you think the Democrats (other than perhaps those like Max Baucus) who voted for the health care insurance company act because they thought it was good policy?  Do you think that the Republican politicians who have secured a good chunk of their desired budget cuts and tax breaks from Obama in this last few months really are unhappy with how things are going in the negotiations?  

    The national democratic party suffered huge defeats in the last election, and currently in the polls their standard bearer is only running about 50/50, give or take, against an as-yet-identified leader of another party that not many people really like.  Now, you can ignore the polls that showed that a vast majority of Americans believe that there should be government admnistered health insurance that all Americans are allowed to participate in, or that they don't want American troops in Afghanistan, or that that they don't want a continuation of economic policies that further concentrate wealth in the top 1%, etc.  But, IMO you're putting your head in the sand.

    Parent

    Most people don't believe that Obama is (5.00 / 2) (#95)
    by MO Blue on Fri Apr 08, 2011 at 01:58:50 PM EST
    making the changes that the country needs. In fact, 70% believes he is not bringing about the changes that the country needs. 55% do not see him as a strong and decisive leader.

    The majority opinion may not always correspond with the position of liberals but it does not correspond with your opinion or with Obama's poslicies.

    Strong majorities of voters favor raising the taxes of the rich rather than cutting domestic services. Strong majorities of voters favor job creation over reducing the deficit. Those are policies that get strong support from the majority of regular commenter's on TL. Those are not the policies adopted by Obama and you support as needed to reelected Obama.

    You speak like your opinion, especially about Obama's policies, is the majority opinion. It is not. Most people, republican, independents or a fair share of democrats, simply don't believe what you do. That is reality. You may not like reality. You may choose to ignore reality, but there it is.  

    Parent

    Most voters (none / 0) (#25)
    by jbindc on Fri Apr 08, 2011 at 10:45:15 AM EST
    I would say, actually don't think in the terms you're thinking of either. Only the really politically aware and involved will look at things like carbon-tax credits and other types of issues.  

    Most voters will look at those issues that directly affect them in their daily lives.  They will look at the economy, and will ask the question Ronald Reagan asked - "Are you better off today than you were 4 years ago?"  If no, then they will probably be more likely to give someone else a try.  If yes, they will let the current guy keep going.

    Yes, with 24 hour media and the internet, more people are becoming connected to the issues they care about.  But frankly, if a candidate agrees with a voter on 60% of the issues, but disagrees on something like abortion, chances are the voter will still vote for the candidate.

    In sum, I think most voters actually ARE single issue voters.

    Parent

    OK (none / 0) (#29)
    by AngryBlackGuy on Fri Apr 08, 2011 at 10:55:04 AM EST
    I disagree, but let's assume that is the case. Single issues:

    1. Jobs: The dems have added more jobs in 3 years than Bush added in 8. The unemployment rate has dropped 1% in the last 5 months. If the rate falls another percent or so in the next 19 months (which is very possible) the dems will have a real achievement to trumpet.

    2. LGBT: DADT, DOMA, etc.

    3. Healthcare: Reform bill

    4. Wars: Iraq will be ended

    Etc.  I think the left wing underestimates the answers the dems are going to be able to roll out in response to the question: "what have you done on my issue?".

    Parent
    Really? (5.00 / 2) (#31)
    by jbindc on Fri Apr 08, 2011 at 10:59:34 AM EST
    1) Jobs - tell that to the millions more unemployed.  The economy has yet to add on enough jobs per month to make up for what was left (also remember that when Obama took office, unemployment was at 7.6%, so telling me the rate went down for one month, when it's 1.2% higher to begin with isn't much of a comfort).

    2)LGBT: DADT, DOMA, etc. - nice to think about.  Yeah for equality!  But unless it directly affects you, most people will not have this as the number one (or two) issue to vote on.

    1. Healthcare: Reform bill - most people (Dems included) think it sucks

    2. Wars: Iraq will be ended - on what planet?


    Parent
    Really (none / 0) (#35)
    by AngryBlackGuy on Fri Apr 08, 2011 at 11:09:03 AM EST
    1) C'mon, seriously. So you look only at the raw number and if it isn't 5% you declare Obama a failure?  Please. People know that the unemployment rate was ramping up when Obama took office, they know that he couldn't snap his finger the day after inauguration and stop the trend, they know that improvements take time. They are way more pragmatic than you are giving them credit for.  If Obama can show steady and consistent improvement, they will be happy.

    2)We were talking about single issue voters.  If LGBT is your single issue, you are probably OK with Obama right now.

    3)Most of the provisions haven't kicked in and won't until after the election. Obama's job is to explain to them what is coming.  If he does it well, they will appreciate it.  Funny thing: The GOP looks like they are going to do it for him.

    4) Wars: All troops are supposed to be out by the end of the year. It may slip a bit, but the footprint will be relatively small.

    So yeah, this planet.

    Parent

    Iraq (5.00 / 0) (#60)
    by the capstan on Fri Apr 08, 2011 at 12:21:16 PM EST
    All troops leave Iraq?  Not according to Gates,  If Iraq asks for some to stay they do.  Take any bets on incentives for Iraq to make that request?

    Parent
    Job status (none / 0) (#174)
    by MO Blue on Fri Apr 08, 2011 at 04:58:15 PM EST
    Hindery points out that the US economy is 20.2 million jobs short of what it needs for full employment.
    ...

    ...the economy needs to add at least 150,000 new private sector jobs each month simply to keep up with population growth.

    The average number of weeks unemployed is at least 39.0 and the number of workers unemployed a half year or longer is at least 9.9 million (i.e., BLS's official figure of 6.1 mm plus the 3.8 mm discouraged workers). Each figure remains unprecedented in modern times, and when considered together, they are always a much better measure of the real employment condition than the commonly used weekly "initial jobless claims" number. link

    While the country's recessionary job losses skewed to middle- and higher-paying jobs, its job gains since then have skewed to lower-paying jobs. 49% of the new jobs pay wages between $9.03 -$12.91 per hour while 40% of the job losses paid wages between $19.05 -$31.40 per hour. The higher wages make up only 14% of the recent growth. source

    Parent

    Re: voters (none / 0) (#34)
    by lilburro on Fri Apr 08, 2011 at 11:06:14 AM EST
    The average person who doesn't care much about politics but identifies as Democrat or independent just cares about the economy.  The rest of possible voters are activists in one way or another.  I am pleased with what the Obama Administration has accomplished so far vis a vis gay rights.  But I certainly think that happened in part because activists successfully put a lot of pressure on the Administration to do something for them.  Gay groups were threatening to cut off the money supply and going to war with each other.  Carping about and organizing around the issues you care about can work and it can change the political environment.

    Parent
    Remember (none / 0) (#36)
    by AngryBlackGuy on Fri Apr 08, 2011 at 11:15:15 AM EST
    Obama in the SOTU in January 2010:

    "I will work with Congress and our military to finally repeal the law that denies gay Americans the right to serve the country they love because of who they are. It's the right thing to do,"

    December 2010 it was done.

    Parent

    In 2009 (5.00 / 1) (#41)
    by lilburro on Fri Apr 08, 2011 at 11:22:26 AM EST
    it was "on the backburner."  How did it get off the backburner?  Outside pressure.

    Here is a timeline of the whole thing.

