Grover Norquist Is Smiling

And why shouldn't he be? He has won. Since December, he has been on a roll.

In December, after The Deal, I wrote "[a]t this point, Barack Obama's legacy will be the enabling of the GOP's Norquist strategy to demolish the social safety net. The Deal is the first step."

Yesterday was the second step. I wrote in December that Part 2 of The Deal is spending cuts.

Part 3 will be an attempt to undo the New Deal.

Speaking for me only

< Who Won? | New Bernie Madoff Interview: Predicts Victims Will Come Out Ahead >
  • The Online Magazine with Liberal coverage of crime-related political and injustice news

  • Contribute To TalkLeft

  • Display: Sort:
    Well (5.00 / 1) (#1)
    by Ga6thDem on Sat Apr 09, 2011 at 10:44:45 AM EST
    Obama is not a fan of the New Deal anyway so it should be easy for him.

    God help us all! (5.00 / 1) (#2)
    by Militarytracy on Sat Apr 09, 2011 at 10:47:31 AM EST
    "Experience is over rated" (5.00 / 2) (#6)
    by NYShooter on Sat Apr 09, 2011 at 11:19:51 AM EST
    When you think of the tornado of public support and the overwhelming cache of political weapons Obama was handed in '08, and how quickly the Republican machine sliced, diced, and flailed the newcomer I'm reminded of my first visit to Gashos Japanese restaurant.

    He never really believed what the right is (5.00 / 3) (#9)
    by ruffian on Sat Apr 09, 2011 at 11:29:11 AM EST
    capable of. Just thought all the nastiness was directed at the Clintons and would evaporate with his new civility. Now he can spend half his debate time proving he is even a US citizen.

    Yes (5.00 / 2) (#10)
    by Ga6thDem on Sat Apr 09, 2011 at 11:34:44 AM EST
    i'm sure he still believes in his own "awesomeness". I guess he doesn't have to worry about impeachment because he's giving the GOP everything they want.

    I don't know (5.00 / 1) (#57)
    by cal1942 on Sat Apr 09, 2011 at 03:05:29 PM EST
    Ga6th.  I think they'd impeach just for the hell of it.

    All that and more. (5.00 / 2) (#55)
    by hairspray on Sat Apr 09, 2011 at 02:40:19 PM EST
    I often wondered why he wanted to be president.Whenever anyone posed that question, they got sliced and diced.

    yes indeed Ruffian (5.00 / 2) (#109)
    by DFLer on Sun Apr 10, 2011 at 09:25:29 AM EST
    and many of his supporters as well. I remember warning my nieces who were big O fans, explaining how I was so wary of the "let's go bipartisan" crap, warning them of how truly evil the enemy was....and that approach would never work...or would work to our detriment.

    Lack of experienceis Obama;s problem? (none / 0) (#11)
    by Big Tent Democrat on Sat Apr 09, 2011 at 11:36:14 AM EST
    Come on.

    One could argue that ... (5.00 / 2) (#19)
    by Robot Porter on Sat Apr 09, 2011 at 11:44:47 AM EST
    caving this completely takes years and years of practice.



    Heh (5.00 / 1) (#22)
    by Big Tent Democrat on Sat Apr 09, 2011 at 11:47:15 AM EST
    How would you explain (5.00 / 2) (#25)
    by NYShooter on Sat Apr 09, 2011 at 11:51:40 AM EST
     that, two years in, the man's fighting for his political life? Or was becoming a pariah with his own base part of his genius?

    Hi metric for success may be different (5.00 / 1) (#64)
    by inclusiveheart on Sat Apr 09, 2011 at 05:06:32 PM EST
    than what you assume it is.

    He may be perfectly happy to be a martyr to the cause - he may not care about the next election particularly - he may just be so driven by a fairly rightwing ideology that he is willing to sacrifice the White House.

    In any case, at the rate things are going right now, there won't be much government left for him to help the GOP with dismantling by 2012.




    Not cynical (none / 0) (#90)
    by gyrfalcon on Sat Apr 09, 2011 at 08:47:45 PM EST

    I'd gladly accept lack of experience if (5.00 / 6) (#28)
    by Anne on Sat Apr 09, 2011 at 11:52:25 AM EST
    it came with a rock-solid belief in Democratic principles, one of which is that there is great power in the government to do good for the people.

    Obama doesn't believe that, so the rest of it just doesn't matter.

    What worked for Obama was that, in the absence of an extensive resume that spoke to a belief in the power of government, he talked a good story, and people were so hungry for a better direction that they bought it.

    Some of us who looked beneath the surface glitz didn't buy in, obviously, but so what?  No one wanted to listen to us then, and no one has listened to us since.

    We're stuck, which is the worst part of all; where's the escape hatch?


    A firmer more consistent (5.00 / 2) (#41)
    by brodie on Sat Apr 09, 2011 at 12:37:36 PM EST
    belief in Dem principles might have set in with Obama but not because of more or different experience.  

    I think he was born a little too late to have been naturally inculcated with the positive aspects of the New Deal, and instead came of age as those programs, and the notion of the fed govt stepping up to take care of those less fortunate and provide a basic social safety net, began to be assaulted by the GOP propaganda machine with help from an increasingly corporatized and selfish MSM.

    Experience?  I think a key turning point for O was the way he successfully got elected to the HarvLawRev with promises to the conservative faction that they would be listened to and taken care of.  He governed that body accordingly, ending up with a positive evaluation overall for his leadership, and I believe he learned and overlearned thereafter from this one bipartisan experience.

    Experience -- more years in higher public office particularly -- would have been more important for the voter in 2008, as they were left to assess a newbie US senator only a couple of years on the national stage, whose idealistic rhetoric, personal profile and political contrast with Hillary on a few issues understandably fooled many thinking lib Dems into believing he was one of them.  Well, that and the tantalizing guilty white liberal notion of being able finally to enthusiastically vote for an exciting and acceptable black man to make history in the WH.

    We are stuck with someone who is the Demican and Republicrat that he is.  What we in the base can do is between now and the next major presidential decision on the budget, and from now until the election, is do a better job of reminding him that he needs to begin to stand up positively and aggressively for Dem values, and that he shouldn't take our electoral support for granted.


    agree w/almost everything here (5.00 / 1) (#42)
    by The Addams Family on Sat Apr 09, 2011 at 12:45:54 PM EST
    except the bolded words

    Experience -- more years in higher public office particularly -- would have been more important for the voter in 2008, as they were left to assess a newbie US senator only a couple of years on the national stage, whose idealistic rhetoric, personal profile and political contrast with Hillary on a few issues understandably fooled many thinking lib Dems into believing he was one of them.  Well, that and the tantalizing guilty white liberal notion of being able finally to enthusiastically vote for an exciting and acceptable black man to make history in the WH.

    too many were swooning, not thinking, & of the swooners, too many were "progressives," not liberals


    Right -- many otherwise (5.00 / 2) (#47)
    by brodie on Sat Apr 09, 2011 at 01:40:27 PM EST
    intelligent people on the left lost their heads for a while in 2008, either some mild form of temporary electoral insanity, or overheated CDS, or wanting only to see in Obama things they preferred to believe were really there despite the scanty and mixed record.

