Rallying The Troops

Via Atrios, HuffPo on OFA's idea of rallying the progressive troops:

The Obama campaign's point person in New Mexico recently sent an email to supporters defending the president's position on the debt deal and bashing the "Firebagger Lefty blogosphere," including the Nobel Prize winning New York Times columnist Paul Krugman.

That'll work.

< Wednesday Morning Open Thread | What's Different About the 2012 Election >
  • The Online Magazine with Liberal coverage of crime-related political and injustice news

  • Contribute To TalkLeft

  • Display: Sort:
    Strange (5.00 / 4) (#1)
    by jbindc on Wed Aug 17, 2011 at 01:09:04 PM EST
    It was that "Firebagger Lefty Blogosphere" that helped get fainting college kids to Obama's rallies, wasn't it?

    Nah... (5.00 / 3) (#18)
    by kdog on Wed Aug 17, 2011 at 02:20:47 PM EST
    8 years of G-Dub did that...and Obama is doing his best to make sure they stay home this time.

    College kids are good for fun (5.00 / 2) (#19)
    by Militarytracy on Wed Aug 17, 2011 at 02:21:27 PM EST
    But not fun for good :)

    college kids in '08 (5.00 / 2) (#47)
    by CST on Wed Aug 17, 2011 at 03:17:52 PM EST
    aren't college kids today.  They're probably un or underemployed 20somethings living at home with mom and dad who may or may not be unemployed themselves.

    I think it's kind of funny how every election year we talk about college kids as if they are the same people consistently.  But in reality every presidential election year they are almost an entirely different group of people.  And at an age when those 4 years really make a difference in terms of how you grew up and what you retain in your political memory.

    An 18 year old today barely remembers what it was like when Clinton was president.  I'm only a few years out of school but I know what the 90s were like, and that makes a big difference in how I view politics.

    And yes, I agree with kdog that a lot of the overenthusiasm you saw in '08 had to do with getting the Bush monkey off our collective back.  But that's not going to mean as much to someone who barely remembers a time before Bush.


    They do the same with "Seniors" (5.00 / 3) (#56)
    by jbindc on Wed Aug 17, 2011 at 03:34:11 PM EST
    Now some Seniors vote in more than one election, but every 4 years, there's a whole new swath of 'em.  We are starting to see the first Baby Boomer "seniors" - think they might be different than 90 year old "Seniors"?

    And if the college kids of 4 years ago are in the situation you describe, (of which there are many, I'm sure), I hope that they do an analysis of candidates in 2012.  I hope they look to be informed about the candidates - from local candidates all the way up to the POTUS candidates - and make their decisions based on positions, history, and experience - as opposed to punchy slogans, fun rallies, foam Greek columns, and being in the "cool" group.

    The point was - it was the blogs that helped fire up the college kids (and others) - and many of those same blogs who helped gloss over the weak areas of Obama's background and platform.  Now, his campaign is dissing them - the very people to whom he owes his election.



    And actually (none / 0) (#62)
    by jbindc on Wed Aug 17, 2011 at 03:41:30 PM EST
    Many college kids in '08, will still be college kids in '12.  5 year-plan, and all.....

    yes (none / 0) (#66)
    by CST on Wed Aug 17, 2011 at 03:55:08 PM EST
    freshman in '08 who were over 18 in november and are on the 5 year plan will be college kids for both elections.

    I'm not saying that's a small group, I know a lot of people who did that.  But it's hardly the main group we're talking about when we say "college kids".


    yea but it's a bit more drastic (none / 0) (#65)
    by CST on Wed Aug 17, 2011 at 03:52:56 PM EST
    at the other end of the spectrum.  Every senior alive today remembers Clinton, and Reagan, and Bush 1, and Nixon, etc.. etc.. so the things they have in common memory are much greater than the things they have not-in-common.

    I'm not sure I would give that much credit to the "blogs" either for firing them up.  College kids have a way of starting their own movements.  The way I see it, the blogs were catering to them by giving them what they wanted, more so than being real influence makers.

    That being said, IMO, in 2012, if they do all the things you say, it will still be a vote for Obama.  You may disagree, but by examining the "positions, history, and experience" of the 2012 candidates currently out there, Obama still comes out on top of the big $hitpile.

    As an aside, I find you to be incredibly condescending toward younger people.  You may not like their choices, but you have no idea what the thought process was that got them to make that choice, and you are just projecting your own personal bias onto their decisions.  Say what you will about them, but I have a much easier time understanding enthusiastic support for Obama in '08 by young people than I do for support for Bush in '00 and '04 (or McCain in '08) by older and supposedly wiser people, who were so enamored with "cool" that they voted for the guy they wanted to have a beer with, rather than the one who wanted to make sure they could all afford beer.


    You can find me (5.00 / 3) (#70)
    by jbindc on Wed Aug 17, 2011 at 04:11:19 PM EST
    anything you like as it really means nothing to me, but the fact remains that, as a group, "college kids" (throwing kids who didn't go to college in that group) did not study the history or positions or anything about the candidates.  It was "cool" to vote for Obama and fun to go to rallies.  You need look no further than the primaries, where large majorities of them did not stay around (for caucuses) or even vote down ticket - for a large number of them, their vote had nothing to do with how they felt about "issues". It was strictly a worship in the cult of personality.

    And, FYI... Gore won 50% of the vote of those 50-64, and 51% of those over 65. Kerry lost the seniors 47-52 in both age groups because he was a terrible candidate. (Kerry even lost the votes of those ages 30-49 - not exactly senior citizens). Oh, and Clinton won the seniors in 1996 - even though he was running against a senior citizen.


    I wasn't talking about seniors (none / 0) (#74)
    by CST on Wed Aug 17, 2011 at 04:16:16 PM EST
    and I'm sorry, but you cannot make statements that start with "as a group" and end with "did not study the history or positions or anything about the candidates".  How on earth do you know?  Do you have secret mind reading powers?

    You completely made that up and are presenting it as "fact" remaining.


    Yes, as a matter of fact I do (none / 0) (#80)
    by jbindc on Wed Aug 17, 2011 at 04:23:47 PM EST
    Actually, it's a little something I call "reading".

    Please refer to the voluminous recounts here on this blog of what happened during the election season - we analyzed it to death.

    I'm sorry you don't like my responses, but frankly, you have already stated that you plan to vote for Obama, so at this point, what's left?  

    I will just have to learn to live with your disappointment.


    ahem (none / 0) (#84)
    by CST on Wed Aug 17, 2011 at 04:27:55 PM EST
    we opinionated to death.

    And I'm sorry but anecdotal accounts from relatively angry Hillary supporters about the insincerity of a bunch of college kids falls a bit wide of true analysis.

    I didn't realize that any of this discussion was relevant to who we plan to vote for.  But I'll remember in the future that pulling that lever will make you disregard my opinion.  I only wonder that you still bother to read BTD.


    and you're right (none / 0) (#76)
    by CST on Wed Aug 17, 2011 at 04:20:28 PM EST
    Kerry was a terrible candidate.  He was the least "cool" of all the candidates.  And you know what?  He was still better than Bush, and he won the young voters.

    So again, I ask, who is really swayed by "cool" and "fun"?

    I'm not saying it's senior citizens, but it's not all 19 year olds either.


    These kids today:)... (none / 0) (#24)
    by kdog on Wed Aug 17, 2011 at 02:37:06 PM EST
    in my day, college-age idealism meant a vote for Nader...and wouldn't ya know it he was on the 2008 ballot, same as 2000, at least in my state.

    You're so young, kdog (5.00 / 1) (#39)
    by Zorba on Wed Aug 17, 2011 at 03:08:04 PM EST
    In my day, college-age idealism meant demonstrating and civil disobedience against the Vietnam War and for Civil Rights, up to and including facing the possibility of being arrested, or even killed.  I often wonder what happened to my peers who were so leftie and progressive "back in the day."  Did they all become more conservative, or just tired and/or discouraged?  It sometimes seems that what many of us did, just didn't matter as much as we thought, in the whole scheme of things.  Oh, I know many things changed for the better- we got out of Vietnam, and most certainly the civil rights movement vastly improved things for racial minorities.  But it does seem like three steps forward, and two steps backward.  Not enough has changed, I fear.  Plus ça change, plus c'est la même chose.  

    Can't say what happened to your peers... (none / 0) (#43)
    by kdog on Wed Aug 17, 2011 at 03:13:51 PM EST
    my peers grew up in a quasi-police state, and no draft or segregation to scare us more than a jail cell does.

    Fat and lazy is part of it too.


    You guys changed things (none / 0) (#45)
    by Militarytracy on Wed Aug 17, 2011 at 03:15:32 PM EST
    We were afraid to complain because it could go on our record and it would not be forgiven.  Reagan had me convinced also that I deserved how hard things were for me. I was born unlucky, and that was my fault too.

    Tracy, I am increasingly discouraged (5.00 / 3) (#52)
    by Zorba on Wed Aug 17, 2011 at 03:24:03 PM EST
    and have come to think that we did not change things nearly enough.  It's like we were Sisyphus- forever rolling that rock uphill, only to have it come crashing back down so that we had to start over.  As for being afraid- sure, we were afraid (especially after Kent State and Jackson State).  You don't think that the Civil Rights workers weren't afraid, too?  How many got arrested/killed?  But when the cause is great, you keep on.  I'm pretty sure that my name and picture are in the FBI files somewhere, so I guess it's good that I didn't ever want a job that would require a security clearance.  

    me too (5.00 / 3) (#57)
    by The Addams Family on Wed Aug 17, 2011 at 03:35:50 PM EST
    I'm pretty sure that my name and picture are in the FBI files somewhere, so I guess it's good that I didn't ever want a job that would require a security clearance.