    Parent

    Thanks (none / 0) (#44)
    by AngryBlackGuy on Fri Apr 08, 2011 at 11:26:08 AM EST
    This is my whole point.  He couldn't have laid out his plans any sooner than 2 weeks into his administration:

    February 1, 2009: "The Obama administration is telling the Pentagon and gay-rights advocates that it will have to study the implications for national security and enlist more support in Congress before trying to overturn the so-called `don't ask, don't tell' law and allow gays to serve openly in the military, according to people involved in the discussions. ... At the Pentagon, officials say they have been told not to expect the administration to seek to lift the ban quickly. One senior officer, speaking on the condition of anonymity because he is not authorized to speak to the press, said staff officers for Admiral Mike Mullen, the chairman of the Joint Chiefs of Staff, have been told it will be several months at the earliest -- possibly not even this year -- until the top brass will be formally asked to weigh in on a change in policy. And even then, he said, the military has been assured it will have wide latitude to undertake a detailed study of how a change in the policy would affect the military. Mullen told reporters earlier this month that he is aware of the president's `intent to do this,' but `there are no more specifics with respect to when.'" ("Obama seeks assessment on gays in military: No rush to repeal `don't ask, don't tell'," Boston Globe)

    Parent

    IMO (none / 0) (#50)
    by lilburro on Fri Apr 08, 2011 at 11:41:46 AM EST
    If you're someone who believes Obama Has A Master Plan (aka if you believe in 11th Dimensional Chess), then you have to hold him accountable for his failures as well.  I mean a lot of people got made at Hamsher et al during the healthcare debate because they believed Obama Had A Master Plan for passing the public option at the very last minute.  And clearly he did not.

    And you can also see at the beginning of that timeline the vacillating that was occurring in the Obama camp.  People were getting impatient.  I think the Obama team responded to that.  

    Parent

    Gates on Iraq (none / 0) (#109)
    by MO Blue on Fri Apr 08, 2011 at 02:19:12 PM EST
    US troops could if required by Iraq stay in the country beyond the agreed withdrawal date of 31 December, 2011, the US defense secretary has said.

    Robert Gates, who is visiting Iraq, says an extended military presence is an option.

    "If folks here are going to want us to have a presence, we're going to need to get on with it pretty quickly in terms of our planning," he said. link



    Parent
    The party certainly has changed (5.00 / 3) (#30)
    by ruffian on Fri Apr 08, 2011 at 10:56:20 AM EST
    if ACLU/Greenwald types are no longer part of the base. Very enlightening. Definitely explains why many of us here at TL no longer feel very loyal to the party.

    Parent
    I actually think (none / 0) (#32)
    by AngryBlackGuy on Fri Apr 08, 2011 at 11:02:28 AM EST
    that the party hasn't changed.  We're just in 2-3 wars, a massive recession and people are afraid that they can't afford the doctor.  Priorities have changed temporarily.

    When people are more secure, they will refocus on things like speech issues, Gitmo, etc.

    But you have to feed and protect your family before anything.

    Parent

    Those are various competing priorities (5.00 / 1) (#38)
    by ruffian on Fri Apr 08, 2011 at 11:15:58 AM EST
    and I understand that.

    But you asserted that ACLU/Greenwald types are no longer part of the Dem base. Too me that means that civil liberties are no longer a core value of the party, no matter where they fall in everyday changing priorities.

    Parent

    Yet you strongly support Obama's policies (5.00 / 0) (#119)
    by MO Blue on Fri Apr 08, 2011 at 02:40:42 PM EST
    that will prevent people from feeding themselves or their families.

    Parent
    The party hasn't changed? (5.00 / 2) (#131)
    by Anne on Fri Apr 08, 2011 at 03:21:18 PM EST
    Since when, yesterday?  Last month?  Two years ago?  Clinton era?  FDR?  When?

    I've been voting since I was 18 - almost 40 (gulp!) years now, and I can assure you: the party has changed.  And from my perspective, it has changed steadily since we stopped caring about what candidates' views were as long as (D) could be appended to their names on ballots.  It took a dramatic shift in the 2008 primary season - and not to the left.

    And for the last two years, we have seen a marked decrease in Democratic advocacy by those in leadership positions on issues which used to matter to Democrats: if you think the about-face on the Bush policies being heinous, to accepting them because they were being pushed by a Democratic president, doesn't represent a change in the party, I think you have a serious perception problem.  When we started making cuts in heating assistance, food and nutrition programs, when we were told HAMP was a successful program, when the president became an apologist for BP - those were major changes to Democratic party policies.  When we stopped advocating for the poor, and started saying that tax cuts for the rich and for corporations were means of stimulating the economy, that was a major change to party policies.

    When we started giving credibility to the GOP's ideas, that was a change.

    Yes, priorities have changed - but there's nothing temporary about them that I can see.  

    There is nothing about the president's budget or his economic policy that is going to make most people feel or be more secure; between his positions and concession to the GOP, he is pushing most people closer to the financial edge - and many of them are going to go over and never be able to climb back up.

    Once again, you've thrown in something - "but you have to feed and protect your family" - that I guess is supposed to make people think you care, but the comments that surround statements like that tell a different story.


    Parent

    In 2005 the Democrats in Congress (5.00 / 2) (#179)
    by MO Blue on Fri Apr 08, 2011 at 05:11:12 PM EST
    stood firm to abolish the Republican myth that Social Security was in crisis and fought off privatization or any cuts to the program. The Republicans got burned on the issue and were in no hurry to go down that road again until Obama opened the door by putting SS back on the table. Now  Democratic Senators are out selling the SS cuts contained in Obama's Cat Food Commission.

    I think that would be considered a very big change in the Democratic Party's stance on an issue.  

     

    Parent

    yep (none / 0) (#120)
    by sj on Fri Apr 08, 2011 at 02:43:29 PM EST
    The two things I know about (none / 0) (#52)
    by Militarytracy on Fri Apr 08, 2011 at 11:49:06 AM EST
    I'm a woman, he threw me under the bus and ran over me twice and then backed up.  He's probably going to do it again too with this PP stuff.

    As for the military?  Wow...the military is going to be a part of the Professional Left Base?  So the minute anyone flares at us we have those who are instantly ready to go to war balanced by the crazy Republicans who want to kill something dead yesterday?  I don't think liberals should abuse members of the military, but I'm damned sure doubtful they should struggle for or rejoice that they lay claim that that is a reliable portion of their base :)

    Parent

    Don't forget Sotomayor and Kagan (none / 0) (#62)
    by MKS on Fri Apr 08, 2011 at 12:26:08 PM EST
    I can buy that argument (5.00 / 1) (#11)
    by lilburro on Fri Apr 08, 2011 at 10:08:46 AM EST
    the concept of the base changes as you move from primary to general election though.  I am sure in 2012 Obama will run as a mainstream Democrat, unchallenged by any serious primary contenders.  To act as though he wasn't promising (or allowing people to believe he was promising) something different from the mainstream in the primaries is kind of a joke though.  Or maybe the Left is a joke.  

    Parent
    Yawn (5.00 / 0) (#13)
    by Dadler on Fri Apr 08, 2011 at 10:19:18 AM EST
    Do you really not understand how polls work?  I can easily make a poll that shows the vast majority of the Dem party base believes in almost everything I do. Hell, I can create a poll that shows the majority of the Repub base does, too.  

    The entire basis of the poll, the word "compromise," means absolutely nothing out of a defined context, in this case a political context.    

    And why would you waste your time here if we're such a fringe lost cause?  Seriously.  I'm curious.

    Parent

    Attacking Polls (5.00 / 1) (#17)
    by AngryBlackGuy on Fri Apr 08, 2011 at 10:29:29 AM EST
    has always been a weak argument to me for two reasons:

    1. When polls support a person's positions, no one ever dismisses them as being manipulatable.

    2. Politicians have no other way to gauge whether they are fulfilling the wishes of their constituents than polls and phone calls. They have to use something, regardless of whether the polls can be questioned.

    Anyway, even weaker than attacking polls is the tired "well if you don't agree with me you should just leave!" [said in the whiney voice].

    I am here not to have my own beliefs echoed back at me.  I am here to engage on the issues of the day. Sometimes I will agree and sometimes I won't.
    I like the discussion and I like the debate.

