I’m having a bit of trouble deciding which part of President Pissypant’s final Jeopardy answer was more appalling today. On the one hand, there was the part where he proudly described the half-a-loaf health care bill he birthed, made all the easier when he paved the road by aborting the public option before negotiations even began (to say nothing of that sweet sweet deal the White House secretly finagled with big pharma). On the other hand he let it be known that he is very very angry with the people who are very very disappointed in him just because these people were expecting him to apply himself and bring home an “A” and instead he brought home a very solid C+ and THAT IS NOT A FAILING GRADE, YOU GUYS.
To his credit he didn’t call himself “the decider” or, even worse, point out that by giving 25% of the tax benefits to the top 1% he saved us from a mass Galt going.
But if you want to get to what was really wrong with what Obama has both done and said, I’ve read nothing tonight better than this from the wonderful aimai over in the No More Mister Nice Blog comments, which deserves attention:
Look, the fault here lies with the Obama administration. If you are going to broker a deal with your party’s worst enemies and engage in negotations with extortionists and hostage takers you damned well better be sure you have all your supporters lined up behind you–Obama didn’t. He clearly didn’t have a real agreement with Pelosi, the Senators or his own left/progressive base. He could have, and he should have. He tried to be the middle man, literally, and he has essentially written a check he can’t cash.
I’m really sorry about that. I supported Obama in the past–raised money for him, door knocked for him and I will do so in the future. I’m am totally opposed to a primary of a sitting Democratic President. And I personally think Obama’s a pretty good guy and pretty smart and well intentioned. But this was an absolute tragedy of mamoth proportions–a total failure of leadership and logic. You just don’t fuck with your core supporters and their principles and then lecture them on TV and call them losers and jerks. You do that privately. You do that with love. You do that with key opinion leaders on your side–and I don’t mean David Broder.
If you want to broker a deal with the Republicans you should have had the SEIU, Kos, and every single person you had any expectation had any kind of following on your side first. Even if you had to bribe them or flatter them or whatever the fuck. That’s only logical. I’m not saying that because I believe in feelings first, politics second but because Obama needs people on his side. He clearly needs the Senate and the House to support him in this bargain.
This is about to blow up in his face and when it does it also blows up in the party’s face and in his supporters faces. That seems to be something that Obama and his supporters just don’t get. His public humiliations are our public humiliations. And when he has a triumph (as he sees it) he either undersells it by failing to attack the Republicans and the wealthy and with a follow up karate chop to the neck or he spoils the whole fucking thing by going off on his own supporters for being too idealistic or too I don’t know what.
There are legitimate differences about this compromise. We’re all really happy about the unemployment money but the fact of the matter is that Obama and the dems have lost the first round of tax issues and lots of us agree with Digby that the payroll tax holiday is very likely to be a time bomb that we can’t defuse later. Obama and his administration keep hoping that things will magically get better economically and they will finally be able to govern logically and technologically. I doubt that things will get better economically and even if they do Obama has himself helped sow the seeds of future trouble by playing up the deficit, trying to find common ground with the republicans, and generally undercutting progressives and progressive values as “idealistic” and foolish and unrealistic and negative.
And its all so absurd. Just don’t insult your own voters. Just don’t do it. Whatever your personal feelings. It can never be a good idea.
Yeah. That. What she said.



87 Comments
Support this site!
Subscribe to the newsletter
Advertise on Firedoglake
Send
us your tips
Make us your homepage
About TBogg
RSS/XML Feed
He may have insulted his own voters but he didn’t insult his constituency. Like nearly every other national politician, his constituency is the comparatively wealthy and powerful. Mr Obama needs to do a poverty tour like the one that opened the eyes and appalled the soul of Robert Kennedy. Too bad Michael Harrington (Socialist) is long dead and unable to plan the itinerary the way he did for the martyred Bobbie.
As I said at BJ:
Listen, I understand that sometimes, due to political exigencies, we’re going to get served a shit sandwich. It happens, I get it. It’d be really nice if Obama at least appeared to push for something better, I mean, pragmatism doesn’t mean you have to give in to every offer, but whatever. What I don’t expect is to be insulted for noticing it’s shit. “But it’s on a Kaiser roll, you’ve got to appreciate that!” Uh, yeah, I guess that’s nice, I mean, I rather it not be a shit sandwich, but ok..
Black Jimmy Carter my ass. More like black Evan Bayh AMIRITE?
How’s the “lesser evil” workin’ out for ya now?
Yes, that’s what I thought.
By the time 2012 rolls around, Obama will not have a hope in hell of persuading anyone he’s the best choice.