    Politalkix (1.00 / 1) (#101)
    by The Addams Family on Sat Apr 09, 2011 at 11:07:44 PM EST
    got a problem w/something?

    what's with the spate of troll ratings?


    He has (5.00 / 5) (#43)
    by Ga6thDem on Sat Apr 09, 2011 at 01:02:41 PM EST
    shown time and again that he doesn't care what the base wants. He in fact seems to despise the Dem base so I don't see "reminding" him as working.

    He "expects" you to show up because the "alternative is worse". Well, what if the GOP nominates someone who isn't that scary?


    Who would that me? (none / 0) (#61)
    by bison on Sat Apr 09, 2011 at 04:55:24 PM EST
    His Law Review stint was interesting (5.00 / 1) (#44)
    by NYShooter on Sat Apr 09, 2011 at 01:05:26 PM EST
    in that:

    A. He didn't campaign for it, was not under consideration, yet, when the frontrunners were deadlocked, saw his opportunity and offered himself up as the compromise candidate. And,

    B. In it's 165 year history, became the only President to have never written a Paper.

    Why was that? Did he figure that he had already won a big victory; quit while you're ahead? Was he that risk averse that writing a Paper for peer review only had a potential downside?


    I've always thought that he reminded (5.00 / 1) (#65)
    by inclusiveheart on Sat Apr 09, 2011 at 05:10:07 PM EST
    me of a lot of the fairly smart/intelligent slackers that I knew in the Seven Sisters/Ivy League circles.  Part B doesn't surprise me at all.  There were "golden boys" that I grew up with who never really had to do much to get by and rarely, if ever, did anything they didn't absolutely have to do.  But they were excellent at taking advantage and reaping rewards when they came to them - much of the time for no good reason.

    Glad to hear you say that (5.00 / 2) (#86)
    by NYShooter on Sat Apr 09, 2011 at 08:08:22 PM EST
    I've known many people that fit that description also. When I refer to them as lazy, my friends point out some instance where hard work was involved. But, on further scrutiny, the "hard work" was always in the interest of their latest "con-job."

    Sound familar?

    getting elected......hard work


    The B part is interesting, (none / 0) (#50)
    by brodie on Sat Apr 09, 2011 at 01:54:08 PM EST
    in that Obama was considered (later) by Harvard Prof Larry Tribe to have been his best student (Con Law) and also considering Obama in just a few years would publish a book, Dreams of My Father, widely praised for its literary elegance.  Legal and writing ability normally would add up to at least one signed paper, and often a good one.  

    But apparently the only thing he had published at HLR was as a 2d-year student, the usual unsigned case review type of piece that is usually more filler than important legal writing that someone might actually read.

    Interesting indeed that with his alleged legal and writing skills that he published nothing as review president.  And in so doing would want to make the sort of somewhat questionable history you cite.


    FWIW, I've never (none / 0) (#91)
    by gyrfalcon on Sat Apr 09, 2011 at 08:53:52 PM EST
    thought that was particularly significant.  If he thought that the most important thing was trying to help heal the very intense antagonisms that prevailed between left and right at Harvard Law during that time, he would have-- frankly, to his credit-- devoted himself to the job of editor, not writer/thinker.  Yes, how convenient. But still, from what I know of the conditions that prevailed in those days, a more than reasonable choice, even a noble one, actually.

    I am confused as to why you think (5.00 / 2) (#48)
    by MO Blue on Sat Apr 09, 2011 at 01:41:10 PM EST
    you will have any influence on Obama and why you think that Obama has any reason not to take your electoral support for granted.

    Aren't you willing to vote for Obama as the lesser of two evils regardless of his policies?

    Obama has big money to lose now and after he leaves office if he deviates from his current path of legislating for the benefit of Wall St. and the top 2%. He is not going to lose your vote if he continues and he knows it.


    Last week when he (5.00 / 1) (#51)
    by brodie on Sat Apr 09, 2011 at 02:05:07 PM EST
    officially announced I was commenting in another (rather brutal) context.  That was then.  Now, in the wake of this budget mess, and his unnecessarily defensive and too-generous 75% compromise solution, I'm in a mood to complain.

    Last week though I thought I made clear that it was still too early to have to make a decision, and that these close question decisions on voting are best left to the time, down the road, when we actually have to vote.  In the meantime, our side had best get better organized to push him closer to governing a little more across the board as a real Dem.  

    Maybe I've missed something, but to date that effort has consisted primarily of bellyaching about him on the lefty boards.  I think the lib base can do better, and will need to if he's going to be convinced to drop the bipartisan, big-business friendly Ike act and begin acting more like a Dem in the bold-strokes mold of a JFK or FDR.


    It is my opinion, that the only (5.00 / 5) (#53)
    by MO Blue on Sat Apr 09, 2011 at 02:24:31 PM EST
    leverage remaining is withholding our vote. All the bellyaching, all the organizing won't mean anything if people still plan to vote for Obama regardless of his policies. To date, no matter how strong the disagreement with the policy, the follow up is normally no matter how bad Obama and the Dems are they are better than a Republican and I plan to continue to vote a straight Democratic ticket.

    Yes, you have (5.00 / 1) (#82)
    by sj on Sat Apr 09, 2011 at 07:26:17 PM EST
    Maybe I've missed something, but to date that effort has consisted primarily of bellyaching about him on the lefty boards.  

    You've missed that many of us here railing on the lefty boards have spent years being boots on the ground for the Democratic party.  We've spent years supporting and working for local candidates that represent traditional Democratic ideals.  Since the Bush administration our efforts have been derailed by party leaders choosing to move to "the center" for it's own sake.  Not because "the center" had any ideals worth supporting.  

    In fairness there was a marked improvement in party support with the rise of Howard Dean as DNC chair.  But when Dean threw the party rules overboard... well, let's just say many of us saw that our loyalty was not returned.

    So it's not so much that we're doing nothing, it's that we've stopped enabling.  It feels strange to know that I will not be making a single call, or knocking on even one door.  And I will definitely be dropping not even one packet of voting materials on anyone's doorstep.  

    As soon as I find productive work to take its place I'll do it.

    But don't just sit there behind your computer and assume that our dismay is all intellectual and therefore not meaningful.  If you have the energy to take on your local party then go for it.  And if your local party doesn't go all "pragmatic" and "realistic" and "electable" on you then really go for it.  But mine did.  

    I'm just tired.  And I won't enable them anymore.


    And, to that end, (none / 0) (#52)
    by NYShooter on Sat Apr 09, 2011 at 02:21:01 PM EST
    I hope Wisconsin turns into that seminal moment which sparks the heretofore dormant "grass roots" into a blazing inferno coast to coast.

    Expecting/hoping "Top-Down" relief is the new definition of insanity.


    It does make me consider ... (5.00 / 2) (#54)
    by Robot Porter on Sat Apr 09, 2011 at 02:37:14 PM EST
    re-embracing the anarcho-syndicalist philosophy I favored as a youth.