    But if we're into questioning motives and whatnot, who posts on a website just to hear their every view reinforced? You could sit at home and look in the mirror and say "I AM RIGHT!" loudly each day to the same effect if that's what you are into.

    So why don't we just stick to the issues instead of why one person or another chooses to participate?

    Parent

    So then why do you attack polls (5.00 / 1) (#40)
    by dk on Fri Apr 08, 2011 at 11:22:16 AM EST
    demonstrating that Americans don't like the health insurance company support bill?  And why do you attack polls showing that Obama's support among independents is weak?

    Parent
    Polls (none / 0) (#46)
    by AngryBlackGuy on Fri Apr 08, 2011 at 11:36:03 AM EST
    on healthcare are probably right.  The issue is that people don't want the healthcare bill replaced. They want an even stronger bill and the polls show that.
    The polls indicate that they don't want it repealed.

    Here are all the latests:

    http://www.pollingreport.com/health.htm

    But to put this in perspective, 74% of self identified liberals approve of the job Obama is doing.

    http://www.gallup.com/poll/146981/Obama-Approval-Slips-Among-Blacks-Hispanics-March.aspx?utm_source= alert&utm_medium=email&utm_campaign=syndication&utm_content=morelink&utm_term=Politi cs%20-%20Presidential%20Job%20Approval

    That, at the least, indicates that there is a disconnect between the average "liberal" on the street and those who believe he's performing horribly here.

    I guess the explanation for that is that THOSE liberals don't know what it means to be a liberal.

    Or something.

    Parent

    I've concluded (5.00 / 2) (#19)
    by sj on Fri Apr 08, 2011 at 10:36:08 AM EST
    that this is his beat.  It's a tough one, as TL is fact-based and research-oriented and all.

    But I have to say he gives it all he's got.  There just isn't much substance there so he has to pretend there is.  So he asserts and declares and scoffs and pretends that he understands what the base is so that he can pretend he "are" one.

    Eventually, we'll all see the light as to Obama's Good Works and Inevitable Re-election.

    I neither know nor care if he's paid, and it doesn't matter anyway.  But that's his whole reason for any presence on this blog.  In all this time I have seen him make one comment on a non-Obama related issue, but I guess I could have missed one or two.  But watch you'll see.  

    That's my conclusion.  YMMV

    Parent

    I feel like a kid (5.00 / 1) (#24)
    by AngryBlackGuy on Fri Apr 08, 2011 at 10:41:16 AM EST
    where the parent cups their hands over his ears and speaks as if the kid can't hear the parent talking about him.

    Amazing how much time is spent psycho-analyzing me.

    Can we just talk about the issues please.  I promise I won't delve into the complicated reasons for why others post anonymously to a blog on politics each day if it helps.

    Parent

    OK...but curiosity compels me to ask (5.00 / 1) (#43)
    by oldpro on Fri Apr 08, 2011 at 11:24:24 AM EST
    about your moniker.  What are you angry about, black guy?

    Parent
    Hillary Supporters in the 2008 Primaries (none / 0) (#49)
    by AngryBlackGuy on Fri Apr 08, 2011 at 11:41:22 AM EST
    I gave myself this name in response to the PUMA movement and in particular, the words of the late, great Geraldine Ferraro and those who defended her.  

    After Obama won, I was way less angry but it made sense to keep it so that people knew that they were still talking to the same person.

    [It is also a subtle dig at the stereotype of the angry black man that Obama, and every semi-educated black man, has to deal with in western society and an experiment in reactions based upon that stereotype, but that sounds really nerdy, academic and snooty, so I just say "the PUMAs pissed me off and the name stuck".]

    Parent

    So... (5.00 / 3) (#182)
    by shoephone on Fri Apr 08, 2011 at 05:20:08 PM EST
    Angry black men are justified in their anger.

    Angry white women are not.

    Thanks. Got it.

    Your explanation says it all. Those mean Hillary supporters. Funny thing is, all of my black friends - both men and women -- were Hillary supporters. Weird, huh?

    Parent

    who knew (5.00 / 1) (#190)
    by The Addams Family on Fri Apr 08, 2011 at 06:03:13 PM EST
    this would turn out to be all about Hillary

    i believe that ABG really is angry & really is a guy

    Parent

    ah yes (none / 0) (#166)
    by The Addams Family on Fri Apr 08, 2011 at 04:43:49 PM EST
    a deplorable fact:

    the stereotype of the angry black man that Obama, and every semi-educated black man, has to deal with in western society and an experiment in reactions based upon that stereotype

    not to mention (also deplorable) a favored & opportunistic theme/meme of sexist white Obama fanboys

    Parent

    Not qualified to (5.00 / 1) (#64)
    by sj on Fri Apr 08, 2011 at 12:27:24 PM EST
    psycho analyze you.  And I don't care one whit what your personal issues are.

    I only observe your interactions with this community.

    Parent

    Maybe this was someone else. (5.00 / 1) (#78)
    by AngryBlackGuy on Fri Apr 08, 2011 at 01:05:45 PM EST
    "that's his whole reason for any presence on this blog."

    My bad.

    Parent

    observation makes this clear (none / 0) (#121)
    by sj on Fri Apr 08, 2011 at 02:46:01 PM EST
    He spends a lot of his time (none / 0) (#185)
    by itscookin on Fri Apr 08, 2011 at 05:28:40 PM EST
    at feminist sites "mansplaining" to the women who made him angry. He's not going to rest until the whole world worships Obama. It's not enough to vote for him. You have to be grateful for the opportunity.

    Parent
    Seriously? (none / 0) (#186)
    by shoephone on Fri Apr 08, 2011 at 05:49:56 PM EST
    Sheesh.

    Parent
    Ditto the "sheesh" (none / 0) (#204)
    by sj on Fri Apr 08, 2011 at 07:09:52 PM EST
    Yep, bottom line all this compromising by (5.00 / 0) (#18)
    by MO Blue on Fri Apr 08, 2011 at 10:33:20 AM EST
    Obama is really getting the indies behind him.

    The poll found that only 37 percent of independents approve of the work Obama has been doing in office, which is a sharp drop from his previous mark of 47 percent. Obama's overall job approval rating sits at 49 percent. link

    Obama's disapproval rate among independents in March 31 Quinnipiac University poll is 50% with only 39% approving of the job he is doing.

    American voters disapprove 48 - 42 percent of the job President Barack Obama is doing and say 50 - 41 percent he does not deserve to be re-elected in 2012, both all-time lows, according to a Quinnipiac University poll released today.



    Parent
    Well, indies are important too (5.00 / 1) (#21)
    by jbindc on Fri Apr 08, 2011 at 10:38:05 AM EST
    Can't win an election without them.  But I think the problem is he is trying to win them by caving to Republican talking points instead of trying to win them by advocating for good Democratic policies and principles.

    Parent
    Obama is losing the support of indies (5.00 / 1) (#26)
    by MO Blue on Fri Apr 08, 2011 at 10:49:08 AM EST
    as shown by the referenced polls. Also, the percent of people who self identify as Democrats has shrunk since 2008. With people moving from the Democratic party into the independent category.

    I agree that adopting good policies that work for most Americans would go a long way in gaining more support. Instead, Obama is bound and determined to continue the failed Republicans policies that only help the top 1 or 2% at the expense of everyone else.

    Parent

    Yep. (none / 0) (#27)
    by jbindc on Fri Apr 08, 2011 at 10:49:55 AM EST
    Quinnipiac's results for Obama (none / 0) (#139)
    by christinep on Fri Apr 08, 2011 at 03:37:31 PM EST
    in the past year have been skewing low...the past few times, per my recollection, Quinnipiac has shown the lowest of all the polling (even Rasmussen.) Not that your point about Independents reflects that; only that the skewing factoid is a consideration.