    & remember that many of us were also old enough to remember McCarthy & blacklisting - but to judge from my own experience, people don't put up a fight until they reach the point where they can't live with themselves anymore unless they do hit the streets

    let's also note, however, that larger numbers than ever will be needed to outstrip the policing of the "free speech zones" that came into Orwellian being in recent years - & that the policing itself has become frankly militaristic

    everybody knows or senses that mass civil disobedience in our times will be at least as bloody as the early civil rights movement & the early-20th-century labor uprisings -  people will die & people are afraid for their own skin & especially for the fate of the families that many are trying to support with a patchwork of sh!tty low-wage McJobs & no safety net

    mass civil disobedience next time will not feel like a party, ever

    i think it soon will be incumbent on many of us '60s "veterans" who are free to do so to get back out there with our gray hair & chant "the whole world is watching" while the militias gun the grannies down


    They won't even have to gun them down (5.00 / 2) (#63)
    by shoephone on Wed Aug 17, 2011 at 03:49:48 PM EST
    They can just burn all the protestors with "Active Denial," their new microwave-crowd-control-weaponry.

    indeed (5.00 / 1) (#69)
    by The Addams Family on Wed Aug 17, 2011 at 04:09:44 PM EST
    i wasn't going to mention that, for fear of sounding like one of the tinfoil-hatted

    & we all know how tinfoil fares in the microwave


    yup (none / 0) (#82)
    by Militarytracy on Wed Aug 17, 2011 at 04:24:56 PM EST
    Or they can stink bomb us to death with Israel's new humane invention.

    It may well (5.00 / 2) (#67)
    by Zorba on Wed Aug 17, 2011 at 03:56:34 PM EST
    come to that, Addams Family, it very well may.  And if it does, I'm willing to take my cane and go out to do battle, d@mn the torpedoes and full speed ahead.  I want to leave a better country to my children and the children of others, not this hollow shell of selfishness and greed, filled with contempt for those who are suffering.  That's not the country that I want to leave to future generations.

    Seemingly my whole life Zorba (none / 0) (#89)
    by Militarytracy on Wed Aug 17, 2011 at 04:34:05 PM EST
    Has been a study of coming right up to the line of losing my humanity.

    This used to be my theme song, and sadly it still is.  No victory song for the gap generation (as my new Harvard graduate friend calls my fellow 65er babies).  She says we aren't boomers and we aren't GenX, we are just lost...big ole flipfloppers too :)


    No, sweetie, you are (5.00 / 4) (#104)
    by Zorba on Wed Aug 17, 2011 at 05:01:19 PM EST
    nowhere near losing your humanity.  You're not lost- you just have other battles to fight right now.  You have to take care of your family, and especially Josh.  He needs you, and he needs your strength.  Raise your kids, set them on the good road, and they will take up the fight.  So will you, when you are older and your kids have found their own paths.  You do what you can do, but when you have a child who is hurting, that has to be your first priority for right now.  If we don't ensure the well-being of our own kids, then that is when we lose our humanity.  You can fight for other peoples' kids later.  There will always be battles to be fought and won.

    I miss believing that completely (none / 0) (#28)
    by Militarytracy on Wed Aug 17, 2011 at 02:45:18 PM EST
    Being so certain that the world would soon be a good place.  It was just waiting for me to turn 18 and unleash myself on it.

    He's human... (none / 0) (#46)
    by kdog on Wed Aug 17, 2011 at 03:17:13 PM EST
    and just happened to be the human who most closely matched my views on the last 3 ballots.  

    Show me who doesn't have an ego the size of the Goodyear blimp in that business.  The Democratic Party is annoying.


    Once upon a time (5.00 / 2) (#164)
    by gyrfalcon on Thu Aug 18, 2011 at 12:59:21 AM EST
    Ralph Nader did us a series of incredibly valuable public services, and in many ways changed this country for the better.

    And then he turned into a rigid, narcisisstic blowhard.  He used to be one of my heroes.


    He still is hero of mine (none / 0) (#184)
    by BobTinKY on Thu Aug 18, 2011 at 06:55:42 AM EST
    and while I never voted for him, the current President's pursuit of GOP policies vidicates much of what Nader has been saying these past two decades.

    If My Couch Were a Candidate... (5.00 / 0) (#22)
    by ScottW714 on Wed Aug 17, 2011 at 02:35:45 PM EST
    ... it would giddy knowing the odds of me voting for it just went up tremendously.

    I never understood why people (5.00 / 0) (#87)
    by inclusiveheart on Wed Aug 17, 2011 at 04:33:11 PM EST
    liked him so much.

    No. (2.75 / 4) (#32)
    by AngryBlackGuy on Wed Aug 17, 2011 at 02:58:23 PM EST
    It wasn't.

    Heads up. I don't think Obama is trying to rally the far left so I don't think it really bothers him that  they think his attempts to rally them are bad.


    what Sandoval wrote (5.00 / 1) (#37)
    by The Addams Family on Wed Aug 17, 2011 at 03:06:45 PM EST
    was not an attempt to rally the far left

    it was a very successful effort to persuade a significant* minority of the Democratic base to stay home

    *electorally speaking, since Obama will be in a real fight for re-election & this time the media has its legs tingling for Governor Goodhair


    What "far left"? (5.00 / 1) (#166)
    by gyrfalcon on Thu Aug 18, 2011 at 01:15:24 AM EST
    Who's that, the people who don't want the social safety net shredded?  Is that what it's some to in this country, Nixon Republicans are the "far left"?

    If you think that (none / 0) (#168)
    by AngryBlackGuy on Thu Aug 18, 2011 at 01:21:41 AM EST
    Obama is a conservative, you are far left.

    And if you think Obama's any kind of liberal (5.00 / 4) (#175)
    by shoephone on Thu Aug 18, 2011 at 02:17:42 AM EST
    you're out of your mind.

    You (5.00 / 2) (#40)
    by Ga6thDem on Wed Aug 17, 2011 at 03:10:45 PM EST
    weren't paying attention then during the primaries in 2008. Obama had a monopoly on the Bradley latte liberal wing of the party.

    Well, we can certainly agree that (5.00 / 8) (#58)
    by Anne on Wed Aug 17, 2011 at 03:36:01 PM EST
    Obama hasn't ever given a flying fig about the so-called far left - he's never considered them to matter enough to cater to them, and since a fair number will vote for him anyway, no matter how much he beats up on them, why even break a sweat thinking about their tender feelings?

    And besides, slamming the DFH wing of the party makes too many people happy not to do it when you can, right?  

    The only problem that I can see is that the far-left-radical-dirty-f'ing-hippies are more often than not right on the policy - so what you're getting when Obama rejects the left and uses them as a punching bag is a rejection of the policy, as well.  In its place is garbage policy that ranges from punitive to cruel to corporatist - definitely conservative - and dressed up to look reasonable and rational.

    But it's still garbage.

    That probably doesn't bother you, because you aren't about policy, you're about personality: winning is the only thing that matters.

    Just know one thing: as much as Obama doesn't care about the left, he really doesn't care about you, either, just your vote.  And since you and a lot of other people have made it clear that there apparently isn't anything he could do that would prevent you from voting for him, you just enable him to do whatever he wants.

    How will he show his gratitude to the servile?  With a double-decker sh!t sandwich and a big cup of STFU.



    There's another problem (5.00 / 3) (#91)
    by lucky leftie on Wed Aug 17, 2011 at 04:37:33 PM EST
    with beating up on the left--the majority of Americans are with dfh's on many issues, such as the public option, ending the wars, taxing the rich, safety nets, etc. Every time the president gives away the store, pundits assured one another that "the left" lost out but in truth, many Americans want the same things liberals want. We all lose out. I suspect that is why approval ratings across the board tanked after the debt ceiling capitulation.

    That is your opinion (none / 0) (#135)
    by AngryBlackGuy on Wed Aug 17, 2011 at 07:05:52 PM EST
    I believe that O cares about me as much as any democrat does, including kerry, Clinton Edwards or anyone else.

    Don't need the maternalism.  I can make the call for myself though.  As can the millions of voters who will make their decisions at the polls.

    It's always been condescending to me when one person who actually doesn't know the truth tells another person who actually doesn't know the truth that they are correct.


    Obama's policies tell the tale of (5.00 / 2) (#147)
    by Anne on Wed Aug 17, 2011 at 08:08:37 PM EST
    who he cares about; if that works for you, great, but the people for whom the actual policies work comprise a fairly small segment of the population.  What that means is that a whole lot of people are voting against their own interests; in my opinion, that doesn't make a whole lot of sense.

    And one reason they are doing things that make no sense is that they have been guilted, shamed and scared into it: they'd be disloyal, it would be their fault if the Supreme Court went conservative, government in the hands of Republicans would be the scariest thing ever.


    Sorry - it just doesn't work on me anymore.


    No (none / 0) (#169)
    by AngryBlackGuy on Thu Aug 18, 2011 at 01:22:50 AM EST
    The people whose policies Obama helps do not constitute a small portion of the population.  