By the way, I can’t disagree with animai more. There is no way in hell Obama could have persuaded anyone to go along with this bullshit. Bribes? Is she kidding? You need cash to pay them. Which is a joke in itself.
Without tax revenue, programs can’t be funded, basic services can’t be provided. Extending UI is all he got? And when it runs out, unemployment will still be an explosive problem. And there will be less no money to pay for it than there is no money now.
Obama is a complete fucking jackass. A nice guy, I’m sure. But a jackass. Maybe even a sanctimonious one.
A president who won’t fight for what he says is right is in the wrong job.
After 8 solid years of being told I’m a traitor who hates his country because I believe in liberal things like progressive income tax and a social safety net, I now have the pleasure of being hectored BY MY OWN PARTY AND PRESIDENT for being unrealistic and hurtful.
It’s not an unwillingness to fight. This guy literally does not know how to fight. I remember quite consciously learning how to fight in junior high school. Fighting takes something this guy just doesn’t know about, much less have.
Oh geez, is that sick, or what? That sounds so abused.
Thurber quoted at the end of last night’s Countdown: “You might as well fall forward flat on your face as lean too far backward.”
.
Sorry, not acceptable as a response to this betrayal.
With respect to another anonymous loon on the internets, but what the fuck right do you have telling anybody what is acceptable as a response?
The truth is a piss-weak Democrat administration is still not as actively damaging as the Reps. For Christ’s sake, there is a Republican who rejects climate change because God promised not to make a second flood. These are not people you put in charge of garden implements, let alone a country.
There’s so much wisdom/clarity in this post/comments. I know someone can answer these questions:
Why decrease the payroll tax rate, at a time when SS supposedly needs every penny?
And why not get another “concession,” like the unemployment benefits extension … but instead of dropping the payroll tax rate 2%, force the wealthy — all of them — to pay SS/Medicare on their salaries/bonuses?
My husband and I have our own company, and we’re having to pay SS/Medicare on personal use of the company car and SURPRISE! personal cell phone use which leaves my husband with a bonus check of $1.73. I’m beyond pissed.
I don’t think this job can be handles by humans anymore. It’s time for pan-galactic aliens with hyper-intelligent androids to come in and run the show. Much too complex and too much money involved for mere mortals to actually accomplish anything.
Yeah, “President Pissypants” is gonna stick, I think.
I thought behind that calm, cool exterior Obama has, there was at least some substance. Unfortunately, he either has no balls for a fight, even when things are stacked in his favor, he really doesn’t believe what he said in the election, he is secretly in cahoots with the upper class, or he is playing some 11-dimensional chess that we mere mortals can’t figure out. Whatever it is, I’m done with Obama.
Unless there is a 180 degree turn in his demeanor, there is no way this is gong to be a Clinton II, and all the gains the Democrats have made will be utterly wiped out in 2011.
The only thing I have to look forward to now are the Palin debates. At least those will be entertaining.
New York, can’t you spare Weiner? At least he looks like a fighter.
If you’re a Dem, it’s for the stimulative effect. That money will go straight back into the economy. If you’re a Repub, it’s the first step in starving SS to death.
I don’t really care about being taken to task by President Scold. I regarded the Clinton presidency as one long Sister Souljah moment, and as Gmoke stated in #1, we’re not his constituency. Whatevs. What annoys me most is that he initially set the “Republicans as hostage takers” meme up pretty nicely, and then went off on the lefties. Guess which one the MSM will be running clips of today?
Don’t step on your own message, nitwit. Or are we asking too much again?
TBogg, I can’t believe you used the picture for “One move and the n*gger gets it.” Do you think McConnell and Boner offered him a laurel, and hardy handshake?
As much right as you have telling me that it’s not my right, asshole.
Ok, I’d go with you on that one. Once one accepts Amani’s critisms then there doesn’t seem to be a good reason to work or vote for him again. Perhaps democrats down ticket, but certainly not Obama> Ever. Again.
I think Obama sees his role as the fluffer president. “C’mon y’all, if I can’t get the Boehner up, there’s no show. Nothing can be done.” It’s very inspirational.
I think Tom Tomorrow wins this round. Considering that the cartoon came out before the press conference happened.
It’s a shame that Barack Obama can’t be just the sort of end negotiator for this Administration somehow. Once your President has fought, persuaded, and used his pulpit to move votes, stand up to Republicans, and so on, then you send in the negotiator, which is a job that Obama is obviously good at.
It’s just that in this case, the President sending him in is him, and sends him in with a pathetically weak, hopeless position so he’s begging for table scraps.