    Parent
    The views here represent the views of (5.00 / 3) (#45)
    by Anne on Fri Apr 08, 2011 at 11:34:58 AM EST
    the people who gather here.  Full Stop.  

    And since this is not, unless I missed the memo, a blog operating as an arm of the Democratic Party, I fail to see why it matters where our views fall in the spectrum.  That being said, I believe you were the one who wanted the tent to be as big as possible, and what that means to me is that you're going to have to deal with us; you can't just declare that we don't matter because we don't represent a majority view.

    And, for what it's worth, there are more than a few people here who, having come to the conclusion that the Democratic Party was not the party that best represented their views, have made it official and are no longer members of the party.

    And you have to deal with them, too.  That's how it works.

    I frankly do not care whether or if Obama represents the core of the party, or that you think he's governing the way the majority of the party wants him to; I've never been one to accept something just because "everyone else" did.  I just find you to be all over the place in your thinking: one minute you're criticizing the GOP because they all march in lock-step and don't listen to all of their members.  The next minute, you seem to be trying to get people to march to the tune that Obama and the "majority" of Democrats are playing.  You want the party to be as big as possible, but then don't think much of those who don't want to get with the majority's program.

    You may feel like criticism of Obama is criticism of you and your beliefs; I get upset because I don't want people to assume that Obama represents my core beliefs just because we share a party affiliation - and it really bothers me that so many of the things that used to be associated with Bush and the GOP have now been co-opted as Democratic beliefs because Obama has accepted, extended and legitimized them - instead of working to change them - which is what he ran on.

    It's really very simple: I don't agree with much of what Obama has done, and if that's what the majority of the party wanted, then I don't agree with them, either.  I don't have to.  I still get to have my own opinions, and they don't have to be driven by political groupthink.  I am not a sheep.

    And Obama will not - WILL NOT - get the pass you want him to have, just because you've declared him to be little more than a tool of the Democratic party, helpless to actually lead.  That's just insulting on so many levels it's not even funny.

    I will tell you what I used to tell the telemarketers before the Do Not Call list rescued us from their nightly intrusions: "I'm not going to buy what you want to sell me, so you'd be better off going on to the next number on your list.  Good Luck!"


    Parent

    It matters (5.00 / 2) (#54)
    by AngryBlackGuy on Fri Apr 08, 2011 at 12:02:15 PM EST
    When some claim that Obama and congressional democrats are betraying the democratic party.  If you don't believe that, this doesn't apply to you, but many people here do believe that.

    As I said at some point earlier, believing that Obama is betraying left wing ideals is wrong IMHO, but that is a more supportable concept.  

    From a democratic party perspective, he and the dems are governing in the way that they promised to.

    Parent

    And I never claimed (5.00 / 1) (#55)
    by AngryBlackGuy on Fri Apr 08, 2011 at 12:03:34 PM EST
    he was helpless.

    I can't help it if you make up things I didn't say, pass them off as my statements and then claim to be insulted.

    I have simply said that Obama has to work with congress and has no power to demand that they do what he tells them to do.  The power of the president is limited.

    Parent

    Meh (5.00 / 2) (#56)
    by dk on Fri Apr 08, 2011 at 12:13:12 PM EST
    You point to polls that support your assertions, and ignore polls that contradict it.  

    I think that's the point of BTD's post.

    Parent

    As a member - still - of the Democratic (5.00 / 1) (#73)
    by Anne on Fri Apr 08, 2011 at 12:49:23 PM EST
    party, I am telling you that I absolutely feel that Obama has betrayed the principles I believe in; if you can't stand the idea that he has betrayed my Democratic self, then perhaps you can understand that as a human being, I feel betrayed.  As a woman, I feel betrayed.  As someone approaching my retirement years, I feel betrayed.  As a citizen of this country, who believes in the Constitution, who cherishes her rights, I feel betrayed.  As a person who is paying a lot of money for health insurance, I feel betrayed.  As a person who cares about the poor, the sick, the unemployed - I feel betrayed.

    Obama is absolutely not governing as he said he would, nor is he governing the way any Democrat of my acquaintance wanted him too; I guess you must have been one of those kids who jumped off bridges when all your friends did, because the only metric that seems to matter to you is "what the majority thinks."  The majority of any group can believe something, and it can be wrong - having a majority does not confer legitimacy.  A majority of Americans believed Saddam Hussein was responsible for or involved in the 9/11 attacks.  A majority of Americans once thought it was okay to own people, to treat women as chattel and prohibit them from voting, to pay them less than men for the same work.  We sent young children into the work force.  A majority of Americans have believed or done all manner of things that were wrong - and there were always those minority voices who knew that, who spoke up against it.

    And, I'm sorry, but you do frame Obama as helpless when you excuse his governance as only being what the majority of Democrats wanted him to do; it's a variation of "everyone else was doing it," only this is the "they made me do it" excuse.  It's never his fault that something doesn't get done, is it?  Or when what he does doesn't turn out so well.  

    Some days, it's as entertaining as it is frustrating checking in here to see what the Excuse-of-the-Day will be.

    Parent

    No, he's not ... (5.00 / 2) (#118)
    by Yman on Fri Apr 08, 2011 at 02:37:24 PM EST
    From a democratic party perspective, he and the dems are governing in the way that they promised to.

    Public option, open HCR hearings, NAFTA reforms, closing Guantanamo, ban on lobbyists, FISA, repealing the Bush tax cuts, allowing imported prescription drugs, cutting earmarks, windfall profits for oil companies, cap-and-trade, immigration reform ...

    ... and on, and on, and on ...

    Parent

    Yep, he ran on change (5.00 / 0) (#48)
    by MO Blue on Fri Apr 08, 2011 at 11:37:35 AM EST
    How are the American people grading him on change?

    In a Jan, 2011 Gallup Poll 70% do not believe that he is bringing about the changes the country needs. Only 28% think he is doing a good job in this category.

    By a slim majority, 53% of Democrats say he is bringing about the changes the country needs, only 24% of independents and 9% of Republicans say he is bringing about the changes the country needs.

    Core beliefs of the party as demonstrated by Obama's policies: massive tax cuts for the rich combined with massive spending cuts to essential programs for ordinary Americans. These may be the core beliefs of the New Democratic Party, but they are completely opposite of what I will support.  
       

    Parent

    I don't think (5.00 / 1) (#51)
    by AngryBlackGuy on Fri Apr 08, 2011 at 11:43:26 AM EST
    Obama wanted to give massive tax cuts to the rich.

    Do you really believe that that was his goal all along?

    Parent

    But he DID (5.00 / 1) (#65)
    by PatHat on Fri Apr 08, 2011 at 12:28:18 PM EST
    That is the point. The President did not ask his party leaders to push thru tax cuts for just the middle class. And when the Dems in Congress caved, Obama didn't veto the legislation.

    The Bush tax cuts were extended with President Obama's signature.

    Parent

    We can go by what he actually did (5.00 / 2) (#84)
    by MO Blue on Fri Apr 08, 2011 at 01:18:26 PM EST
    When Schumer put the Republicans on the spot by suggesting that tax cuts be eliminated for millionaires and billionaires, Obama shut him down and directly negotiated the Obama tax cuts with the Republicans. The Obama tax cuts gave even more generous tax cuts to the rich than Bush's tax cuts.

    Pretty hard to argue that he did not support the cuts that he personally negotiated and pushed through Congress.  

    Parent

    Unfortunately, some people are still touting (5.00 / 1) (#176)
    by shoephone on Fri Apr 08, 2011 at 05:04:11 PM EST
    the "WORM" b.s. "Poor Obama. He didn't want to do it but he had to, because of those mean conseratives in the Congress."