    I just disagree.  Sorry.


    They are already (5.00 / 3) (#73)
    by Big Tent Democrat on Wed Aug 17, 2011 at 04:13:04 PM EST
    distancing themselves from it.

    You really are not very bright are you?


    You're just now (5.00 / 1) (#106)
    by Zorba on Wed Aug 17, 2011 at 05:05:19 PM EST
    discovering that he's not very bright?  ;-)

    The far left? (5.00 / 3) (#105)
    by Romberry on Wed Aug 17, 2011 at 05:04:33 PM EST
    There is no far left. That post of yours was Fox News dumb.

    So now it's (5.00 / 5) (#118)
    by cal1942 on Wed Aug 17, 2011 at 05:30:53 PM EST
    far left to be a Roosevelt Democrat?

    I call that degeneration.


    So he's rallying what true believer? (none / 0) (#34)
    by Militarytracy on Wed Aug 17, 2011 at 03:01:10 PM EST
    The true believers (5.00 / 0) (#95)
    by MO Blue on Wed Aug 17, 2011 at 04:41:44 PM EST
    who want him to cut domestic and safety net programs and lower the marginal tax rate for corporations and the top 1-2% and are sure that he will.

    When you view his actions in that light all will be clear grasshopper.


    Do I have to move the boiling (none / 0) (#100)
    by Militarytracy on Wed Aug 17, 2011 at 04:54:18 PM EST
    pot with my inner forearms now?  I swear, I already have scars to prove I was here :)

    You can replace that move (5.00 / 2) (#120)
    by MO Blue on Wed Aug 17, 2011 at 05:37:56 PM EST
    with the one where you run up the wall swinging a sword like in Crouching Tiger, Hidden Dragon. My nose is sensitive to the smell of burning flesh.

    "Far left"? (none / 0) (#165)
    by gyrfalcon on Thu Aug 18, 2011 at 01:13:53 AM EST
    Really?  Really?  Please do tell, where can I find a "far left" in this country?  I've been looking for them for a couple of decades now!

    Are you suggesting that all those college and barely post-college kids who were Obama's essential foot soldiers in '08 are "far left"?

    I think this is the weakest, most obnoxious post I've ever seen from you.


    "Far Left" (none / 0) (#193)
    by AngryBlackGuy on Thu Aug 18, 2011 at 09:25:10 AM EST
    Ticks people off for some reason.  No idea why.  The views expressed here represent the far left of the political spectrum.  Full stop.  Nothing wrong or outrageous about it and often times people wear the designation with pride.

    And the point is a completely valid and legit one know matter how much people want to deny it.  The left wing of the democratic party should not be ignored but Obama cannot dictate his election strategy around their gripes and demands. If he does, he will lose, just as McGovern lost and just as the GOP nominee will lose if he carries the Tea Party message.

    The more independents like Obama, the better his chances of winning.  Almost every metric and analysis says that.

    Feel free to shoot the messenger but the message is still that Obama is correct to ignore the portion of his base that calls him a conservative and believes he's no better than Reagan.  They are generally going to dislike him regardless because their expectations are ridiculous.

    He can't satisfy them in any substantive way given the political environment so it makes no political sense to try.


    Let's deal with this statement (none / 0) (#198)
    by MO Blue on Thu Aug 18, 2011 at 10:07:54 AM EST
    The more independents like Obama, the better his chances of winning.  Almost every metric and analysis says that.

    Since you strongly approve of poll data: Every recent poll has said that Obama's actions are losing support among independents. IOW they don't much like his policies.

    Aug, 2011 Gallup poll Obama Issues Approval by Independent voters:

    The federal budget deficit  19%
    The economy                 23%
    Creating jobs               24%
    Situation in Afghanistan    31%

    Yeah, who needs your base anyway? (none / 0) (#185)
    by BobTinKY on Thu Aug 18, 2011 at 06:56:42 AM EST
    The people calling him (none / 0) (#194)
    by AngryBlackGuy on Thu Aug 18, 2011 at 09:26:55 AM EST
    a republican are not his base.

    His base is the large majority of liberals who supported the deal.  That is his liberal base.

    That is not the Hamshers of the world.  They are even further to the left of his liberal base.


    Trickle down equals (none / 0) (#202)
    by MO Blue on Thu Aug 18, 2011 at 10:37:17 AM EST
    trickle (i.e. p!ss) support away.

    The report explains, "The Post/ABC poll found that the number of liberal Democrats who strongly support Obama's record on jobs plunged 22 points from 53 percent last year to 31 percent. The number of African Americans who believe the president's actions have helped the economy has dropped from 77 percent in October to just over half of those surveyed."

    Add that with the approval by Independent voters of 19% on handling the deficit and 23% approval on his handling of the economy and you can see just how popular his policies are among the average citizen.

    I do agree that Obama is doing everything in his power to produce legislation and maintain support among his real base.

    Last night Obama headed to the Upper East Side to wine and dine Wall Street.

    The DNC fundraiser at tony restaurant Daniel cost attendees $35,800 each, and a source told Ben White at Morning Money that the event netted $2.4 million.

    Maybe Obama can recycle Bush's comment at these little get togethers:

    Some people call you the elite, I call you my base.

    Unless the GOP implodes I do not (5.00 / 4) (#4)
    by Buckeye on Wed Aug 17, 2011 at 01:35:54 PM EST
    see Obama getting reelected.  Obama edged out McCain late in the campaign after Lehman collapsed and people gave him a shot.  Four years later I think many have come to realize that in spite of the soaring rhetoric of 2008 and the tremendous hatred of one of America's worst Presidents, there is nothing special about Obama.  He is not the messiah, the one we have been waiting for, a diamond in the rough, etc.  Obama is, as far as American politicians go, very ordinary.  

    Ordinary (5.00 / 0) (#12)
    by Ga6thDem on Wed Aug 17, 2011 at 02:11:48 PM EST
    might be too good for him. Right now he's going to be one small notch above George W. Bush one of the worst Presidents the country has ever had.

    Yep (none / 0) (#54)
    by Buckeye on Wed Aug 17, 2011 at 03:33:34 PM EST
    Being a tad better than dubya is hardly worthy of praise.  The only thing that could save Obama is if Perry beats Romney and reminds everyone of dubya.

    I should have (none / 0) (#101)
    by Ga6thDem on Wed Aug 17, 2011 at 04:55:59 PM EST
    qualified with "in recent memory" since I am obviously not a student of presidential history.

    Reagan was the worst President (5.00 / 1) (#152)
    by observed on Wed Aug 17, 2011 at 08:28:30 PM EST
    of the post-war era, in that he successfully executed a sharp turn into insanity.
    His toxic legacy overshadows all recent politics.
    If the US hegemony is actually ending, Reagan deserves the lion's share of the credit.

    I understand that connection. (none / 0) (#179)
    by observed on Thu Aug 18, 2011 at 02:48:51 AM EST
    On the other hand, I don't think Nixon's level of vileness was anything new, in terms of American campaigning.

    Agree on your analysis of Nixon (5.00 / 3) (#160)
    by brodie on Wed Aug 17, 2011 at 10:13:58 PM EST
    and RFK.  Having lived thru that period, I have never bought the false post-Watergate revisionism of the man and his admin.  He was most definitely capable of some very dark deeds in the political arena -- though he is high on my list of suspects for the crime in Los Angeles, he isn't my top suspect.

    And Sirhan, the evidence clearly shows, could not possibly have fired the fatal shot which came from directly behind the senator -- Sirhan was well off to the side while a temp recently hired security guard with anti-Kennedy far-right political views said later he may have fired a shot.  Appallingly bad legal team for Sirhan --suspiciously bad in fact.

    RFK was our last great liberal political figure with very few -- Wellstone perhaps -- who came after in his league.  Our side should have been tougher and smarter in demanding honest answers back then.  As it turned out too many good people reacted with passivity and despair; it wouldn't be until seven years later that an important voice -- Al Lowenstein -- would begin to publicly question the official version.

    No question 1968 and the events in L.A. were a huge turning point for this country.  Been all downhill since then.


    The elder Harrison (none / 0) (#123)
    by cal1942 on Wed Aug 17, 2011 at 05:48:05 PM EST
    "served" for one month.

    Whether you consider him to be otherwise a bum has nothing to do with a Presidency that didn't last long enough to do any damage by either action or negligence.

    Your criteria, standing in the rain, is over the top harsh for a Presidency that was no more than a footnote.  Barrack Obama has been in office for over 2 1/2 years and has committed a number of real blunders.  So if you're going to include old man Harrison who was blissfully innocuous, you might consider Obama for your list.  IMO, the worst "Democratic" President since the 19th century.

    BTW, your list of White House trash is missing Ronald Reagan.


    Heck, Harrison is on my "worst list" (5.00 / 1) (#158)
    by Towanda on Wed Aug 17, 2011 at 09:33:37 PM EST
    for his decades of evil work before the presidency.

    Check out what got him to the White House, his resume as governor of the Indiana Territory -- when that meant most of the Midwest, minus Ohio (a state by then).  Harrison kept trying to turn the Midwest into slave territory again, trying to overturn the North-West Ordinance.  And his  actions against Tecumseh and the tribes fueled hatred that paved the way for one of our worst acts ever, the Indian Removal Act.