Holding up the table scraps you got and crowing about how they’re gifts from the gods and all you stupid liberals just can’t see that because you’re idiots– yeah they should probably leave that part out entirely.
Curious strategy, insulting a lot of the people who campaigned for you while gently chiding those who didn’t and have vowed to make you fail. I don’t believe I’ve quite seen this one before.
I’m fed up with Obama going out of his way to insult liberals and progressives while he’s bending over backwards for the likes of Mitch “I never met a millionaire I didn’t love” McConnell and John Boehner.
That’s not true! He’s bending over frontwards.
Too many people have bought into the “we must destroy the village in order to save it” narrative.
You know, because that worked so well for us in the past…
Wow, I can’t believe tbogg is *this* close to shopping for a Mumia sweatshirt. Obama must really have screwed the pooch. This threw me for a loop: “I personally think Obama’s a pretty good guy and pretty smart and well intentioned.” Really? In spite of all the evidence to the contrary? I mean, smart, yes. But well-intentioned? Please, definitions, then. What intentions? For whom? Sure, if you’re Lloyd Blankfein he’s the fucking messia and Santy Claws, but really now. How does that not make you as gullible as ever? And, shit, you’re actually going to go out there and campaign for him again? I’m sorry, I campaigned for him two years ago, and it’s left me feeling like I slept with a cheap hooker… Sure as hell not going back there again.
Apparently you missed this part:
The fact is, as poor a job as he has been doing, the alternative (Republican) is worse. We have experience with this in Sen Feinstein. The devil you know and all that.
Perfect! That Clevon Little scene is sums it up brilliantly.
Facts:
The alternative was that taxes go up on everyone and the long-term unemployed lose their benefits. Instead, Obama exchanged $120 billion in tax cuts for the rich for $810 billion in benefits for everyone else.
Wow. Anyone would think, reading the comments here, that the mainstream view in this country is that we should raise taxes hugely on the wealthy, double the minimum wage, have a government-financed healthcare system that is 100% free at the point of delivery, have tuition-free higher education, close military bases all round the world … like that — all of which I happen to believe, strongly. But you know what? I am in the minority, and I know it. A version of the public option has major support, but not enough (even in California, where I live) to overcome the institutional resistance. We need to persuade people, starting with mainstream Democrats. Sure, vent your frustration. Feel better? If not, punch a pillow or something. Now, we have work to do. And I for one do not intend to become a mirror image of the crazies on the right.
A supermajority of Democratic voters approve of Obama’s job performance:
http://www.gallup.com/poll/145097/Obama-Approval-Rating-Holding-Steady-Midterm.aspx
Given that reality, I doubt Obama really gives a shit what a small minority of people on the progressive Left think (myself included).
No, I didn’t miss that part — it just compounded my amazement at Aimai’s ability to deal with the cognitive dissonance here (“he’s a fuck-up, yet he’s well-intentioned… he’s been an unmitigated disaster, but I’ll go out there and pound the pavement for him again…”).
I know you’d never be seen dead in Mumia sweatshirt, and I admire you ability to stand the foul stench in the kitchen and still insist that we eat here, because that joint across the street is even worse.
A bunch of us had the discussion before around here, and I guess I just have a real problem with the “grades of unsuck” that appear to rule the day: 1) he’s an awesome progressive Democrat, changing the world for the better, and I’m behind him all the way. 2) he’s an okay Democrat, but also pragmatic enough to seek some compromises when necessary. 3) He’s a sell-out, a lost cause who really is not standing firm on any single D policy that matters to me. 4) He’s not a Republican. And as long as a politician meets criteria #4, we’re supposed to vote for him “because otherwise The Dark Side rules.” We can’t simply “not vote” if they’re a solid 3 on the unsuck scale (like not buying the shit burger because, really, appetite and all that), because apparently then — by default — the Dark Side Rules. So showing your dislike for a sucky D like Obama by not voting for him is the same as naming your firstborn after Dick Cheney or giving John Boehner hand release… ah, it’s a tough world in which we live.
That’s the consequence of living in a zero-sum, two-party election system – you either vote for A or B. If you choose not to vote at all, you are indirectly voting for the choice that you like the least because you lower the threshold needed to win.