    Words mean little -- actions mean everything. Some of us understand that. Some of us don't.

    Parent

    well (none / 0) (#57)
    by Left of the Left on Fri Apr 08, 2011 at 12:17:37 PM EST
    raising them definitely wasnt a priority

    Parent
    Case in point (5.00 / 1) (#74)
    by Big Tent Democrat on Fri Apr 08, 2011 at 12:51:50 PM EST
    Donald, don't groan (5.00 / 1) (#184)
    by Zorba on Fri Apr 08, 2011 at 05:23:18 PM EST
    about supporting John Edwards.  I supported Dennis Kucinich, who never had a snowball's chance in Hades of getting the nomination.  I did vote for Obama in the general (given the alternative).  But I always wondered about him.  I grew up in St. Louis and Southern Illinois, with relatives in Chicago (which was like my second home).  The fact that Obama rose so fast, first in Chicago politics, then in Illinois politics, then in national politics, always made me nervous.  How did he do this, with a very slim résumé?  Yes, he's a great orator (as long as he has a prepared speech- he's not so great at off-the-cuff rhetoric), but what exactly are his core values?  I don't think that he is engaged in any kind of moral struggle- I think that his actions speak much louder than his words.  (And, speaking of words, he did express admiration for Ronald Reagan.  I think that should tell us something.)

    Parent
    That tells me ... (5.00 / 1) (#205)
    by sj on Fri Apr 08, 2011 at 07:13:32 PM EST
    ... that you have the capacity to learn from new input.

    And I can't fault you for supporting John Edwards initially because... so did I.  We were doomed to be disappointed.

    But his "Two Americas" theme resonated.  He was the only one even talking about poverty.

    And btw I've also expressed admiration for Reagan.  His words on the event of the Challenger explosion were deeply moving to me.

    Parent

    Well, I've been a (none / 0) (#202)
    by Zorba on Fri Apr 08, 2011 at 07:02:30 PM EST
    liberal ever since I could vote (and, really, before).  I supported Bobby Kennedy, George McGovern....you get the idea.  It appears that you learned from Reagan's mistakes.  Apparently, Obama never did.  More's the pity.

    Parent
    Would someone explain to me..... (none / 0) (#23)
    by samsguy18 on Fri Apr 08, 2011 at 10:38:42 AM EST
    Why Obama is threatening to veto a bill passed by the GOP which secures the paychecks of our military to the end of the year. Apparently his reasoning is "It's a distraction " !

    Because it only funds everything else (none / 0) (#28)
    by ruffian on Fri Apr 08, 2011 at 10:50:05 AM EST
    for one week. It is a distraction from getting the real bill passed. There is no doubt the final bill will fund the military for the year. The bill you are talking about is just gamesmanship.

    Can't we just get this done?

    Parent

    Thank You Ruffian (none / 0) (#37)
    by samsguy18 on Fri Apr 08, 2011 at 11:15:16 AM EST
    T was hoping there was a good reason.......Our military families already have a hard time living with this economy......while both sides play their political games they may be hurting vulnerable americans. Disgusting !

    Parent
    Moreover, the House Dems (5.00 / 0) (#67)
    by MKS on Fri Apr 08, 2011 at 12:29:02 PM EST
    offered a clean amendment that funded the troops.  The Republicans voted against it.

    The Republican version had nasty stuff attached to it like huge cuts in spending and social issue riders on abortion.

    Parent

    yup. iirc, this is the 3rd time. (none / 0) (#69)
    by nycstray on Fri Apr 08, 2011 at 12:36:03 PM EST
    Third time? (none / 0) (#71)
    by MKS on Fri Apr 08, 2011 at 12:43:35 PM EST
    Oy.  And the press says nothing?

    Parent
    The "press" (5.00 / 1) (#141)
    by Zorba on Fri Apr 08, 2011 at 03:39:48 PM EST
    in the form of the mainstream media, is useless.  We all know that.

    Parent
    Why can't Obama just (none / 0) (#66)
    by jimakaPPJ on Fri Apr 08, 2011 at 12:28:37 PM EST
    take care of the military and worry about the other stuff later?

    Parent
    The House Dems offered just (5.00 / 0) (#68)
    by MKS on Fri Apr 08, 2011 at 12:29:56 PM EST
    such an amendment.

    Your team voted against it.

    Who is playing games with the troops?

    Parent

    I would say the people who (1.00 / 1) (#75)
    by jimakaPPJ on Fri Apr 08, 2011 at 12:51:53 PM EST
    want Planned Parenthood paid and the troops to do without.

    Parent
    Don't know anyone like that (5.00 / 2) (#77)
    by MKS on Fri Apr 08, 2011 at 12:55:44 PM EST
    Not the Dems....They offered a clean bill to fund the troops.

    Not the Republicans--they won't fund Planned Parenthood, and will sacrifice the troops on this issue, or so they say....

    Why is it that the Dems must cave on every point to fund the troops.....but you do not hold the Republicans responsible for holding the troops hostage to their social agenda?

    Parent

    I can't find any reference on the clean bill (none / 0) (#80)
    by jimakaPPJ on Fri Apr 08, 2011 at 01:11:02 PM EST
    got a link?

    Parent
    Would it matter? (5.00 / 0) (#90)
    by MKS on Fri Apr 08, 2011 at 01:40:03 PM EST
    Otherwise, google is your friend.

    Parent
    I don't do ThinkProgress. You do Limbaugh?? (none / 0) (#96)
    by jimakaPPJ on Fri Apr 08, 2011 at 02:00:43 PM EST
    ;-)

    Parent
    The difference being (5.00 / 0) (#102)
    by MKS on Fri Apr 08, 2011 at 02:11:42 PM EST
    that one is sourced and one is well....just hot air?

    And you finally admit you are a dittohead....

    Parent

    No, I didn't say that (none / 0) (#138)
    by jimakaPPJ on Fri Apr 08, 2011 at 03:37:17 PM EST
    Or do you think watching Larry King made me a "Listenerhead?"

    Besides, I have long said I listen to The Big Guy if I'm in my car and he's own.

    And.... are you ready for this???? I even read KOS from time to time.....

    ;-)

    Parent

    "The Big Guy" (5.00 / 0) (#163)
    by MKS on Fri Apr 08, 2011 at 04:37:34 PM EST
    Lord love a duck....

    Please excuse me while I hurl......

    Parent

    To be fair (none / 0) (#172)
    by Yman on Fri Apr 08, 2011 at 04:55:24 PM EST
    They don't come much bigger ...

    Parent
    ;-) ROFLOL (none / 0) (#188)
    by jimakaPPJ on Fri Apr 08, 2011 at 05:52:19 PM EST
    That would be "Callerhead" ;-) (none / 0) (#140)
    by jimakaPPJ on Fri Apr 08, 2011 at 03:37:51 PM EST
    Okay, since (5.00 / 0) (#91)
    by MKS on Fri Apr 08, 2011 at 01:48:49 PM EST
    Fox probably didn't feature this, here ya go

    There's only one problem with this talking point -- it's the opposite of true. Today, the House Democrats tried three times to pass a measure that would ensure the troops received pay. The Republicans overwhelmingly opposed every single "troop-funding" opportunity:

    • Rep. Bill Owens (D-NY) offered a motion to recommit that would ensure all military personnel received pay for the rest of the year. Only one Republican, Rep. Walter Jones (NC), voted with every Democrat to consider this amendment.

    • House Minority Whip Steny Hoyer (D-MD), first by unanimous consent and then by amendment, offered an alternative budget measure that would provide a 1-week extension of the current budget agreement until April 15. The "clean" continuing resolution alternative includes funding for the military but omits the irrelevant policy riders the GOP attached to H.R. 1363. Republicans unanimously voted against consideration of the alternative.