    Of course, for that act, the blame goes to Andy Jackson.  I'd put him high on a "worst list," too, for that and many reasons that land him on the list of leaders whose terrible actions haunt this land to this day.


    This is all (none / 0) (#136)
    by AngryBlackGuy on Wed Aug 17, 2011 at 07:07:43 PM EST
    Very fair and reasonable and will like get no traction with the folks he is addressing because it doesn't end in "Obama sucks".

    Appeasement, (5.00 / 0) (#144)
    by jeffinalabama on Wed Aug 17, 2011 at 07:41:45 PM EST
    PPUS, Millard Fillmore...

    Last of the Whigs, by the way. Read up on him, he was pathetic. Lucky for him, Warren Harding and Franklin Pierce held the office...


    Inasmuch as legacy (none / 0) (#161)
    by cal1942 on Wed Aug 17, 2011 at 10:31:09 PM EST
    is concerned Obama still has his chances.  However, in tracking to-date, the opportunity and public support for meaningful reform of the finance industry was bypassed and I happen to believe the power of the finance industry is an important determinant of our future.  It's certainly been a factor in the recent past.  It's not a prognostication that a major opportunity was missed.

    Other weak policies and tactical errors possibly  won't have lasting effect except he may have damaged the impression of many that Democrats solve economic problems, that Democrats in office means jobs.

    I can't claim to be an historian, I'm only an old student but I wonder of the value of studying history if we can't use the knowledge for making judgements about the present.  

    By the way, what makes you so sure that Harrison, whose record regarding slavery was checkered at best, would have been preferable to Tyler?  Isn't that type of conjecture, although tempting,  scorned by some historians?


    Adams invoked Alien & Sedition Act (none / 0) (#186)
    by BobTinKY on Thu Aug 18, 2011 at 07:10:14 AM EST
    , an act Jefferson opposed.  Jefferson also bought the Louisiana Territory from the French for a song which extended the US to the Pacific.

    Obama has maintained and ratified the worst of Bush's terror war and national security state excesses, doing more to make these abuses a permanent feature of our democracy than Bush ever could have.  Obama has extended Bush's tax cuts.  Obama, a Democrat, has put "entitlements" on the table thereby undermining both SS and Medicare in a way Bush and the GOP could only have dreamt about.  

    Grant was hardly a bum.  While he certainly had his chare of corrupt subordinates in his Administration, he as much as Lincoln saved the Union.  Moreover, Southern state rightists spent decades maligning Grant in reponse to Grant's often heroic advancement of the rights of former slaves.

    Where is Saint Ronnie on your list of bums?  HIs subordinates were at least as corrupts as Grant's?  I do not recall Grant taking  millions of $$ to give post Presidential speeches in a foreign country whose corporations, more than any other nation's, benefitted from his disregard & disrespect of American auto workers.  Grant on the other hand spent his final days completng one of the most well written and insightful memoirs in American history.


    The Messiah? (5.00 / 1) (#53)
    by smott on Wed Aug 17, 2011 at 03:29:46 PM EST
    ...Well he's the Second Coming of Reagan.

    Possibly not what the starry eyed Obots were expecting, I'll grant you....


    Well, the problem is that some (5.00 / 0) (#90)
    by inclusiveheart on Wed Aug 17, 2011 at 04:36:07 PM EST
    people don't really have any real opinion about the policies he's advanced other than to like them because he's advanced them.

    So, so people actually aren't terribly fussed by what he is doing because in their eyes he can do no wrong.


    Wow (5.00 / 5) (#5)
    by Militarytracy on Wed Aug 17, 2011 at 01:42:22 PM EST
    The hinges on my change purse just rusted shut for what I'm told is no good reason.  Oh well, still happened....still shut.  A little more fire breathing and perhaps they will weld shut.

    Krugman has hardly gone after them (5.00 / 1) (#6)
    by Militarytracy on Wed Aug 17, 2011 at 01:49:06 PM EST
    either.  I've been really pi$$ed at him since he had dinner with the President and got out the coddling kid gloves.  They nuke something, he writes something about how that wasn't a very good idea.

    Krugman responds (none / 0) (#192)
    by MO Blue on Thu Aug 18, 2011 at 09:06:13 AM EST
    I would say this: on one side you have the GOP, which responds to completely crazed Tea Party demands by doing all it can to assure the hard right that it's on its side. On the other, you have the Democratic establishment or at least part thereof, which responds to complaints from its own base that it's going too easy on the crazies by lashing out at the base, with a bit of bearded-professor bashing on the side.

    Way to strengthen your bargaining position, guys. link

    Krugman still going easy on them (unfortunately IMO) but I'm sure that he will be further vilified. Unless you are willing to adopt a Republican agenda to prove your support of Obama, you are evil, I say evil. :-(  


    No he doesn't. (5.00 / 0) (#92)
    by inclusiveheart on Wed Aug 17, 2011 at 04:38:11 PM EST
    The last I heard, his support in that arena isn't all that great for re-election.  Besides, unless and until the only votes in a general election that count are cast by the banks and their various employees, the money won't matter as much as some would like to think that it might.

    Because of what he has allowed (none / 0) (#13)
    by Militarytracy on Wed Aug 17, 2011 at 02:13:45 PM EST
    them to get away with, I think it is safe to say that for however long he is our President he owns those b*otches :) or they own him.  I think this is one of those BAD marriage scenarios though.  I don't see how any of it as far as history goes ends well for any of them.

    Hmm. Similar reasoning behind my sudden urge (5.00 / 1) (#11)
    by easilydistracted on Wed Aug 17, 2011 at 02:11:47 PM EST
    last week to boldly affix the instructions "return to sender" on the letter I received from Barack's campaign HQ. Problem was, it had no return postal address. How convenient.    

    Do what I do (5.00 / 3) (#44)
    by Zorba on Wed Aug 17, 2011 at 03:14:40 PM EST
    There is almost always an addressed, postage-paid envelope inside for any contributions you may want to make.  Return that envelope, stuffed with every piece of useless paper or cardboard you can fit inside, and/or a diatribe against everything intolerable Obama has done.  It won't really matter to them much, but it certainly makes me feel better.  And if enough people do this, it will take a little bit of money out of their campaign coffers, paying for those returned envelopes.

    1600 Pennsylvania Avenue (5.00 / 1) (#134)
    by txpolitico67 on Wed Aug 17, 2011 at 06:58:14 PM EST
    send it there...with a big "CALL DONNA BRAZILE IF YOU WANT MONEY" written across it

    Thought about doing just that, until my (none / 0) (#159)
    by easilydistracted on Wed Aug 17, 2011 at 09:34:17 PM EST
    wife mentioned the forwarding address would probably cost ME a stamp.

    What did Lambert used to say? (5.00 / 5) (#7)
    by andgarden on Wed Aug 17, 2011 at 01:53:05 PM EST
    Just STFU and send Obama more money.

    Another winning message... (5.00 / 1) (#9)
    by magster on Wed Aug 17, 2011 at 02:05:46 PM EST
    courtesy of Colorado Sen. Michael Bennet.  It's time for the "radical centrists" to rise up.

    Woohoo!! [pumping fist]

    Those radical centrists (5.00 / 4) (#38)
    by Militarytracy on Wed Aug 17, 2011 at 03:07:17 PM EST
    Fighting wildly and passionately for mediocrity :)

    We are all Fire"baggage" now... (5.00 / 1) (#10)
    by Anne on Wed Aug 17, 2011 at 02:09:41 PM EST
    abandoned on the political luggage carousel...


    I guess ABG was right: we ARE so inconsequential that the New Dems feel free to taunt and tease as if we were the pariahs of the middle-school lunchroom.

    whtever shall we doooooooo?

    you know (5.00 / 1) (#14)
    by Ga6thDem on Wed Aug 17, 2011 at 02:14:13 PM EST
    what's kind of funny? When Obama treated Hillary supporters like this back in 2008 the Fan Boyz thought it was either great or funny. Now they are getting a taste of their own medicine.

    That's been the only thing that has been actually something I have enjoyed the last few years--the fan boyz actually getting the same treatment that they dished out and then the GOP getting a good dose of their own medicine. Too bad that's ALMOST the only thing that's been good about these past few years.


    Can't make up my mind (5.00 / 0) (#15)
    by Militarytracy on Wed Aug 17, 2011 at 02:16:38 PM EST
    T-shirts or bumper stickers?

    Puck Folitics

    I'm Fire Baggage


    Will someone give US money (5.00 / 0) (#17)
    by Militarytracy on Wed Aug 17, 2011 at 02:18:30 PM EST
    for them?  Will they give us more money than they will Barack?  Is this finally the Obama jobs program?

    I want whatever (5.00 / 0) (#48)
    by Towanda on Wed Aug 17, 2011 at 03:18:38 PM EST
    you imbibed, ingested, or just intellectually consumed today, as every one of your comments has a line that is cracking me up. :-)

    Close the bone reality (5.00 / 0) (#103)
    by Militarytracy on Wed Aug 17, 2011 at 04:57:09 PM EST
    Children enjoy surgery, parents wake up to a few simple facts of life and how far from what is decent and honest and real even the supposedly best of us are :)

    Me, too, please... (5.00 / 1) (#157)
    by easilydistracted on Wed Aug 17, 2011 at 09:17:51 PM EST
    MT has been on fire today!