    Oh, and one more thing (none / 0) (#83)
    by sj on Sat Apr 09, 2011 at 07:27:50 PM EST
    The only difference between last week and now is that last week we only expected another visit to the underside of a bus.  This week we are actually seeing the underside of the bus.

    I am getting very close to the (5.00 / 2) (#66)
    by inclusiveheart on Sat Apr 09, 2011 at 05:13:09 PM EST
    point where I might just have to let the GOP take over - and that is because I do not want the Democratic Party to carry their water and basically do the same things they want to do, but be better about finessing and selling the absolute bullshit that this Democratic Leadership has been selling.

    Theory (1.00 / 3) (#74)
    by AngryBlackGuy on Sat Apr 09, 2011 at 06:30:58 PM EST
    I now believe that much of what is being said here is correct. There is a strange racially tinged tone to some of the comments here but I'll let that slide and focus on the real point.

    I think that when Obama talked barrows ship he meant it. In a way that I did not imagine. Our nation standsat a real threshold. Partisanship has never, arguably been higher. It looks like he has decided that his job, elections be d.mned, is to serve as a facilitator to swinging the pendulum back towards a moral cordial political environment.

    I think in some ways it is admirable. We need to depower the extremes. But I must concede that this loss hurt. A lot.

    I have only asked his critics for objectivity and pragmatism so I must do the same. This isn't a good day.

    I hope he knows what he is doing.


    Your post expemplifies (5.00 / 1) (#77)
    by Ga6thDem on Sat Apr 09, 2011 at 06:56:29 PM EST
    what is wrong with Obama's thinking. You cannot deal with Nazis. You're advocating the Neville Chamberlain approach.

    We don't have the option (none / 0) (#116)
    by AngryBlackGuy on Sun Apr 10, 2011 at 06:20:43 PM EST
    Of destroying our enemy. They are half of us. The Neville analogies are not accurate.

    You can (5.00 / 1) (#131)
    by Ga6thDem on Mon Apr 11, 2011 at 06:25:45 AM EST
    destroy them in negotiations, you can destroy their ideology and prove how it is bankrupt as it is.

    You're advocating for more Neville Chamberlain.


    what the hell (5.00 / 6) (#87)
    by The Addams Family on Sat Apr 09, 2011 at 08:30:42 PM EST
    are you talking about?

    There is a strange racially tinged tone to some of the comments here but I'll let that slide and focus on the real point.

    i'm calling passive-aggressive BS on this - in other words i'm not "letting it slide" b/c i think this is your real point, slipped in sneaky-style

    man up & say what you mean


    AMEN (5.00 / 2) (#92)
    by gyrfalcon on Sat Apr 09, 2011 at 08:57:34 PM EST
    20 points for that comment.

    This is rich (5.00 / 2) (#100)
    by shoephone on Sat Apr 09, 2011 at 10:36:50 PM EST
    ABG, whose "anger" is directed at women who suported HRC, is (again) throwing around the racism charge.

    He believes we are P*mas and of course that (5.00 / 2) (#102)
    by nycstray on Sat Apr 09, 2011 at 11:11:29 PM EST
    goes hand in hand with being racist. Not the first time he's gone there . . . nor I suspect, the last.

    Is PUMA a dirty word on this blog?? (none / 0) (#108)
    by honora on Sun Apr 10, 2011 at 08:05:41 AM EST
    Race (1.00 / 1) (#117)
    by AngryBlackGuy on Sun Apr 10, 2011 at 06:27:16 PM EST
    No need to have a fit people. I was just referring to the Nobel prize thoughts in this post and some of the other references to the way he got into school and the law review leadership.

    bs (5.00 / 1) (#123)
    by The Addams Family on Sun Apr 10, 2011 at 08:19:48 PM EST
    first, my response to someone else's comment about the Nobel Prize was specifically about how Obama's being black was NOT the reason he got the Nobel Prize - my opinion is that he got it for not being George W. Bush

    second, you are not talking about "race" - you are making the suggestion that other commenters are racists but w/out having the b@lls to name names or back up your accusations - you are throwing your sh!t around & counting on nobody calling you out on it & hoping that for this reason some of your sh!t will stick to your vague targets - that is passive aggression in case you were wondering

    the comical thing about some people's kneejerk defense of Obama's Nobel Peace Prize is that Obama himself said he didn't deserve it - in fact he seemed embarrassed about it - he didn't have to be - the members of the Nobel Prize committee have very often revealed themselves to be a crew of sclerotic fools

    anyway, Obama did not deserve the Nobel Peace Prize at the time he received it, as he recognized - & he has since proved that he still doesn't deserve it


    Nice (5.00 / 3) (#96)
    by Yman on Sat Apr 09, 2011 at 09:59:28 PM EST
    There is a strange racially tinged tone to some of the comments here but I'll let that slide and focus on the real point.

    Accuse others of a using "racially tinged tones" and then letting it "slide".

    Why ... how magnanimous of you, ABG.

    (Pffftfttttttt ...)

    Guess it worked in 2008 ...


    Right (1.00 / 1) (#119)
    by AngryBlackGuy on Sun Apr 10, 2011 at 06:31:06 PM EST
    Because there was no racism in the pumas movement in 2008.

    You serious?


    Try to use logic for a change (5.00 / 1) (#121)
    by Yman on Sun Apr 10, 2011 at 08:06:34 PM EST
    My point was that you were leveling a false accusation of "racially tinged tones" ... just as false accusations of racism were often falsely leveled by Obama supporters in 2008.

    Worked back then, so why not keep using it, huh?

    ... just a shame that people here are too smart for that.


    All the accusations (none / 0) (#133)
    by AngryBlackGuy on Mon Apr 11, 2011 at 07:53:59 AM EST
    weren't false though, right?

    I don't remember anyone having a problem with legitimate criticism.


    Not sure about every single one, ... (5.00 / 1) (#134)
    by Yman on Mon Apr 11, 2011 at 09:41:01 AM EST
    ... but all of the one's I saw were false - and I heard a lot of them - the "darkened" youtube video, Bob Johnson's cocaine reference, BC's Jesse Jackson statement, the allegations of the Obama-in-African-garb photo (by Drudge, of all people), to all of the ridiculous accusations of racism re: the "3 A.M. ad" - just too many to list - and these are just a few of the more publicized accusations, omitting the most ridiculous and vile accusations that filled the boards of the pro-Obama blogosphere at DKos, Huffington Post, Josh Marshall, Booman, etc.

    BTW - Why would anyone have a problem with legitimate criticism?  The issue is with Obama supporters who imagined racist motives behind so many actions or statements of anyone who did not support Obama (or who now dare to criticize Obama), whether those perceptions were real or just a political ploy to help their candidate.


    Moral cordial environment (5.00 / 5) (#97)
    by MO Blue on Sat Apr 09, 2011 at 10:02:25 PM EST
    Will you please tell me what is moral or cordial about taking funds from programs that people need to survive - you know things like food and heat - so that Obama can further reduce the taxes on corporations and the rich.