    What's more, the Obama administration announced today that it "would support a short-term, clean Continuing Resolution" like the alternative Democrats offered. Thus, by voting against these measures, House Republicans are flatly refusing to support any "troop funding bill" unless their anti-abortion and anti-environmental riders get passed. Incidentally, Republicans have ensured that, unlike the troops, Members of Congress will still get paid. Last Friday, the House voted on a measure to stop their paychecks should the government shut down. Rep. Louie Gohmert (R-TX) was the only Republican to vote in favor.
     


    Parent
    Heh (none / 0) (#99)
    by jimakaPPJ on Fri Apr 08, 2011 at 02:06:37 PM EST
    Making appropriations for the Department of Defense for the fiscal year ending September 30, 2011, and for other purposes

    Wonder what those other purposes were.....

    Either way, the Repubs mousetrapped the Demos into saying that had rather fund Planned Parenthood than the military.

    That's what elections do. That's what taking the House did.

    Parent

    It is just a game to you guys (none / 0) (#104)
    by MKS on Fri Apr 08, 2011 at 02:13:45 PM EST
    And if you "play" it right, you can destroy the government you so hate....

    Parent
    wrong (none / 0) (#106)
    by nycstray on Fri Apr 08, 2011 at 02:16:04 PM EST
    the narrative is no longer PP vs the Military, it's now "The R's want to throw womens' health services under the bus".

    Parent
    I think that is right (5.00 / 1) (#113)
    by MKS on Fri Apr 08, 2011 at 02:26:11 PM EST
    Sen Tom Coburn says give up the Planned Parenthood rider....Ask the women GOP Senators....

    One possible ray of hope here, is if--and it is a big if--the GOP is backed off its riders, the Dems will have learned their lesson.  It is a lesson that will cost about 40 billion and hurt many.  But if the lesson is learned, then the Dems can do better next round on the 2012 budget and Ryan's Hope to hurt the poor and enrich the rich.

    The lesson:  The only way to stop a bully is to stand up to him.  Until you do, they will continue to punch you in the nose.  The GOP are made up of doctrinaire fanatics.....Remember, these people descended from those who wanted JFK to nuke Cuba.....

    Parent

    "The only way (5.00 / 3) (#148)
    by Zorba on Fri Apr 08, 2011 at 03:45:58 PM EST
    to stop a bully is to stand up to him."  Exactly.  At least some of the Democratic women are talking the talk (Gillebrand, Murray, Boxer, Feinstein, Mikulski).  Let's hope they will walk the walk, as well.  But their words were certainly music to my ears.  Link.

    Parent
    Dear lord! (1.00 / 0) (#112)
    by star on Fri Apr 08, 2011 at 02:22:26 PM EST
    You need to hear the hyperbole coming out of people in both parties!!! it is disgusting. To keep ones own sanity,need to stay away from cable and radio for the next few days!

    now shut down will 'Kill women', comparable to 'dropping bombs on civilians' ,linking all kinds of lollipop on to a bill to fund military - I am fed up of these incompetent fools. they need to be booted out of congress and sent to Broadway or something!  

    Parent

    Women would die if Planned Parenthood (5.00 / 2) (#114)
    by MKS on Fri Apr 08, 2011 at 02:27:56 PM EST
    is defunded.

    Read up on it.  Planned Parenthood provides cancer screenings.  A lot of them.  The only place many poor women can get them.

    Parent

    again & again & again (5.00 / 1) (#124)
    by NYShooter on Fri Apr 08, 2011 at 03:01:22 PM EST
    I happen to be home today, flipping between the channels and catching the "take" on the "news" shows.

    It is so bad thru out that the only question is, are they purposely misrepresenting the facts, or do they really not know what the facts are?

    Anybody that's not a news junkie would come away believing that the Democrats insist on funding abortion with this spending bill, and that the republicans refuse to go along. Maybe one in ten "journalists" (script readers) mumbles something about the money going to PP doesn't directly go for abortions but to services that lead up to abortion.

    "Two sides to every story" was a bad enough cop-out for not doing their jobs. Now, in the interest of "trying to make some sense out of all this, dear viewer" they distort it even more.

    just reprehensible.

    Parent

    Not just PP would be effected (5.00 / 1) (#164)
    by nycstray on Fri Apr 08, 2011 at 04:39:17 PM EST
    all women's health services that receive funding would, and PP is just 25% of it . . . 75% of the money goes elsewhere for women's health care.

    Parent
    Yes, very good point! (none / 0) (#181)
    by MKS on Fri Apr 08, 2011 at 05:14:28 PM EST
    Just figured that out.

    TPM has a very good video clip of women Dems in the Senate setting the record straight.

    Parent

    Planned Parenthood is not just for women (5.00 / 1) (#180)
    by shoephone on Fri Apr 08, 2011 at 05:13:16 PM EST
    Maybe someone ought to tell that to the people in Congress. PP serves both women and men for birth control (family planning) and STD testing (which can identify the need for medications, or later cancer screenings); women get check-ups, pap smears (cancer screening), mammographies (more cancer screnning), and pregnancy tests.

    It feels like we're back in the 1980's, continually having to deal with the nutcase Randall Terrys and their advocates in the Congress.

     

    Parent

    Oh please (1.50 / 2) (#137)
    by jimakaPPJ on Fri Apr 08, 2011 at 03:33:56 PM EST
    If that is the reason you want Planned Parenthood working let them start a new separate organization funded by donations.

    Oprah could donate a few million... Michael Moore a few.... etc..

    Parent

    So only Oprah and Michael Moore (5.00 / 1) (#144)
    by MKS on Fri Apr 08, 2011 at 03:41:03 PM EST
    should care about women's health--because only liberals or Democrats worry about such things?

    Parent
    Still true (5.00 / 1) (#156)
    by MKS on Fri Apr 08, 2011 at 04:10:13 PM EST
    You may not like it, but Planned Parenthood saves lives, and prevents abortions by providing contraception.

    Say all you like, if Planned Parenthood is defunded, a lot of women will not get cancer screenings and will suffer greatly.

    Parent

    You are really out of your league (none / 0) (#183)
    by shoephone on Fri Apr 08, 2011 at 05:23:00 PM EST
    on this one, Jim.

    Parent
    Nope (none / 0) (#134)
    by jimakaPPJ on Fri Apr 08, 2011 at 03:31:33 PM EST
    The Democrats could pass the budget and bring Planned Parenthood funding up next week.

    It's plain that Planned Parenthood is a Demo pet and they had rather be sure it has funds than the government be working.

    Parent

    chatter seems to be what you are (none / 0) (#147)
    by nycstray on Fri Apr 08, 2011 at 03:44:24 PM EST
    reduced to at this point . . . .

    Parent
    Not so sure (none / 0) (#158)
    by MKS on Fri Apr 08, 2011 at 04:11:19 PM EST
    I would quibble with any implication it was anything but chatter to begin with.

    Parent
    You know what's even funnier? (none / 0) (#123)
    by Yman on Fri Apr 08, 2011 at 02:55:47 PM EST
    The Repubs won't even bring a vote on their own clean bills to fund the military (HR 1297).  It's even too much for some Repubs:

    At least one GOP freshman congressman thinks that's the case. Rep. Allen West of Florida called his own party out on Thursday for toying with military salaries. "The House majority has now placed the funding for the Department of Defense and the funding for the troops down as a bargaining chip," he said Wednesday. "I am disgusted at the perception that the leaders in my own party who did not move a defense bill earlier...are now using the men and women in uniform.