    Vote for Obama (none / 0) (#137)
    by AngryBlackGuy on Wed Aug 17, 2011 at 07:08:43 PM EST
    Because Romney is worse and common sense dictates it.



    It's more (5.00 / 2) (#142)
    by Ga6thDem on Wed Aug 17, 2011 at 07:29:38 PM EST
    of the abused spouse rhetoric. If you don't stay with me it's gonna be worse out there for you.

    Those of us that supported Hillary back in 2008 were the first to hear this junk. It's now being propagated to the entire party even the fan boyz are being treated like junk.

    Look, I know you're willing to let Obama kick sand in your face, lay down at his feet and ask for more sand please but there's a lot of us who are just darn sick of this junk.

    So frankly the treatment from Obama is essentially the same treatment that we'd get from a Romney and the same treatment we got from Bush. The policies are essentially same with all of the above being trickle down voodoo apostles so sorry, this line of so called "reasoning" just doesn't work with a lot of us anymore.


    Really (none / 0) (#170)
    by AngryBlackGuy on Thu Aug 18, 2011 at 01:25:04 AM EST
    I thought the concept that mitt would be worse than Obama was common sense.

    I don't like your version of common sense.


    Well (5.00 / 1) (#182)
    by Ga6thDem on Thu Aug 18, 2011 at 05:55:02 AM EST
    if you're going to compare health care policies, Romney's HCR is superior to Obama's. So using "common sense" to vote for Obama just doesn't hold water in that case. Also Romney is squishy on social issues just like Obama. Both Romney and Obama want to eliminate social security and hack away at Medicare so what's the difference?

    Only because (none / 0) (#197)
    by CST on Thu Aug 18, 2011 at 10:04:12 AM EST
    the overwhelmingly Democrat state legislature in MA was able to override a number of Romney vetos that would have made it significantly weaker and less effective.

    Bottom line, Masshealth was passing with or without Romney, the state legislature could have and would have passed it without any input or help from Romney.  He just decided not to completely stand in the way since he thought it might help his future political career.

    And yes, MA "survived" Romney.  But we did that by countering him with a legion of liberal Democrats.  And we may have "survived" him, but we were trailing the rest of the country, and now we are at the head of the pack.  We also didn't "survive Romney" by giving him people like Eric Cantor and company to hang out with.


    Here's how I feel (5.00 / 2) (#191)
    by smott on Thu Aug 18, 2011 at 09:00:24 AM EST
    Said better by another Commenter :

    o    I may vote for Romney depending on who his Veep candidate is. Knowing the GOP, if he's their nominee, they'll stick a far right nutbag right by his side. Probably a lady. So my bet is on a Romney-Bachmann ticket. Ugh. I'll give that a pass. BUT if the GOP is smart enough to choose even a slightly less nutty Veep candidate, it's hard for me to say that I'll be voting for Obama in 2012. A Romney-Steele ticket for example. Oh I'm there.

    Yeah I know I'm a liberal and I know Romney's Mormon. But this is my f-cking money and my f-cking employment we're talking about here. Ideology and all that comes second to putting food in my stomach. Romney ran a state and a progressive, populous one at that. It's a way better credential than writing a nice book about audacity and having rock star charisma.

    I have lost faith in Obama and some part of me actually wants him the hell out. The Whole Foods liberals on the NYT and Gawker.com, who fervently enable Obama in the comments section, can have him.They can keep enabling him as they sip their fair trade soy lattes and munch their gourmet brownies while discussing the finer points of Foucault. They can keep defending Obama as a nice man who got a raw deal. They can afford that luxury. They have jobs and they still have money.

    Me, I wanted a guy who would fight tooth and nail for my interests: to help people like me afford college, to help people like me get better health insurance, to help people like me, who prudently saved and invested their money, to be able to one day buy a house. I thought I was getting that guy. Instead I got an author and a speechifier and a guy who really wants Rick Warren to like him. If he truly gave a crap about the American people, he would have paid a lot more attention to the healthcare bill and he would have spoken about it in specs rather than in vague generalities. He would have sold that bill to the American people and explained its benefits instead of just handing it over to Max Baucus. Obama just wanted something that wasn't too awful to pass. That's not good enough for me. If Obama really gave a crap about the stimulus and its effect on the American people, he would not have negotiated down and down and down with the GOP. He would have fought for what he felt the American people needed. His priority was to get a nice bipartisan vibe going, not to actually improve the lives of Americans like me.

    So quid pro quo, jerk. If, as other liberals like to say, you're just another politician who makes promises that you can't keep and have no intention of keeping, ( as if that somehow makes it all okay) then I'm just another person who won't promise to vote for you. I'm not going to be a loyal liberal any more than Obama and the larger Democratic party.

    So yeah, if he loses his re-election to even a fairly moderate Republican, I think it could actually be good for people like me. Republicans do not actually give a crap about me. I get that. But a non-nutbag GOPer with some actual admin experience is way better than this wishy-washy newbie douchebag. At least the job of running a geographical area is not going to be completely new to them. And if they've done it before, they'll know to not rely exclusively on 'compromise' to get things done. Unlike Barry The Wise over here.

    >>>  And re the Dog Story.....

    o    Yeah I know about that story. I feel terrible for the dog. I hope it bites Romney and gives him rabies. After he retires. It's my money and my income and my health insurance on the line. I'm going with whatever non-nutbag non-ideologue with administrative experience steps up to be a contender. On the GOP side, that would be Romney. The liberals have their precious Eternal Victim Earth Jesus and no one else.

    I'm sure Obama is wonderful to his dog. That's useless to me. I need to go to college and I need health insurance. I need a living wage. If I had to choose between my own survival and a dog strapped on to a car roof, I choose me.


    Apply the skills you'll need in college (none / 0) (#196)
    by vicndabx on Thu Aug 18, 2011 at 09:57:30 AM EST
    and do a little research:

    Obama Administration Announces Streamlined College Aid Application - Improvements aimed at increasing college access for low- and middle-income students.

    Expanding Pell Grants and College Tax Credits: The Recovery Act increased Pell Grants by $500 to $5,350 for 2009-2010 and created the American Opportunity Tax Credit, a new $2,500 tax credit for four years of college tuition. The President's 2010 Budget proposal would make these policies permanent and ensure the Pell Grant continues to grow steadily by making it an entitlement. Together, they provide approximately $200 billion in college scholarships and tax credits over the next decade.

    Modernizing and Expanding the Perkins Loan Program: The President's 2010 Budget proposes to make this vital program available to over 2,600 additional schools and an estimated 2.7 million additional students each year. By providing an additional $5 billion in Perkins Loans and continuing the low five percent interest rate, President Obama hopes that the neediest of students will have access to federal financial resources they did not have before.

    Creating a New College Access and Completion Fund: In his 2010 budget proposal, President Obama proposes a five-year, $2.5 billion fund to build federal-state-local partnerships aimed at improving college access and completion, particularly for students from disadvantaged backgrounds. These funds would be used to evaluate programs aimed at increasing college enrollment and graduation, and to grow and bring to scale programs that are proven to be successful.

    or don't and delude yourself into thinking the R brand is better for you.


    I live in MA (5.00 / 1) (#162)
    by itscookin on Wed Aug 17, 2011 at 11:42:20 PM EST
    And we survived Romney. While he's not my first choice, he doesn't scare me.

    Some people survived Romney (none / 0) (#201)
    by CST on Thu Aug 18, 2011 at 10:23:30 AM EST
    Other people really didn't.

    The murder rate went up for all 4 years of his governership, and then it went back down.  Despite the $hitty economy today, it's still down.

    Now you may think it unfair to pin all that on him.  But I remember him cutting summer job funding and police and all of a sudden, like clockwork, kids started killing each other again.  Boston has a relatively low murder rat efor a major city, but stuff like that doesn't happen by accident you have to work for it.

    As soon as he left, funding was restored and the murder rate dropped.

    That may not mean much to someone who doesn't live in the city, but I hear those gunshots, and I know some of those kids.  And no, not everyone survived Romney.


    OFA is losing its touch. (5.00 / 1) (#20)
    by observed on Wed Aug 17, 2011 at 02:28:44 PM EST
    The corrct message is "give money to Obama if  you aren't a ra**"

    Racist is so last year (none / 0) (#21)
    by Militarytracy on Wed Aug 17, 2011 at 02:33:16 PM EST
    Give money to Obama NOW or it proves you are as crazy as the Republicans :)

    I think you have some typos in (5.00 / 6) (#99)
    by MO Blue on Wed Aug 17, 2011 at 04:54:04 PM EST
    your comment. Here I fixed it for you. ;o)

    Giving money to Obama NOW proves you are as crazy as the Republicans :)

    So, serious question (5.00 / 0) (#23)
    by sj on Wed Aug 17, 2011 at 02:36:10 PM EST
    Is there anyone who is surprised by this?

    No (5.00 / 1) (#26)
    by Militarytracy on Wed Aug 17, 2011 at 02:39:34 PM EST
    I just didn't expect as much evidence of how much they think I suck this soon in the game :)  I'm sure that the beatings will continue until morale.......blah blah blah blah blah

    Yes, the attacks were much more subtle (5.00 / 0) (#49)
    by Towanda on Wed Aug 17, 2011 at 03:20:55 PM EST
    in 2008.