    Will you please tell me what is so f@cking extreme about wanting this country to provide a minimum safety net for its citizens.

    BTW, I think you can take your accusations of racism and stick them were the sun don't shine.


    "Racially tinged tone?" (5.00 / 4) (#99)
    by Anne on Sat Apr 09, 2011 at 10:17:13 PM EST
    What the hell are we supposed to do with that, ABG?

    Obama's job is not to be a facilitator, but a leader; we don't need cordial, ABG, we need someone with core beliefs - and Obama is not that person.  

    If you think what has been said here is correct, and if Obama is the center, then you need to thorw in with the "extreme" that is the real left - the real Dems who hold to what the Democratic Party platform used to represent.

    What Obama is doing is not admirable, ABG; it is abominable.

    And you can take your passive-aggressive, racial overtones and shove them.


    Abominable (none / 0) (#118)
    by AngryBlackGuy on Sun Apr 10, 2011 at 06:28:10 PM EST
    Is a bit much.

    To make anything like that even remotely possible (none / 0) (#58)
    by cal1942 on Sat Apr 09, 2011 at 03:24:35 PM EST
    people who describe themselves as Democrats must respond disapproval with Obama's performance in polls.

    Even if that happens, any uptick among independents will reinforce his direction.  

    One thing I'd bet on is that the TOTAL turnout percentage will drop in 2012.  IMO, a consequence of destructive compromise will be ever lower voter turnout.


    You forgot the Nobel Peace Prize. (5.00 / 3) (#56)
    by hairspray on Sat Apr 09, 2011 at 02:46:19 PM EST
    That was such a bizarre twist but so characteristic of all that was him.  I wanted to scream, while praying it would get better.

    Nobel Peace Prize (1.00 / 0) (#60)
    by The Addams Family on Sat Apr 09, 2011 at 04:48:00 PM EST
    a French friend of mine (very leftist by French standards, lives in Paris) told me last week that Obama got the Nobel Peace Prize "because he's black"

    i said i didn't think so - said he got it for not being Bush

    the curious idea that Obama got the prize "because he's black" is easily dismissed imo - but i wonder if that is a widespread perception among French leftists & if so, what that says


    The common (5.00 / 1) (#70)
    by lentinel on Sat Apr 09, 2011 at 06:02:23 PM EST
    denominator is that no one can honestly believe that he was awarded the Prize because of anything he might have done for World Peace.

    I  think he got the prize because he wears very nice ties.


    more troll ratings from Politalkix (5.00 / 1) (#103)
    by The Addams Family on Sat Apr 09, 2011 at 11:12:22 PM EST
    so you think Obama deserved the Nobel Peace Prize?

    please explain


    Down rating simply for things they disagree with (none / 0) (#111)
    by Militarytracy on Sun Apr 10, 2011 at 11:48:32 AM EST
    If you objectively look (none / 0) (#112)
    by Politalkix on Sun Apr 10, 2011 at 12:19:16 PM EST
    at the list of Nobel Peace Prize Winners, you will find that him getting the prize is not inconsistent with the standards used by the Nobel Committee for previous winners. I expressed my opinion in this regard (in this blog) when the Prize was awarded.
    However, saying that he won the Prize because he is black is as idiotic as saying that Hillary Clinton's successes in life were helped by the fact that she is a woman.

    yes (5.00 / 2) (#114)
    by The Addams Family on Sun Apr 10, 2011 at 01:25:30 PM EST
    as i pointed out the comment you troll-rated, the notion that Obama got the Nobel Peace Prize "because he's black" is wrong

    but go ahead & shriek HILLARY! instead of saying why you think Obama deserved the Nobel Peace Prize

    & please forgive me if i don't spend my Sunday looking up the opinion you've already "expressed in this regard"


    He can't defend it (5.00 / 2) (#115)
    by Yman on Sun Apr 10, 2011 at 02:11:45 PM EST
    I had to look ... and it was sooooo worth it.

    All he can do is repeat his fallback defense of Obama ("He's better than some of the others that got it!").  What's particularly funny is when he cites the NPP criteria (which state that the prize shall be awarded for the most/best work done for peace during the past year (his emphasis)), then explains that Obama might be more successful (in the future) than others who have been awarded the NPP, but even if he isn't, it

    wouldn't be the first time that the NPP has taken into consideration intent, endeavors and aspirations instead of only successful outcomes.
    .  (I'd post a link but that's a no-no).

    See?  Obama deserved the NPP for all the great work he did for world peace while campaigning, but even if that wasn't the reason, he's not the first one to get a NPP for what he aspires to do in the future, even though the criteria specify it should be for work done during the past year.

    All the bases are covered.

    But it's seriously funny stuff ... maybe even funnier than the reporters gasping in shock when the announcement was made.


    I don't know (none / 0) (#120)
    by AngryBlackGuy on Sun Apr 10, 2011 at 06:32:31 PM EST
    If he deserved it or not. I am glad he won it though.

    Who mentioned Hillary?  Not me.


    That's right you didn't (5.00 / 1) (#125)
    by nycstray on Sun Apr 10, 2011 at 08:32:34 PM EST
    you just throw out racists accusations and drop the P word when you've got nuttin' else . . . . it's SO not dropping the H bomb  :)

    Uhhhhhmmmm, ... (none / 0) (#122)
    by Yman on Sun Apr 10, 2011 at 08:08:35 PM EST
    The Addams Family was responding to Politalkix who, as usual, did bring up Hillary.

    the comment was addressed (none / 0) (#124)
    by The Addams Family on Sun Apr 10, 2011 at 08:23:08 PM EST
    to Politalkix who dropped the H bomb

    That race matters. . . (1.00 / 0) (#63)
    by bison on Sat Apr 09, 2011 at 04:59:22 PM EST
    Don't you think it's (none / 0) (#14)
    by Ga6thDem on Sat Apr 09, 2011 at 11:38:56 AM EST
    at least PART of the problem? What if he had actually had tough GOP opponents in IL?

    But besides that, anybody who votes "present" and doesn't have to probably doesn't have DNA to fight anyway. When it's fight or flight, Obama chooses flight every time.


    Nah (5.00 / 1) (#24)
    by Big Tent Democrat on Sat Apr 09, 2011 at 11:47:57 AM EST
    I really don't.

    You have to have (5.00 / 2) (#45)
    by gyrfalcon on Sat Apr 09, 2011 at 01:16:06 PM EST
    principles in order to fight for them.

    That's the part you're missing.  Obama was never, ever going to fight for, even tepidly, the things you and I think are worth fighting for.

    It's just a big fat mistake to think he's a weak progressive/liberal.  He's not.


    I agree, gyrfalcon (5.00 / 3) (#49)
    by Zorba on Sat Apr 09, 2011 at 01:52:45 PM EST
    He's not a "weak progressive/liberal."  He's a supply side, trickle-down Reaganomics aficionado who is a Third Way neo-liberal.  

    I go back and forth between (5.00 / 1) (#67)
    by inclusiveheart on Sat Apr 09, 2011 at 05:21:07 PM EST
    thinking that he lacks principles and thinking that he might well be a pretty hard lined ideologue.  I'm tending towards the latter mostly these days - and marveling at how easy it is for him to play the role of the wimpy, foolish, patsy on the world stage in order to make his ideological mark.