    Parent
    Stopped clocks (none / 0) (#79)
    by MKS on Fri Apr 08, 2011 at 01:07:35 PM EST
    Wacko, right-wing Allen West says the GOP should stop using the military as pawns:

    "The House Majority has now placed the funding for the Department of Defense and the funding for the troops down as a bargaining chip," West said. "In the last 100 days, the House Majority could have passed at any point in time a separate stand alone Appropriations for the Department of Defense and the funding for our men and women in uniform."


    Parent
    In the past 100 days???? (none / 0) (#82)
    by jimakaPPJ on Fri Apr 08, 2011 at 01:12:31 PM EST
    Heck, in the past year the Democrats could have passed a budget.

    They didn't.

    Now, who's to blame?????

    Parent

    Impressive recitation of standard GOP (5.00 / 0) (#86)
    by MKS on Fri Apr 08, 2011 at 01:34:31 PM EST
    talking points.

    I don't how many GOP talking heads have changed the subject to Dems failure to pass a budget last year, when they have no direct answer to CURRENT GOP unreasonableness.....

    The "Dems-didn't-pass-a-budget" response is becoming a de facto admission that the Republicans have no answer to the actual question being posed.  Just pull a Michele Bachmann and rotely recite the canned spiel in response to every question.  Just ignore the question.....

    Right now, the Dems will pass a clean bill to fund the troops and the GOP will not--because of their social agenda.

    Parent

    Uh, there would be no questions (none / 0) (#94)
    by jimakaPPJ on Fri Apr 08, 2011 at 01:58:17 PM EST
    had the Democrats done their job.

    Come on folks, the Demos screwed up in the hopes that they could recreate 1995. That's not working out the same. Cable news, Internet, talk radio, blogs...

    As to questions.... see Ryan's 2012 budget.

    Parent

    Another GOP talking point (5.00 / 0) (#107)
    by MKS on Fri Apr 08, 2011 at 02:16:55 PM EST
    This is Hewitt's hobby horse.....

    Gawd, you are like a talkomatic.....

     

    Parent

    Ryan hasn't proposed a 2012 (none / 0) (#142)
    by jimakaPPJ on Fri Apr 08, 2011 at 03:39:53 PM EST
    budget????

    Gosh. And there I had started trusting CBS.

    Parent

    No, I was referring to the quirky idea (none / 0) (#146)
    by MKS on Fri Apr 08, 2011 at 03:44:12 PM EST
    that things are different now--the internet, social media, etc--so that the Republicans won't get blamed for a shutdown.

    Far rgiht wacko Hugh Hewitt has been repeatedly saying that for weeks....

    Parent

    How do you think the Democrats (none / 0) (#187)
    by jimakaPPJ on Fri Apr 08, 2011 at 05:50:51 PM EST
    got beat so soundly last November??

    Parent
    10% unemployment (5.00 / 1) (#189)
    by MKS on Fri Apr 08, 2011 at 06:02:51 PM EST
    That is the entire explanation.

    Not because of a desire to cut spending.  Not because of a desire to enact GOP policy.  Certainly not because of a desire to eliminate Plannned Parenthood.

    Parent

    The bill passed by the House this week (none / 0) (#98)
    by BTAL on Fri Apr 08, 2011 at 02:05:59 PM EST
    that extended the CR for 1 week AND funded the DOD for the remainder of this FY did not include any Planned Parenthood riders.  It did include $12B in spending cuts.  It was as clean as anything that supposedly has been offered by the Dems.

    The PP riders are part of the negotiations regarding a CR that funds ALL the govt for the remainder of FY-2011.

    See my post below regarding the Dem's not passing anything for FY-2011, including the basic Budget Resolution.  Pelosi specifically chose not to prior to the Nov. elections.

    Parent

    Not exactly (5.00 / 2) (#105)
    by MKS on Fri Apr 08, 2011 at 02:15:33 PM EST
    It did not include the Planned Parenthood riders, true.

    It did, however, include a rider that would prevent D.C. from using non-federal funds for abortion.

    This has never been about deficits....It is about social issues and destroying government....

    Parent

    You might want to review the history (none / 0) (#115)
    by BTAL on Fri Apr 08, 2011 at 02:28:20 PM EST
    of that specific rider issue & and riders attached to spending bills in general.

    The overwhelming majority of Senate Democrats have voted for spending bills carrying a ban on subsidizing abortion in the District of Columbia that is also now included in a stopgap bill the House passed on Thursday. Forty-nine current Democratic senators have voted for spending bills with that provision in them. The language didn't prevent Obama from voting for appropriations when he was in the Senate, nor did it stop him from signing at least one bill into law.

    Politico: Democrats embraced policy riders in past

    Parent

    Doesn't matter (5.00 / 1) (#116)
    by MKS on Fri Apr 08, 2011 at 02:30:41 PM EST
    It has never become law.

    GOP radicals want to make it law by holding the troops hostage.

    I repeat: This is not about deficits.  It is about destroying govenrment--drowning it in Grover Norquist bathtub--and social issues.....

    Parent

    The fanatics have got to be stopped (5.00 / 2) (#117)
    by MKS on Fri Apr 08, 2011 at 02:35:03 PM EST
    somewhere....

    Better here than the destruction of Medicare and Social Security.....

    Parent

    Why is the military more important than (none / 0) (#145)
    by Militarytracy on Fri Apr 08, 2011 at 03:42:43 PM EST
    anyone else?  I thought we were all in this together.  I thought we were a democracy....not a banana republic.

    Parent
    Republicans typically care more (none / 0) (#150)
    by MKS on Fri Apr 08, 2011 at 03:54:49 PM EST
    funding military projects than military pay....

    Dems have always been good about increasing pay....

    Why would Republicans care so much about military weapons systems?  Who benefits?  Who gets the money?

    Parent

    It's a distraction :) (none / 0) (#136)
    by Militarytracy on Fri Apr 08, 2011 at 03:33:52 PM EST
    What really angers me... (none / 0) (#39)
    by Pragmatist on Fri Apr 08, 2011 at 11:17:37 AM EST
    is that we're still arguing over the 2010 budget when the Dems controlled both the House & Senate in Sep/Oct 2010.  Why didn't they do their "F"ing jobs then and pass the budget.

    They should all be 'tarred & feathered' for allowing this country to have this type of avoidable (synthetically generated) "crisis".

    I can't wait for the 2011 budget fight.  Like him or not/agree with him or not at least Paul Ryan had the intestional fortitude to propose something.  I'm still waiting for Polesi/Reed to stop whinning & throwing stones and propose something substanitive...

    Not holding my breath waiting on Washington...

    Fact (5.00 / 1) (#53)
    by star on Fri Apr 08, 2011 at 11:55:50 AM EST
    This is a fact not talked about at all in the media. it is not a convenient talking point.

    08 elections had pretty much made Republicans irrelevant.Dems did nothing with that mandate from the public. Around Sep/Oct 2010 or even before, it looked very likely that 08 elections could slant in Republican favor. Yet Dem congress did NOTHING to present a budget or have a vote.
    In Nov they got their A$$ handed to them in house and narrowly kept senate. Then there was 3 months of lame duck session till Jan 2011. Not a finger was lifted to pass a budget then.
    Now at the nth minute, things have come to such a pass and all the blame is put at the door of Republicans (who in all honesty is acting exactly as they promised their electorate during elections). They WERE IRRELEVANT until 3 months back. C'mon folks have some intellectual honesty here..People all over are seeing this as such as well. '
    The environment now is not the same as 1995 and BHoener is not Newt Gingrich. Nor is Obama, Bill Clinton to pull a shut down off. This whole fiasco is political theater and NO ONE cares about people. All these bums need to be thrown OUT.

    Parent

    The Repubs were not irrelevant on fiscal issues (none / 0) (#126)
    by ruffian on Fri Apr 08, 2011 at 03:05:15 PM EST
    given the existence of the Blue Dog Dems that side with them. That's just a fact. You act like the Dems are a monolithic lock step group like the Republicans.