    That must be the reason, I tell myself, that so many smart people got sucked in then who actually were being attacked by Obama and didn't know it.


    hmm... you think so? (5.00 / 1) (#173)
    by sj on Thu Aug 18, 2011 at 01:47:08 AM EST
    They didn't feel subtle to me.  I'll have to think about that.  To me this just feels more of the same -- with a little added invective because some of the formerly adoring masses are turning a tad critical.

    how about that 26% approval rating (5.00 / 1) (#140)
    by observed on Wed Aug 17, 2011 at 07:17:40 PM EST
    Obama now gets on the economy? Carter? Anybody? Carter?

    Dudes, except for ABG, you're all (5.00 / 1) (#146)
    by jeffinalabama on Wed Aug 17, 2011 at 08:07:43 PM EST
    not politically correct. Koestler wrote about this scenario in "Darkness at Noon."

    Rubashov had been one of the leading figures in the Bolshevik revolution, and supporting Communist parties in other countries. He was revered amongst Communist officials. During a purge of the Communist Party, however, Rubashov... is arrested.

     Ivanov (his first interrogator and old party friend)is arrested and eventually executed for being "too soft" on Rubashov.

    Gletkin (the new interrogator), a representative of new Communist party officials, unflinchingly advocates the use of torture to wring confessions from prisoners...Rubashov finally capitulates.

    As Rubashov confesses to the false charges, he recognises that his treatment is carried out with the same ruthless logic as that which he himself employed. Ultimately, his [logic and  dedication] lead him to confess fully and publicly [to false charges against him.]

    ABG, I now get it, We should call you Gletkin, because we fail to see the glory and the significance and the importance of 'Teh One' to the Democratic Party.

    Obama (5.00 / 2) (#155)
    by lentinel on Wed Aug 17, 2011 at 08:50:46 PM EST
    and his coterie certainly can come up with colorful condemnations of what is laughingly called "his base".

    It does not appear to me to be the most effective way of making friends.

    According to information printed in Maureen Dowd's latest column, our leader has been on the campaign trail during which he has been discussing, "helping farms manage manure in creative ways."

    It would appear that Mr. Obama himself, once so skilled in the creative management of manure, could use a few pointers from the farmers in the audience.

    Bitter Knitter corner (5.00 / 2) (#167)
    by Stellaaa on Thu Aug 18, 2011 at 01:17:28 AM EST
    Leave us alone.  We are just the bitter knitters here.  

    Jane's response is funny (3.50 / 2) (#60)
    by waldenpond on Wed Aug 17, 2011 at 03:38:34 PM EST
    "I'm not sure what to make of this."


    She supports this if it gets them votes and money.  I'm surprised she didn't attach an OFA donate button to her post.

    Of course she doesn't know what to make of it. (2.00 / 1) (#77)
    by Farmboy on Wed Aug 17, 2011 at 04:21:49 PM EST
    Grover hasn't told her.

    She should've known that when you lay down with pigs, you're gonna get muddy.


    strange bedfellows, Farmboy (5.00 / 1) (#85)
    by The Addams Family on Wed Aug 17, 2011 at 04:30:12 PM EST
    part of realpolitik

    i know you have pigs on your spread, Farmboy - do you have a veal pen too?


    And as for realpolitik, the answer is (2.00 / 1) (#122)
    by Farmboy on Wed Aug 17, 2011 at 05:45:22 PM EST
    no. You just say no. When someone like Norquist offers you a deal, you walk away. You don't compromise, you don't rationalize, you say no. And why? Because at no point anywhere do his goals overlap with Democratic ideals.

    She proudly said yes.

    Her excuse is that she was trying to "save the Democratic Party," so she hooked up with Norquist. This is the guy who said, "The Left is not made up of friends and allies. The Left is made up of competing parasites."

    You can have him. In my opinion the Left can find better friends.


    Seriously, this is faux rage at its best (none / 0) (#116)
    by Farmboy on Wed Aug 17, 2011 at 05:29:33 PM EST
    One blogger insults a couple other bloggers. An idiot in NM, who should have known better because his name is on the office door, passes the insults around. And off we go to the races yet again with cries of, "Why does Obama hate America?"

    That Obama is one powerful guy if he can make bloggers say mean things about each other. BTD must be deep in his pocket, considering how many times he's said insulting things about other bloggers.

    And yeah, the idiot in NM should be fired. And as for the bloggers who've thrown down the victim card, they should remember the old saying about folks who live in glass houses.


    Can't Touch Saint Krugman? (2.00 / 1) (#33)
    by AngryBlackGuy on Wed Aug 17, 2011 at 02:59:33 PM EST
    Say it isn't so!!!!!!

    Krugman is the best there is at the numbers but piss poor at the politics.

    unlike you? LOL (5.00 / 3) (#35)
    by NYShooter on Wed Aug 17, 2011 at 03:03:15 PM EST
    if you agree (5.00 / 2) (#36)
    by The Addams Family on Wed Aug 17, 2011 at 03:03:38 PM EST
    that good POLICY is good POLITICS, then Krugman, who you acknowledge is "the best there is at the numbers," & is therefore a proponent of good policy, is better than OFA at the politics

    but of course my point is moot, since you clearly do not agree that good policy is good politics

    clearly you do not think so


    No (2.00 / 2) (#110)
    by AngryBlackGuy on Wed Aug 17, 2011 at 05:19:45 PM EST
    Good policy is not always good politics.

    The GOP gets that and we do not.


    Thanks for this comment (5.00 / 1) (#112)
    by Warren Terrer on Wed Aug 17, 2011 at 05:21:15 PM EST
    I really needed the laugh :D

    What? (none / 0) (#113)
    by Militarytracy on Wed Aug 17, 2011 at 05:23:12 PM EST
    Really?  Elaborate please

    oh, please, not. (5.00 / 4) (#148)
    by jeffinalabama on Wed Aug 17, 2011 at 08:16:36 PM EST
    I've seen enough convoluted-pretzel-logic-eight-year-olds-do-better answers (from grad students at Research One Universities) than I would expect here from ABG.

    It's about respect. (5.00 / 1) (#42)
    by observed on Wed Aug 17, 2011 at 03:12:39 PM EST
    This is not simple disagreement. This is the NM OFA head sounding like ABG, and that is not helpful.

    Jane Hamsher (5.00 / 3) (#51)
    by The Addams Family on Wed Aug 17, 2011 at 03:22:25 PM EST
    Dude (5.00 / 1) (#71)
    by Big Tent Democrat on Wed Aug 17, 2011 at 04:11:48 PM EST
    Either you really are not very smart or you just will write anything.

    This is beyond stupid from an OFA staffer.

    He has to be taken to the woodshed for this.


    Some situations are not (5.00 / 2) (#102)
    by MO Blue on Wed Aug 17, 2011 at 04:57:00 PM EST
    either or situations because both statements apply.

    The staffer was stupid to say it out loud (2.00 / 1) (#111)
    by AngryBlackGuy on Wed Aug 17, 2011 at 05:20:50 PM EST
    Very stupid.

    Did you read the post? (5.00 / 3) (#125)
    by MO Blue on Wed Aug 17, 2011 at 05:53:04 PM EST
    The Obama campaign's point person in New Mexico recently sent an email....

    The views were put in writing and distributed.


    No bad press (none / 0) (#138)
    by waldenpond on Wed Aug 17, 2011 at 07:10:02 PM EST
    Greg Sargent believes this is good for Krugman and FDL.  That to be mentioned at all means they are getting in Obama's head.

    Figure of speech (none / 0) (#139)
    by AngryBlackGuy on Wed Aug 17, 2011 at 07:10:47 PM EST

    Cmon dude. The point was that he sent the message out publicly.


    Cmon dude. (5.00 / 1) (#143)
    by MO Blue on Wed Aug 17, 2011 at 07:34:15 PM EST
    The point was that it was sloppy writing and made you look like you don't know what you are talking about.

    On second thought, .........


    OK mo blue (none / 0) (#171)
    by AngryBlackGuy on Thu Aug 18, 2011 at 01:28:29 AM EST
    You sure got me with that one.





    BTW, did you ever go back and educate (none / 0) (#189)
    by MO Blue on Thu Aug 18, 2011 at 07:57:45 AM EST
    yourself on who you had the interchange with on whether or not Congress was at it's lowest approval rating or were you just content to be inaccurate if you could zing me and do an endzone dance (h/t Dadler) on your coin flip.



    Ridiculous (none / 0) (#124)
    by cal1942 on Wed Aug 17, 2011 at 05:52:09 PM EST
    Firebagge (none / 0) (#2)
    by Abdul Abulbul Amir on Wed Aug 17, 2011 at 01:10:03 PM EST


    You have... (5.00 / 2) (#107)
    by Romberry on Wed Aug 17, 2011 at 05:11:44 PM EST
    ...a very weird sense of humour if that struck you as funny. The term isn't new, and it isn't funny. It amounts to an ad hominem attack on anyone who dares to question or criticize the Dear Leader. It's thin-skinned, intellectually bankrupt and juvenile, reminding me of nothing so much as Freepers and their "Algore" and "Soreloserman" attempts at cleverness.

    Not funny exactly (none / 0) (#127)
    by waldenpond on Wed Aug 17, 2011 at 06:01:12 PM EST
    but it is interesting as I believe it was a blog run by someone who was a conservative and pushed into the mainstream by a another blog run by a person who lovingly voted for Bush twice...