    Actually I am just so tired (5.00 / 2) (#71)
    by smott on Sat Apr 09, 2011 at 06:04:13 PM EST
    Of sitting around scratching our chins and wondering WTF is going on between Obama's ears.

    Sooner or later it's just about the results, intentions be damned....

    The results of his policies are sh-t for the bottom 99%.

    I really can't care anymore what he intends, whether it's good or bad, and I suspect it is not the former but that's immaterial.

    The right thing to do is primary his a-- in 2012. Maybe not feasable, maybe hopeless. But still the right thing to do.

    I feel very depressed because I changed my citizenship in 2004 in order to vote Democratic.

    And now I wish I could give my citizenship back, because any vote I cast D or R will enable evil behavior which I cannot morally support.

    If my family was not mostly in the US now I would move back to UK.


    Sympathize (none / 0) (#89)
    by gyrfalcon on Sat Apr 09, 2011 at 08:46:07 PM EST
    I just don't see anybody on the Dem side that could make an effective primary challenge.  I think we're stuck with him.

    As you say well, wondering what's going on between his ears is just an academic exercise.  I do wonder about it, but it's entirely irrelevant why he does what he does or what he thinks he's doing.

    But personally, I don't think he has anything remotely resembling an ideology or some kind of organizing principle about the way stuff works.  He has vague sort of sympathies, but he gives them away too easily for them to be anything other than "vague sort of."


    Cameron & Klegg (none / 0) (#113)
    by Politalkix on Sun Apr 10, 2011 at 12:30:28 PM EST
    are making sure you that you will get the UK of your liking, after you are back. Snark.

    Part of the problem with your understanding (none / 0) (#104)
    by Politalkix on Sat Apr 09, 2011 at 11:38:52 PM EST
    is the fact that a very significant fraction of the people who need help (and who you want BHO to help) never stood unequivocally for progressive or leftist values. Seniors and non-college educated whites have always flirted with conservative ideology. These are the "Reagan Democrats", the "security moms", the union workers who like guns, blue collar employees who dislike unions, etc.
    Lots of AAs and Hispanic-Americans need help. However, they seem to be quite supportive of the President.
    The people who are derisively called egg-heads or latte-sippers do not need any economic help.
    However their cultural and civil rights values are often at odds with the people who you would like to help (see 1st paragraph).
    Democrat voters do not speak with one voice. Progressive/liberalism means different things to different people. And really gyrfalcon, sorry to burst your bubble, but you have never seemed the "principled" kind to me (I can just name a couple of people in this blog who would fall in that category). You and many others here have always stood for pragmatism with a condescension or dislike for the President.

    Bassackwards. (5.00 / 4) (#105)
    by lentinel on Sun Apr 10, 2011 at 06:07:01 AM EST
    You and many others here have always stood for pragmatism with a condescension or dislike for the President.

    It is Barack who, since day one, has stood for his phony version of "pragmatism" blended with a mix of understated and forcefully stated contempt for people.


    Experience in dealing with the hardball players (none / 0) (#18)
    by ruffian on Sat Apr 09, 2011 at 11:42:19 AM EST
    Yes, I think so. Not job experience per se. I've never felt that was an issue for someone with half a brain. But I think he was either asleep through the 80s-90s or thought it would not apply to him.

    I know the other alternative is that he agrees with the right lock stock and barrel, but I'm not quite there yet, though I know some are.


    Meh (5.00 / 1) (#23)
    by Big Tent Democrat on Sat Apr 09, 2011 at 11:47:40 AM EST

    I think his problems are quite different myself.


    Hard to say. Maybe his post-Potus memoir (5.00 / 3) (#31)
    by ruffian on Sat Apr 09, 2011 at 11:55:38 AM EST
    will shed some light. Entitled: 'My Way ( or your way, whatever)'

    What do you think, BTD, (none / 0) (#46)
    by kmblue on Sat Apr 09, 2011 at 01:20:39 PM EST
    Obama's problems are?  Serious question.

    I'd like to know as well (none / 0) (#84)
    by sj on Sat Apr 09, 2011 at 07:29:09 PM EST
    You mean ... something (none / 0) (#17)
    by Nemi on Sat Apr 09, 2011 at 11:41:49 AM EST
    I agree with your analysis of (5.00 / 7) (#8)
    by MO Blue on Sat Apr 09, 2011 at 11:23:46 AM EST
    what has happened in Part 1 and 2.  Small disagreement on Part 3.

    Part 3 will be an attempt to undo the New Deal.

    IMO in Part 3 we will see another Obama compromise that will begin to completely dismantle the New Deal. The initial bites may be smaller than what the Republicans propose but the end results will be the same. Obama's actions will of course be necessary to save the programs.  

    Obama, beginning on the campaign trail, always was going to cut SS. He even told everyone that he was going to do so. In his initial comments everything was on the table. He later walked his comments back somewhat saying that SS had a solvency problem and he was going to "fix" it .

    Why should he do anything different than legislate according to the dictates of Wall St.? Democratic voters are going to vote for him regardless of the policies he implements.

    They're both headed to the same (5.00 / 5) (#15)
    by Anne on Sat Apr 09, 2011 at 11:40:19 AM EST
    destination - or perhaps I should say, they're both sending us to the same destination - hell - only Obama's taking the scenic route and the GOP just wants fly down the highway, with no bathroom breaks.

    Obama will agree to "fixes" in these programs, "fixes" that will not help the people who are in the programs, but private-sector industry and Wall Street.  Corporate profits seem to be the only metric that matters anymore, and success will be declared when those profits go through the roof.

    Disgusting, all of it.


    Part 3 (5.00 / 3) (#34)
    by The Maven on Sat Apr 09, 2011 at 12:02:43 PM EST
    will be so-called negotiations resulting in further sellouts and cuts next month in return for an increase in the debt ceiling.

    Then, Part 4 will be opposition to the "serious" Ryan plan, for which the Obama-led "compromise" will be something eerily similar to the Simpson-Bowles plan.  The right wing has very successfully deployed an Overton Window strategy here, I believe, by putting forth such a radically reactionary proposal and proclaiming it within the regular political spectrum (as opposed to the deliberately deceptive pipe-dream any authentic analysis shows it to be).

    Since Ryan's budget dishonesty will be the starting point for Republicans, a final deal incorporating many elements from Simpson-Bowles will seem utterly reasonable to the Beltway media, and will allow Obama to declare yet another Pyrrhic "victory" of bi-partisan agreement.

    One would be hard-pressed to find someone who's done -- and will continue to do -- more damage to the Democratic Party brand than the man in the White House.


    When I look at all that is lost (5.00 / 6) (#12)
    by ruffian on Sat Apr 09, 2011 at 11:37:23 AM EST
    In this budget and the ones to come, I am ever more amazed at how freaked out people were at the prospect of the middle class losing its measly Bush tax cuts even for the few weeks it may have taken for them to be restored. It just pales in comparison. We are talking about losing over half a million more jobs in the next couple of years - those folks would love to have a job with their Clinton era tax rates.