    Parent
    You mean like this one (5.00 / 1) (#76)
    by ruffian on Fri Apr 08, 2011 at 12:52:52 PM EST
    that was passed by the House and de facto filibustered by the Republicans in the Senate? They knew they would have a majority in the House this year, and more members in the Senate. To say that no one tried to get this done last year is just wrong.

    Parent
    Sorry but that is not the fact of the matter (none / 0) (#97)
    by BTAL on Fri Apr 08, 2011 at 02:01:51 PM EST
    The bill described in the linked MSNBC article was a lame duck session "catch-all" mess that was effectively a mother of all CRs.  It doesn't take but 2-3 seconds to find that the Dem controlled 111th Congress specifically did not pass a single appropriation bill nor for that matter did it pass the annual Budget Resolution for FY-2011.  

    Parent
    Whether it had been last year or now (none / 0) (#125)
    by ruffian on Fri Apr 08, 2011 at 03:03:09 PM EST
    it would have been the same dispute. Someone would have held out for something. Last year the focus would have been on the Senate filibustering rather than the House tea party caucus.

    If it had been as easy as the Dems just passing a budget of course it would have been done. I just think 'Dems could have done it last year' is lame talking point. No, they couldn't.

    Parent

    This entire situation would be non-exisitant (none / 0) (#153)
    by BTAL on Fri Apr 08, 2011 at 04:02:49 PM EST
    had the 111th house leadership done their job.  As for the Senate, they created a budget plan in committee but the leadership would not bring it to the floor.  The gamble was they didn't think they would lose the House (or not to the extent that occurred).  Elections have consequences.

    Here's one of the best descriptions of what transpired.  From a traditionally liberal source.

    If you can't budget, you can't govern

    Playing what if with history is revisionism.

    Parent

    Irrelevant--the issue is (5.00 / 0) (#154)
    by MKS on Fri Apr 08, 2011 at 04:07:10 PM EST
    what is happening now....

    You keep changing the subject.

    Will Republicans shut down the government over Planned Parenthood?  That is the issue on the table.

    Parent

    DEBRA SAUNDERS !!!! (5.00 / 1) (#161)
    by Yman on Fri Apr 08, 2011 at 04:13:00 PM EST
    A "traditionally liberal voice"?!?!?

    Hahahahahahahahah ....

    Parent

    ad hominem much or was that just a (none / 0) (#177)
    by BTAL on Fri Apr 08, 2011 at 05:06:03 PM EST
    deflection tactic?

    Based on your normal style of posting, would have expected something better from you.

    C'est la vie.

    Parent

    Okay, without the fanfare (none / 0) (#192)
    by MKS on Fri Apr 08, 2011 at 06:17:52 PM EST
    Debra Saunders is not a liberal. Not even close.   She takes the conservative view almost all of the time.  

    Perhaps you mistook her for a liberal since she writes for a San Francisco paper. This is not all that surprising in that conseratives really have a dislike of San Francisco, particularly those conservatvies who dislike equal rights for gays and lesbians....

    Parent

    Almost MKS (none / 0) (#194)
    by BTAL on Fri Apr 08, 2011 at 06:24:31 PM EST
    • Many here label several other outlets like WSJ and WaPo as "right" newspapers regardless of the writer, it works both ways.

    • I personally enjoy visiting SF, many wonderful aspects to that city.  However, nobody who breaths oxygen could categorize it as even a moderate city politically or socially.


    Parent
    More SF hate (none / 0) (#200)
    by MKS on Fri Apr 08, 2011 at 06:52:05 PM EST
    It is a very moderate city, socially.  Very gentle city.

    You can be whatever you want to be.  It has more Catholic churches than almost any other city.  Every other block is another Catholic Cathedral.

    You can be evangelical.

    And, yes, you can be gay (gasp! horrors!)

    It is my favorite city--although Honolulu is right there too.

    Parent

    A critique of Obama (none / 0) (#58)
    by lilburro on Fri Apr 08, 2011 at 12:18:38 PM EST
    on the budget by someone who is a bit more mainstream, Ezra Klein:

    And the less said about the State of the Union and the subsequent budget, the better. "Winning the future" has come at the expense of a plan for the present. Obama's budget doesn't include investments of the size needed to change the trajectory of our economy, and it also waves the white flag on doing more for the unemployed -- and the economy in general -- right now. The best you can say about the budget is that it's smart defense -- but given the criticism it received upon its introduction and the fact that we don't know where the final compromise will fall between the Obama administration's tepid opening bid and Rep. Paul Ryan's radical counterproposal, it's not even clear that it'll succeed at that.

    Etc.

    Do you think (none / 0) (#63)
    by jbindc on Fri Apr 08, 2011 at 12:26:12 PM EST
    That's where Charlie Sheen got his "Winning!" from?

    Parent
    I posted this in the open thread but figured (none / 0) (#155)
    by Militarytracy on Fri Apr 08, 2011 at 04:07:35 PM EST
    I'd put it up here too since it pertains to being less spineless than I'm used to if it is indeed true.

    Just checked my at home phone messages because I was gone today.  There are lots of them.  Some people wanted to know what I know but I know nuthin.  Sounds like some deal has been struck concerning military pay and is unannounced at this time, but you can look up your upcoming military LES online at myPay and they are all showing Half Wages :)
    Perhaps this is some sort of compromise :)  I cannot check our LES because I don't know the password.  We don't really go to the myPay site for anything.  We don't live from one LES to the next.  But if Obama has settled on paying half wages to active duty soldiers that is fricken funny as hell.  If he has chosen to do this, I am so proud of him I could spit.  He didn't roll over, and you can't say he's completely screwing all the military families now.  You can't throw their families out and into the gutter, and we all have enough money for food and essentials :)  If it's true....that's fricken genius and you still have stateside soldiers doing the work of four people and still just as pissed at the Republicans :)  I don't know if this is true though, and my husband has been in meetings all day about the shut down.  As soon as I know something solid without disturbing him I'll put it up.

    I think it's 1/2 pay because (none / 0) (#162)
    by nycstray on Fri Apr 08, 2011 at 04:34:24 PM EST
    the shut down would occur mid pay period. they would get payed through today but not for next week and going forward.

    Parent
    I just got a hold of him (none / 0) (#169)
    by Militarytracy on Fri Apr 08, 2011 at 04:52:54 PM EST
    You are correct :)  So on the 15th everyone active duty will get 1/2 pay.  I wish it was something different though.  He is exhausted thoug he says.  People are flipping the feck out on post right now he said.

    Parent
    My husband said too though (none / 0) (#170)
    by Militarytracy on Fri Apr 08, 2011 at 04:54:51 PM EST
    that the government should have to pay interest on late paying.

    Parent
    Yeah (none / 0) (#175)
    by Ga6thDem on Fri Apr 08, 2011 at 04:59:03 PM EST
    but neither the gov. or any businesses every pay interest to the "little people".

    Parent
    Nope. They should get (none / 0) (#178)
    by nycstray on Fri Apr 08, 2011 at 05:06:33 PM EST
    a straight up bonus across the board.

    Parent
    Let's shift those Wall Street (none / 0) (#193)
    by MKS on Fri Apr 08, 2011 at 06:19:25 PM EST
    bonuses over to them, and a few others.....

    Parent
    Hey sweetie (none / 0) (#197)
    by Militarytracy on Fri Apr 08, 2011 at 06:33:48 PM EST
    I'm good with that.  Is there something else I can do for you?  :)  I crack myself up

    Parent
    obama makes another deal (none / 0) (#208)
    by kmblue on Fri Apr 08, 2011 at 11:23:39 PM EST
    anyone awake?  We are screwed.