    Conservatives who voted for Bush, now proud Dem supporters of conservative Obama coined a term that marginalizes them every time they criticize the person they will donate to and vote for?

    Mainstream media couldn't have planned and purchased a better marginalization of the blogs and boy, oh boy, aren't groups like the chamber happy to see the progs taking out progs.

    Conservatives defeating liberals... check
    Old media win.... check
    Weakening of 'holding feet to fire' govt accountability.... check


    Links aren't working for me :( (none / 0) (#3)
    by nycstray on Wed Aug 17, 2011 at 01:12:16 PM EST
    but I did just see the Prez on my teevee telling folks to tell DC to quit drawing lines in the sand . . . and to think about future generations . . .

    Sorry (none / 0) (#16)
    by Big Tent Democrat on Wed Aug 17, 2011 at 02:18:14 PM EST

    Please note, though, (none / 0) (#25)
    by oculus on Wed Aug 17, 2011 at 02:38:09 PM EST
    my friend who switched early on from Clinton to Obama and who helped get out the vote in Akron, Ohio, on election day, and who is extremely angry re Obama, will work for him again.

    Desperate Housewives :) (5.00 / 5) (#27)
    by Militarytracy on Wed Aug 17, 2011 at 02:40:01 PM EST
    "You have nowhere else to go" (5.00 / 1) (#41)
    by jbindc on Wed Aug 17, 2011 at 03:11:30 PM EST
    It's all unacceptable really (5.00 / 5) (#98)
    by Militarytracy on Wed Aug 17, 2011 at 04:52:08 PM EST
    I will too (none / 0) (#31)
    by Big Tent Democrat on Wed Aug 17, 2011 at 02:56:59 PM EST
    So (5.00 / 2) (#50)
    by Towanda on Wed Aug 17, 2011 at 03:22:20 PM EST
    "that'll work" = it does work?

    After all, you're a firebagger lefty.


    Not because of the e-mail (none / 0) (#72)
    by Big Tent Democrat on Wed Aug 17, 2011 at 04:12:23 PM EST
    Not me (5.00 / 3) (#55)
    by smott on Wed Aug 17, 2011 at 03:33:36 PM EST
    Not one dime, not one minute of my time for Obama.

    Fool my once....and all that.

    I'm wondering how bad things will have to get beore I actively work against him.


    That is more losing my religion (none / 0) (#97)
    by Militarytracy on Wed Aug 17, 2011 at 04:50:37 PM EST
    It is sooooo without heart and just soul destroying, it is stagnant...swimming in the foul and overall depressing.  Maybe it's full of self hate too at this time.

    This is what happens to your brain when you swing so far left you quit smoking, quit killing your grandchildren while they sit next to you, and Obama is your President.

    Better write some good stuff.  Give us a reason, save our souls in this mess from hell.


    Why, BTD? (none / 0) (#156)
    by kmblue on Wed Aug 17, 2011 at 08:56:11 PM EST
    Because Obama is better than Romney?  If that's the case, then you and ABG agree for a change.

    He posted something about that in this thread.


    Ray Sandoval (none / 0) (#30)
    by The Addams Family on Wed Aug 17, 2011 at 02:55:51 PM EST
    is the Donna Brazile of New Mexico

    Obama's turning out to be (none / 0) (#59)
    by shoephone on Wed Aug 17, 2011 at 03:36:21 PM EST
    the worst campaigner evuh. Between his insulting "Suck it up and sacrifice more" comment to a unionized teacher yesterday and the New Mexico clown's insulting emailing news today, I wonder if Obama's going to have to suffer a brokered convention at that non-unionized hotel in North Carolina. And maybe a convention where the brokering actually breaks him in half.

    that (5.00 / 1) (#61)
    by The Addams Family on Wed Aug 17, 2011 at 03:41:16 PM EST
    would spur me to invest my shrinking resources in popcorn futures

    Consider this tidbit (5.00 / 1) (#78)
    by StephenAG on Wed Aug 17, 2011 at 04:22:43 PM EST
    from Maureen Dowd (http://www.nytimes.com/2011/08/17/opinion/field-of-dashed-dreams.html):

    "While Perry was playing the retro trigger-happy cowboy, Obama was playing the retro henpecked husband.

    In Cannon Falls, Minn., the president compared negotiating with House Republicans to negotiating with his wife.

    "In my house," Obama noted, "if I said, `You know, Michelle, honey, we got to cut back, so we're going to have you stop shopping completely. You can't buy shoes; you can't buy dresses; but I'm keeping my golf clubs.' You know, that wouldn't go over so well."

    In Decorah, he said: "Everybody cannot get 100 percent of what they want. Now, for those of you who are married, there is an analogy here. I basically let Michelle have 90 percent of what she wants. But, at a certain point, I have to draw the line and say, `Give me my little 10 percent.' "

    Maybe Michelle should be the one negotiating with the Republicans."

    Now we see what has formed his AWESOME negotiation skillz! The ones the we were told were soooooo superior in 2007/2008. "Give me my little 10 percent"? Give me a BREAK!

    H/T to Taylormarsh.com


    Sorry, but what a super silly a$$! (5.00 / 2) (#108)
    by Militarytracy on Wed Aug 17, 2011 at 05:16:48 PM EST
    Shoes, dresses, golf clubs?  As if men and women can be relied upon to be this uniformly base shallow. What if the golf clubs were mine, what if the dresses belonged to my husband and were really expensive because they come from one of those super pricey big guy transgender stores :)  What if I didn't need the clubs for my self esteem but my husband needed the dresses in order to feel good enough about himself to sell credit default swaps on Wall Street :)

    Sorry, can't resist...Aesop he is not.  He isn't even up to loaves and fishes snuff :)  Whoever writes this stuff for him must be fired yesterday!


    That is pretty funny (none / 0) (#83)
    by ruffian on Wed Aug 17, 2011 at 04:25:49 PM EST
    despite my knee-jerk rejection of MoDo's Cosmo-ish sex-roleization of everything.

    Not surprising (none / 0) (#126)
    by Politalkix on Wed Aug 17, 2011 at 05:59:59 PM EST
    "While Perry was playing the retro trigger-happy cowboy, Obama was playing the retro henpecked husband.

    Perry is after the non-college educated male vote while BHO is after the women vote.


    LOL!!! (5.00 / 3) (#145)
    by shoephone on Wed Aug 17, 2011 at 08:03:10 PM EST
    Got news for ya, he ain't gettin the women folk to support him -- not with that shyte.

    oh boy (none / 0) (#150)
    by The Addams Family on Wed Aug 17, 2011 at 08:22:38 PM EST
    next thing you know, Obama's going to go all Ricky Ricardo



    Can you tell me about his comment (none / 0) (#64)
    by observed on Wed Aug 17, 2011 at 03:50:47 PM EST
    to the teacher?

    He started out by paying lip service to unions, (none / 0) (#68)
    by shoephone on Wed Aug 17, 2011 at 04:01:01 PM EST
    And then, as usual, reverted back to his "shared sacrifice" nonsense. Here is a link to the entire exchange at an Iowa campaign event yesterday, but these are the nut grafs:

    I do say, though, to my friends in the public sector unions that it is important that you are on the side of reform where reform is needed.  Because the truth of the matter is, is that at a time when everybody is belt-tightening, there is nothing wrong with a union saying to itself, you know what, we know budgets are hard right now.  Let's sit down and say we're willing to negotiate so that we're making some sacrifices to maintain the number of teachers in the classroom and keep class sizes at a reasonable level.  We're willing to make some modifications in terms of how our pension systems work so that they're sustainable for the next generation of teachers as long as it's a conversation, as opposed to it simply being imposed and collective bargaining rights being stripped away.

        So I think it's important -- remember we talked about shared sacrifice and burden sharing.  Well, this is an area where there's got to be burden sharing as well.  If a public sector employee is able to retire at 55 with 80 percent of their wages, and the average public sector employee has got a 401(k) that they've just seen decline by about 20 percent and they have no idea how they're going to retire, and they're feeling burdened by a lot of taxes and they don't feel like the public sector employers are making any adjustments whatsoever to reflect the tough economic realities that are facing folks who are not protected, then there's going to be a natural backlash.

    In this case.... (5.00 / 3) (#79)
    by ruffian on Wed Aug 17, 2011 at 04:23:38 PM EST
    and they don't feel like the public sector employers are making any adjustments whatsoever to reflect the tough economic realities

    They need to be educated to realize that what they 'feel like' is not the case. Telling public sector workers to sacrifice more because private sector workers don't 'feel like' they have sacrificed enough is just terrible.

    Why does he never try to educate people who are wrong instead of telling the rest of us to go along with them?


    Because he hates people who (5.00 / 4) (#94)
    by observed on Wed Aug 17, 2011 at 04:40:33 PM EST
    aren't rich. It couldn't be more obvious

    IF he deigns to visit WA. state before 2012 (5.00 / 0) (#129)
    by seabos84 on Wed Aug 17, 2011 at 06:16:56 PM EST
    HOPE-fully it will be not be too inaccessible and too inconvenient ...

    I'm no good with art, but

    a HOPE stencil-outline sign with YAWN written on top of the "HOPE" is the ONLY thing I'll do around his election.

    Of course, I'm sure I'll be relegated to the free speech zone in the Yakima firing range while he is cordoned off with pre-screened toadies, sycophants and 0-b0ts who are upset, but, they gotta keep that seat at the table!