    Just soooooo short sighted.

    Sigh (5.00 / 2) (#16)
    by Big Tent Democrat on Sat Apr 09, 2011 at 11:40:26 AM EST
    We told them so Ruffian.

    No one listens to us.


    Can't shut us up though (5.00 / 2) (#20)
    by ruffian on Sat Apr 09, 2011 at 11:45:04 AM EST
    Heh (5.00 / 2) (#21)
    by Big Tent Democrat on Sat Apr 09, 2011 at 11:46:53 AM EST
    I dunno, I am getting quieter. Tired of it all.

    Can't blame you (5.00 / 2) (#26)
    by ruffian on Sat Apr 09, 2011 at 11:51:56 AM EST
    I don't see a way out of the mess at this point. Might as well hunker down and hoard the cat food.

    And Obama and the Dems will help! (5.00 / 6) (#27)
    by BDB on Sat Apr 09, 2011 at 11:52:21 AM EST
    Undo the New Deal that is.  Obama genuinely believes that Soc. Security and Medicare need to be cut.  Pay close attention to the Ryan plan because in 10 years it will be the Dems' plan and when it passes we will all be told "it was realistically the best progressives could do" and to cheer it.  And then we will be reminded that we MUST vote Democratic because if we don't, those crazy Republicans will start unnecessary wars, give huge tax cuts to the rich, and cut social spending.

    After this disaster of a Democratic Administration, I don't know how anyone can believe the Democratic Party is anything but an enabler of the GOP (ratchet effect!) or why anyone would ever vote again for a Democrat on a national level, particularly anyone at the top of the Democratic leadership.   There is one party in this country - the money party - and it is determined to kill the rest of us.  Until the left has something more useful to say to the masses than "be sure to vote Democratic in November!", we will never gain any momentum among the populace to fight the money party because we're effectively channeling our energy into supporting the money party.  And, of course, the populace unlike all those "smart" "progressives" has already figured out that the Democratic Party isn't any more interested in saving us than the GOP is.    

    i am trying to get a job (5.00 / 1) (#33)
    by observed on Sat Apr 09, 2011 at 11:58:54 AM EST
    Abroad now. Except for family i would leave and never return.

    I think that's why my 'kid' (none / 0) (#40)
    by oldpro on Sat Apr 09, 2011 at 12:23:00 PM EST
    talked his company into moving his job (and him along with it) to Amsterdam a year ago.  Seems to be working out well, so far.

    Of course we can't all move to a better place to work or live our lives...the US used to be that 'better place.'  No more.  And it will get worse.  Much worse.


    by Mark Kleiman (5.00 / 5) (#35)
    by NYShooter on Sat Apr 09, 2011 at 12:05:40 PM EST
    (Reality Based Community)

    John Kyl said on the floor of the United States Senate - the world's greatest deliberative body, we're told - that "abortion is well over 90% of what Planned Parenthood does." In fact, it's under 3%.
    Challenged on the lie, Kyl later said that his claim "was not intended to be a factual statement."
    Well, that sums it up, doesn't it? One of our two great political parties is made up of people whose statements are not intended to be factual.

    And the other "great" political party (5.00 / 3) (#38)
    by BDB on Sat Apr 09, 2011 at 12:14:33 PM EST
    simply agrees with the lying party 90% of the time!  Quite a system we've got.

    Grover may be smiling... (5.00 / 1) (#79)
    by MileHi Hawkeye on Sat Apr 09, 2011 at 07:03:31 PM EST
    but a couple of his little buddies probably aren't as happy today.

    Douglas Bruce, the Colorado Springs activist whose tax-slashing crusades have left an indelible imprint on Colorado's budget, was arrested Friday on suspicion of tax evasion.

    Indited by a Republican AG no less.  Check out the lovely mugshot.

    And in Oregon...

    Oregon officials have charged tax foe Bill Sizemore and his wife with tax evasion for their failure to file state tax returns the past three years, the first time Sizemore has faced criminal indictment in more than 15 years of political activism.

    Sizemore, a Republican candidate for governor, admitted under oath last year that he hadn't filed tax returns in his testimony in a civil case brought against him by teachers unions. The state Justice Department said the Sizemores failed to take advantage of a tax amnesty period, which ended Nov. 19, that allowed taxpayers to come forward and amend their returns without penalty or interest.

    Taxes are for little people.  

    Sure, bring all that stuff up (none / 0) (#3)
    by Dadler on Sat Apr 09, 2011 at 11:07:17 AM EST
    Killjoy.  Used to be it was only the opposition I had to worry about.  Now, shoot, I guess grandma can pawn the gold in her teeth, right?

    But Dadler, (5.00 / 1) (#39)
    by Zorba on Sat Apr 09, 2011 at 12:18:15 PM EST
    how did Grandma afford those gold fillings?  Medicare doesn't cover dental work (or only on a very, very limited basis).  I don't think that dental amalgam will bring much on the open market.

    $78 worth of gold in my mouth... (5.00 / 1) (#59)
    by dutchfox on Sat Apr 09, 2011 at 03:48:19 PM EST
    My dentist is replacing an old (gold) crown with a new one. He removed the gold crown this week, washed it off, gave it to me and told me I could sell it. He recommended a shop nearby and today I brought it there. I was not alone as others were doing the same!

    Thanks, great to know (none / 0) (#62)
    by Dadler on Sat Apr 09, 2011 at 04:59:11 PM EST
    I'll let granny know she can extract this month's rent from her old yapper.  These old folks, complain, complain, complain, I tell ya.

    Makes me sad though (none / 0) (#72)
    by Militarytracy on Sat Apr 09, 2011 at 06:14:55 PM EST
    My grandma Vera and the man she married survived the Great Depression.  My grandfather had teeth that I would classify as not good, and then I inherited them :)  Without dental care, I don't want to know what our ancestors dealt with.  I've had four root canals though, before he had passed away he root canals, bridges, different bridges, he had been everywhere.  When we went through their belongings when they were gone we found a manilla envelope and it was full of his replaced crowns and old bridges.  I guess it was sort of funny though, my cousin opened it and peered into it and still didn't understand what she was seeing.  Then she poured the contents out into her hand and then realized what it was and she dropped everything and shrunk back :)  I assume that because of what they survived, anything with gold or silver in it was never considered disposable.

    Ryans plan (none / 0) (#36)
    by Madeline on Sat Apr 09, 2011 at 12:10:31 PM EST
    supposedly goes into effect in 2022.  That is the estimated time for vouchers for affordable health care.  Of course medicaid will be gone by then.

    It's a worldwide phenomena ... (none / 0) (#4)
    by Robot Porter on Sat Apr 09, 2011 at 11:16:31 AM EST
    just watch what Cameron is doing in the UK, and, Obama does essentially the same thing a few months later.

    Of course, the Brits have a much larger welfare state to demolish. And a savvier public because of it.

    But the endgame is the same.

    He has been smiling since 1992 (none / 0) (#5)
    by Politalkix on Sat Apr 09, 2011 at 11:18:46 AM EST

    Not in 1993 (5.00 / 1) (#7)
    by Big Tent Democrat on Sat Apr 09, 2011 at 11:20:02 AM EST
    when taxes went up for the rich.

    Or in 1997, when SCHip was enacted.


    BTD (none / 0) (#29)
    by Politalkix on Sat Apr 09, 2011 at 11:52:29 AM EST
    You know that I have been against the Obama tax deal!

    The items you mentioned are blips in the economic trajectory curve of the Clinton Presidency. Overall narrative remains that Pres. Clinton replaced the New Deal roots of the American economy with Reaganomics.


    Tax policy is NEVER EVER (5.00 / 2) (#32)
    by Big Tent Democrat on Sat Apr 09, 2011 at 11:58:51 AM EST
    a blip.

    Your mistake is one that just drives me up the wall.

    Tax policy drives every other policy.


    Ridiculous (none / 0) (#37)
    by Yman on Sat Apr 09, 2011 at 12:13:06 PM EST
    Overall narrative remains that Pres. Clinton replaced the New Deal roots of the American economy with Reaganomics.



    Yah, who's "narrative" (none / 0) (#88)
    by gyrfalcon on Sat Apr 09, 2011 at 08:41:24 PM EST
    is what I want to know.  Not anybody's I've ever heard.

    Definition (none / 0) (#98)
    by Yman on Sat Apr 09, 2011 at 10:04:18 PM EST
    1.  chronicle, tale. Narrative, account, recital, history  are terms for a story of an event or events. Narrative  is the general term (for a story long or short; of past, present, or future; factual or imagined; told for any purpose; and with or without much detail.

    How many will die? (none / 0) (#13)
    by my opinion on Sat Apr 09, 2011 at 11:37:31 AM EST

    its not about votes (none / 0) (#30)
    by observed on Sat Apr 09, 2011 at 11:52:37 AM EST
    For the gop now. Imagine how much ryan will be paid if he kills medicare. I would say that is worth at least 30  million, and the money is already promised.

    Barry Barry, quite contrary (none / 0) (#68)
    by Dadler on Sat Apr 09, 2011 at 05:21:26 PM EST
    How does your garden die?
    With slivers of bells, and cockless shells,
    And ugly banksters fat & high.

    If I (none / 0) (#69)
    by lentinel on Sat Apr 09, 2011 at 05:57:32 PM EST
    read you correctly, you are accusing Barack Obama of trying to undo the New Deal.

    I happen to agree with that point of view.

    But I am curious if you will find a way to vote for him anyway.

    I concede (none / 0) (#73)
    by AngryBlackGuy on Sat Apr 09, 2011 at 06:17:05 PM EST
    That we have now lost two rounds. I understand why and I don't think it was for a lack of effort or gumption but we indeed lost.

    Rain your hail of Obama anger upon me.

    I hope the next round goes better.

    I could do without (5.00 / 2) (#75)
    by andgarden on Sat Apr 09, 2011 at 06:31:41 PM EST
    your egocentric approach to this, but your concession is refreshing. At least you don't have the nerve to insist that it really is a good deal.

    Agree... (5.00 / 2) (#107)
    by lentinel on Sun Apr 10, 2011 at 06:16:41 AM EST
    about ABG's egocentric approach.

    He encourages us to "rain our hail" our anger at him.

    The correct destination for our anger should be the President of the United States and his feckless associates in the democratic party.


    Finally! (none / 0) (#93)
    by gyrfalcon on Sat Apr 09, 2011 at 08:59:50 PM EST
    I wondered what it would take.

    Ego has nothing to do with it (none / 0) (#126)
    by AngryBlackGuy on Sun Apr 10, 2011 at 08:35:23 PM EST
    I am the only poster that I know of who has generally taken a position of defending Obama's actions. I'd be more than happy to share that duty with others but my sense is that that is unlikely to happen here.

    then you don't read here much (5.00 / 2) (#128)
    by The Addams Family on Sun Apr 10, 2011 at 09:03:56 PM EST
    people here often defend Obama's actions

    some of them do it thoughtfully - i'm thinking of christinep, brodie, & a couple of others right now - i'm thinking of BTD too

    but what you won't see much here is people being apologists for Obama when he does the same sh!it for which many of us thought George W. Bush should have been removed from office

    making pretzel-logic excuses for Obama is pretty much what the Big Orange is for - but of course over there you can't pretend you're talking to P*MAs


    Agree... (5.00 / 2) (#106)
    by lentinel on Sun Apr 10, 2011 at 06:11:43 AM EST
    that "we" lost.

    Disagree that Obama displayed any sense of true effort or gumption in fighting for us.

    The outcome was predictable from day one.

    A true farce.


    I was originally a Hillary supporter... (none / 0) (#76)
    by MiamiGuy on Sat Apr 09, 2011 at 06:32:26 PM EST
    because I thought she'd been tougher than Obama in situations just like these. (For one thing, she had a lot more experience dealing with the machinations of the right wing and Grover Norquist in particular.) When she dropped out of the race, of course I supported Obama. When Obama did his tax cut deal back in December, I immediately unsubscribed from Organizing for America's email list. I'll vote for Obama next time, and I expect him to win, but I refuse to contribute to his campaign as I did last time around. (That's the best I can do to get some message across to them.)

    I think everything Obama is doing at this point is calculated to get him re-elected. I really don't think he wants to go down in history as the president who destroyed the middle class. Perhaps when he's back in office for his second (and final) term, without the distraction of getting re-elected and all the calculations that entails, he'll be more inclined to do what's right and adhere to the Democratic principles he used to stand for. At that point, he'll have nothing to lose.

    Just hoping.

    Don't bet on it. (5.00 / 1) (#78)
    by Ga6thDem on Sat Apr 09, 2011 at 06:58:24 PM EST
    Presidents tend to have more problems in their second term than their first.

    He really never did (5.00 / 1) (#94)
    by gyrfalcon on Sat Apr 09, 2011 at 09:01:48 PM EST
    stand for those principles, you know.  He mouthed support of them when he was trying to win votes in the Dem. primaries.

    After the primaries, you literally could not find the words "Democratic party" in his literature.  That told me a LOT.


    I think the only time he used the D word (none / 0) (#95)
    by nycstray on Sat Apr 09, 2011 at 09:14:31 PM EST
    was at the convention.

    Here are the only times (5.00 / 1) (#110)
    by jbindc on Sun Apr 10, 2011 at 10:11:54 AM EST
    2008 acceptance speech of Senator Barack Obama at the Democratic National Convention:

    Tonight, tonight, I say to the people of America, to Democrats and Republicans and independents across this great land: Enough. This moment...


    You see, you see, we Democrats have a very different measure of what constitutes progress in this country.

    We measure progress by how many people can find a job that pays the mortgage, whether you can put a little extra money away at the end of each month so you can someday watch your child receive her college diploma.

    We measure progress in the 23 million new jobs that were created when Bill Clinton was president...