    Mo Blue (none / 0) (#109)
    by AngryBlackGuy on Wed Aug 17, 2011 at 05:18:32 PM EST
    This is off topic but remember when you gave me crap for saying that we should wait and see whether Congress was at it's lowest approval levels this week.  The results are in and I was right:

    "Americans' evaluation of the job Congress is doing is the worst Gallup has ever measured, with 13% approving, tying the all-time low measured in December 2010. Disapproval of Congress is at 84%, a percentage point higher than last December's previous high rating."

    - Gallup

    What's interesting about that is (5.00 / 6) (#114)
    by nycstray on Wed Aug 17, 2011 at 05:24:41 PM EST
    Obama can start taking the blame for that number. His words and actions have done nothing to help the left in Congress (ya know, the ones who want to help the majority of Americans), and now he's blaming them for HIS lousy performance.

    And he's doing NOTHING to help (5.00 / 2) (#117)
    by Militarytracy on Wed Aug 17, 2011 at 05:30:49 PM EST
    any other Democrat get elected or reelected either.  The 'I'm not as bad as the other guy' thing isn't a big winner for anyone.  There is no V formation headed North or South, it is a violent free for all just like everything he touches.

    Uhhhhhm (none / 0) (#172)
    by AngryBlackGuy on Thu Aug 18, 2011 at 01:38:03 AM EST
    Yes.  I think given that the House is insane, it's probably fair to target their obstructionism.

    Particularly when all of the things you want done can't happen because of the House's ability to stop it.

    Honestly, there is no coherent concept of what Obama can realistically do coming from these comments.  He is both attacking the GOP to weakly and wasting time blaming them.  

    I have yet to see a realistic set of policies produced here that get around House control by the GOP.

    It's easy to complain and rage about the failure to accomplish the impossible. Illogical but easy.


    Let's see, 2 yrs with a Dem Congress (5.00 / 2) (#174)
    by nycstray on Thu Aug 18, 2011 at 02:08:08 AM EST
    and 7 months with a split. And wasn't Obama supposed to be the great negotiator or something like that? He'd be able to handle those Republicans no problem was what we were told/promised by all his pie-in -the-sky Bots . . .

    Fast forward, all we get now is hand wringing and the all too often excuse of 'but, but, but . . . he can't do ANYTHING!' Gonna make one heck of a campaign slogan, all we need now is to know if we should put WTF! before or after it . . .


    He used (none / 0) (#183)
    by AngryBlackGuy on Thu Aug 18, 2011 at 06:28:41 AM EST
    The time to pass a massive stimulus, nominate two liberal supreme court justices, repeal DADT and achieve the most massive reform of our healthcare system in fifty years.

    I think he used the time pretty effectively.

    That's all nothing to you but it's a lot objectively.


    There you go again (5.00 / 3) (#188)
    by MO Blue on Thu Aug 18, 2011 at 07:50:03 AM EST
    Massive stimulus? IIRC even people in Obama's administration have admitted that they underestimated the extent of the problem and that the stimulus package was way too small and poorly focused.

    Your so called massive reform of our healthcare system is even by Obama's admission a warmed over Republican plan from the nineties. It was written by and for the insurance industry and by intent will purposely lower the national standard of actuarial values from 80/20 to  70/30 and then 60/40. It is designed to shift the costs of actual care from the insurance industry to the individual while allowing them to continue to increase premiums unabated. Mandating high priced junk insurance as a substitute for affordable health care is going to hurt a lot more people than it helps. Changes to the subsidies for the poor have already been made this year. It is also just a matter of time for further cuts to Medicaid which will make a bad piece of legislation even worse.

    The Obama "magical exchanges" are already being used to rationalize increasing people 65 and 66 out of Medicare and into the exchanges. Volumes have been written on how costly for everyone that proposal (which Obama backed in his agreement with Boehner) and how harmful that would be. It is also being used as the rational to lower the actuarial value of Medicare.



    Just because you keep saying this (none / 0) (#200)
    by vicndabx on Thu Aug 18, 2011 at 10:14:30 AM EST
    purposely lower the national standard of actuarial values from 80/20 to  70/30 and then 60/40. It is designed to shift the costs of actual care from the insurance industry to the individual while allowing them to continue to increase premiums unabated.

    doesnt make it true.  In fact the poorest have the highest actuarial values, 94/6.  Your negative spin spreads misinformation.


    Ever ask yourself how on earth (5.00 / 3) (#187)
    by Anne on Thu Aug 18, 2011 at 07:23:38 AM EST
    GWB managed to get so much of what he wanted with a Democratic majority in the House?  I mean, you're claiming that opposition-party control is the reason Obama's hands are tied, and yet somehow, other presidents have managed to move their agendas, haven't they?

    That being said, I would submit that Obama is moving his agenda just fine, actually - it's my agenda, and the agenda of many other liberals, that he hasn't moved, and there's a very good - and obvious - reason for that: we don't share the same agenda, the same goals, the same vision.  

    Republicans are resisting and obstructing because they know that, as much to the right as Obama has proven himself to be, they know that they can get him to move a little farther.  And Obama will do it in the name of "getting things done for the American people" AND manage to satisfy his big-money donors at the same time.  Win-win for him; pretty much a lose-lose for us.

    We already know that Obama is stuck on "realistic" and "pragmatic," which is quite the turnaround for someone who spent almost two years whipping people into a frenzy over "Yes, We Can," and "we are the change we've been waiting for!"  I guess he and his campaign shop decided that "We will not accept disappointment - we will avoid it at all costs!" was maybe not so inspiring.

    Every time I hear you or any of the Obama fans claim that we can't hold Obama responsible for failing to accomplish the impossible, I marvel at how willing you and they are not just to accept Obama's ideas of what is possible, but to lower your own sights and try to to convince yourselves - and others - that that's a good thing.

    What a tragedy, really.


    And, according to polls this week, (5.00 / 1) (#119)
    by shoephone on Wed Aug 17, 2011 at 05:30:54 PM EST
    Obama is languishing in his worst approval ratings ever. 39%. Does that mean anything to you, or will you simply gloss over the stuff you don't want to face? Denial can only work for so long.

    It's a race to the bottom these days.


    So you flipped a coin (5.00 / 3) (#121)
    by Dadler on Wed Aug 17, 2011 at 05:37:59 PM EST
    Either congress was at it's lowest approval levels or they weren't.  You're really doing an endzone dance on a coin flip win?  Why not celebrate a meal completed without biting your cheek by accident.  

    But seriously, congratulations.  ;-)


    you almost owed me (5.00 / 1) (#153)
    by jeffinalabama on Wed Aug 17, 2011 at 08:33:11 PM EST
    a new computer for that one, Dadler. I can't afford to spew on this one, it's an investment!

    Laughter vs. spew consequences (none / 0) (#199)
    by Dadler on Thu Aug 18, 2011 at 10:14:18 AM EST
    You may need to cover that computer with granny's old clear vinyl sofa upholstery.

    For the upteen time (5.00 / 4) (#128)
    by MO Blue on Wed Aug 17, 2011 at 06:08:38 PM EST
    you are distorting facts. I remember the interchange but I was not the person(s) you were discussing whether or not Congress was at it's lowest approval rating.  

    So once again you give me the opportunity to state that you are really sloppy with your statements and do not burden yourself with actual facts.


    Thanks (none / 0) (#154)
    by lentinel on Wed Aug 17, 2011 at 08:40:41 PM EST
    for updating us on polls.
    A valuable service.

    Read again (none / 0) (#190)
    by jbindc on Thu Aug 18, 2011 at 08:50:22 AM EST
    "Americans' evaluation of the job Congress is doing is the worst Gallup has ever measured, with 13% approving, tying the all-time low measured in December 2010. Disapproval of Congress is at 84%, a percentage point higher than last December's previous high rating."

    Guy couldn't rally a troop of Cub Scouts (none / 0) (#141)
    by Dadler on Wed Aug 17, 2011 at 07:23:20 PM EST
    Win one for the gripper.  Dude's squeezin' it way too hard already.

    Milton Friedman won the Nobel too... (none / 0) (#149)
    by diogenes on Wed Aug 17, 2011 at 08:17:38 PM EST
    "...including the Nobel Prize winning New York Times columnist Paul Krugman."
    Winning the Nobel doesn't prove that you're RIGHT.

    Yep, but history has (5.00 / 0) (#151)
    by jeffinalabama on Wed Aug 17, 2011 at 08:26:58 PM EST
    demonstrated Friedman's economics do not work in the real world while Krugman's, on the other hand...

    I thought Obama didn't read blogs! (none / 0) (#163)
    by lilburro on Thu Aug 18, 2011 at 12:10:52 AM EST
    Maybe just his staffers do.

    I am not miffed but apparently creating space on the left to do better things isn't happening.

    I'll be waiting with baited breath for the "screw Norquist!" emails Romney's team sends out...

    I slap my head (none / 0) (#195)
    by TeresaInSnow2 on Thu Aug 18, 2011 at 09:50:07 AM EST
    when I see people NOT ignoring ABG.  He is a 29%'er.  Why do you argue with him? Nothing, I mean NOTHING is going to change his mind.  If Obama nuked his grandmother, he'd find a way to rationalize it.

    Just ignore him. He'll hate that, we'll chuckle and he'll eventually go away.