    ... when the average American family saw its income go up $7,500 instead of go down $2,000, like it has under George Bush. (APPLAUSE)

    We measure the strength of our economy not by the number of billionaires we have or the profits of the Fortune 500, but by whether someone with a good idea can take a risk and start a new business, or whether the waitress who lives on tips can take a day off and look after a sick kid without losing her job, an economy that honors the dignity of work.

    The fundamentals we use to measure economic strength are whether we are living up to that fundamental promise that has made this country great, a promise that is the only reason I am standing here tonight.

    (Who was this guy??)


    And, Democrats, Democrats, we must also admit that fulfilling America's promise will require more than just money. It will require a renewed sense of responsibility from each of us to recover what John F. Kennedy called our intellectual and moral strength.


    We are the party of Roosevelt. We are the party of Kennedy. So don't tell me that Democrats won't defend this country. Don't tell me that Democrats won't keep us safe.

    The Bush-McCain foreign policy has squandered the legacy that generations of Americans, Democrats and Republicans, have built, and we are here to restore that legacy.


    The men and women who serve in our battlefields may be Democrats and Republicans and independents, but they have fought together, and bled together, and some died together under the same proud flag. They have not served a red America or a blue America; they have served the United States of America.


    America, our work will not be easy. The challenges we face require tough choices. And Democrats, as well as Republicans, will need to cast off the worn-out ideas and politics of the past, for part of what has been lost these past eight years can't just be measured by lost wages or bigger trade deficits. What has also been lost is our sense of common purpose, and that's what we have to restore.


    And I've seen it in this campaign, in the young people who voted for the first time and the young at heart, those who got involved again after a very long time; in the Republicans who never thought they'd pick up a Democratic ballot, but did.

    Obama wants to be "historic" (none / 0) (#80)
    by nycstray on Sat Apr 09, 2011 at 07:05:33 PM EST
    what better way than destroying the middle class?

    (Correction) (none / 0) (#85)
    by MiamiGuy on Sat Apr 09, 2011 at 07:45:59 PM EST
    (I meant "she'd be" in the first sentence.)

    I think (none / 0) (#127)
    by AngryBlackGuy on Sun Apr 10, 2011 at 08:39:10 PM EST
    He sees the downside of losing as a greater threat than the concessions. I think you are right there and from a thousand feet, thats obviously a logical approach.

    It just doesn't feel good when things like this happen.  I deeply believe that he would not be reelected if he took the stances being advocated across the board. He may get some good stuff passed but it would quickly be reversed when the GOP controlled everything. Starting with healthcare and the immediate selection of a new generation of scalias.


    You don't think with the high poll #'s (5.00 / 1) (#129)
    by nycstray on Mon Apr 11, 2011 at 12:22:09 AM EST
    on the PO, it would have been good for his re-election? Or raising taxes on the top 1%? Or pushing the stimulus and job creation? Defending the middle/working/poor classes over the top 1%? You really don't think working for the 99% over the 1% would have been good for his 2012 chances? Really?? Recovery sounds like one heck of a winner to me.

    Here's a link, ABG, that details how to fight (5.00 / 3) (#130)
    by StephenAG on Mon Apr 11, 2011 at 02:52:36 AM EST
    This diary from Mark Sumner "Between bargaining and surrender" (http://www.dailykos.com/story/2011/04/10/965400/-Between-bargaining-and-surrender) should help flesh out what a lot of us feel on this blog. It shows the value of fighting for solid tax policy and standing up against your adversary in the midst of staggering opposition. Here is a snippet:

    "The difference between the surplus years of 1997-2000 and the current deficit comes down to three things: the soaring defense budget driven largely by the wars in Iraq and Afghanistan, the growing giveaway to the rich written into the Bush tax cuts, and the decline in revenues directly related to the economic downturn. Which makes it more than a little incredible that the budget deal addressed none of those issues.

    How can that be? To start with, Bush era tax cuts, the one part of this problem which is growing faster than any other, were taken off the table before the budget fight really began. Despite a lot of talk the contrary, it appears as if the Defense Department budget will not be reduced, and rather than putting any additional spending toward programs that might stimulate the economy, the budget will defund those programs more rapidly. Most of the budget fight was conducted over items that not only didn't grow in the last year, they didn't grow in the last decade, with the majority of programs designed to help the poor. The wealthy are being asked to kick in... well, all the details aren't clear yet, but it looks like the sacrifice at the top will be giving up a big fat zero.

    President Clinton, in the midst of a tough fight for this own political life and facing Republican control of both legislative chambers, emerged from negotiations with a deal that protected the budget while forwarding Democratic interests. Clinton was, and is, an acknowledged centerist, but he carved out a deal that protected the poor even as he was agreeing to give the Republicans some of what they wanted on the business side. He managed this by not only making his case behind closed doors, but in public. He did it by staking out a negotiating position and sticking with it. He did it by playing chicken with the Republicans in the budget showdown of 1995 and not blinking. When the GOP sat down with Clinton for those negotiations, they did it knowing they were dealing with someone who would take it to the wall and beyond.

    Mostly Clinton won at the negotiating table by being willing to lose. By being willing to take a blow. By being willing to be disliked. By being ready to sit there as long as it took to strike a reasonable deal. He won by not surrendering."

    Read the whole thing and then get back to us. Frankly, I think you should be angry at a president who backs away from a fight and sells out Democratic values and hasn't done a thing for the African American community. As a black man, I am pissed over his lukewarm polices and unwillingness to strongly push back against the conservative machine and Republican ideology.


    If this is truly how Obama sees things, (5.00 / 2) (#132)
    by Anne on Mon Apr 11, 2011 at 07:18:55 AM EST
    then we can stop thinking he is motivated by anything other than extreme self-interest, because the consequence of the concessions he made - some made before even beginning the so-called negotiations - is going to be huge, painful and long-lasting.  A year from now, when we have lost more jobs, when more people are out of work, when more people are cold, hungry and sick, what Democrat in his or her right mind is going to be singing the praises of yet another Obama Deal?  I mean, other than Obama, who has now celebrated two "historic" deals that have been historically terrible for the economy.

    So, who's his electoral base going to be?  Obama, party of (the) One?

    Really makes me excited about the debt ceiling and 2012 budget negotiations yet to come, since, with each opportunity to make better economic policy, Obama chokes.  And then pats himself on the back for doing so.  He's not sorry, he's happy - he likes what they're doing.  And wants to do more of it.  He gave Boehner that abhorrent DC rider that prohibits the use of even local funds for anything to do with abortion.  Women, once again are Obama's go-to bargaining chip.  And it's not over.

    The Supreme Court?  Someone has to resign or die before any new nominations, and I haven't heard even a whisper of a rumor that anyone's looking to step down; with this kind of tax and economic policy, the Supreme Court just isn't enough.

    As for health "care," Obama's good friend Paul Ryan is going to help Obama destroy Medicare and Medicaid - bank on it; it might not be completely undone, but by this time next year, they will both be on the way.  When a Democratic president helps engineer the end of the New Deal, what more could we possibly fear from Republicans?

    Go read Krugman today.