That’s why I was adamantly opposed to anyone voting “None of the Above” (a valid vote choice) in Nevada because none of those votes would be counted at all except to register protest. If you were a Republican, voting None of the Above was indirectly supporting Harry Reid while a Democratic voter choosing that was indirectly supporting Sharron Angle.
comments like that make me think I somehow halllucinated and or imagined –
the authority to assassinate american citizens anywhere, anytime without due process, continued torture at Bagram, failure to prosecute War Crimes, flouting UN Convention on Child Soldiers and other well publicized crimes against the Constitution and Geneva Convention
am having trouble stringing the right words together here – I agree with a lot of what the commenter says (Jane said as much on tv last night) but I just don’t get how critiques or assumptions about his character, intentions, or performance to date could be so uninformed by these things
So the manly manhood of centrist democrats can still only be proven by bitch slapping sanctimonious lefties.
And yeah,context is everything: The use of the pic stinks.
Quite right. So, that leaves us, then, with some choices: 1) I don’t vote, and tbogg rightly banishes me to Gumdrop Fairy Land because I helped elect the lovechild of Michelle Bachmann and Rick Santorum as our next president, 2) I hold my nose and vote for my sucky D again, or 3) I vote for my sucky D *and* I brainwash myself and I go out there and campaign my ass off for him again, this time selling what I know for a fact is a totally bogus product to skeptical voters who are inclined to go with 1), above.
I guess my point earlier was: I get the need to to go 2) and vote for the sucky D, but it takes a special kind of political masochist to actively go to 3) and volunteer to campaign for the guy when you’re completely disgusted with his political accomplishments and acumen. Something vaguely Moonie-esque about that scenario…
I liken it more to trying to convince someone to start rooting for your favorite football team, even though they’re 1-12 and their starting QB couldn’t hit sand if they fell off a camel. Some people are just wired that way.
Then again, I’ve been more of an “issue voter” than a “personality voter” anyway. Pretty much have to be when you live in an area where your choices at the local level are a Republican or a Republican (or a Republican and an American Independent).
“[...] convince someone to start rooting for your favorite football team” — yeah, but the Patriots (or whatever your local sucky franchise might be) are purely about entertainment. It’s not going to cost you your pension savings or your children’s chances of a decent education if they decide to pitch the ball to the opposing team on every single play.
Well I guess the first step when you are the victim in a battering situation is to acknowledge there is a problem.
Here’s a question, since this guy isn’t going to do any serious thing you want, why should you continue to support him? The devil you don’t know might be worse than the devil you do? Please. I have voted for a lot of lesser evils in my life. Obama goes beyond that. He Looks directly at you and lies and works as secretely as he can to accomoplish just the opposite of what he says: FISA, HCR, now tax cuts for the rich are the most egregious examples, but are far from the only ones.
The only way to deal with politicians like that are to vote against them and probably work against them. There is no other way;. Obama and his people put us in this position, we can either cave in and be completely powerless, or we can try to do something about it. I know where I am.
Well I guess Obama had no other choice then. He never does you know.
If he doesn’t give a shit, why take the time on national television to show the progressive Left the back of his hand?
Unless of course it’s not the progressive Left he’s doing this for, but someone else who gets off on hippie-punching.
It was so much more important for Obama to play the political game the way you want him to than to do everything he can to keep people from literally being thrown out on the street.
You don’t think the Republicans would have done that? They would, and blame Obama for doing it too, because that’s how they roll.
Never said it was a good analogy… ;)
This – the Republicans have got their folks mesmerized into believing everyone on unemployment is a lazy, shiftless, grifter who would rather sit on the dole than go out at get two or three jobs (you know, the ones that only exist in the minds of pundits who go through that “friend of a friend” storytelling).
I mean, they’re out there right now saying that unemployment concessions shouldn’t be part of the deal (or, as DeMint is arguing, unemployment should be converted into a loan program). You think they wouldn’t gladly tell the folks whose unemployment clock is running out to pound sand? It’s worked for them so far.
Not sure you are actually disagreeing with me.
Can’t you count? There were more than two parties on my ballot. It’s just that the vast majority of the populace is so indoctrinated they won’t vote for anyone without a D or an R behind their name. Hell, they’re so indoctrinated they refuse to believe they are indoctrinated.
I can count, but voting for a third-party in this system is essentially the same as not voting at all.
When was the last time any third party made an impact on the Presidential election? 1992. And that was as a spoiler. In fact, every time they’ve had an impact (with the exception of 1948, which was a near thing) it’s been as a spoiler against the party in power.
Teddy Roosevelt was massively popular, running against a horribly weak Republican President, and even he couldn’t win as a third-party candidate because the system is designed to intentionally disadvantage them.
“And I personally think Obama’s a pretty good guy and pretty smart and well intentioned” Ahhhhhh another Stockholm hostage, another battered spouse speaks out. “A pretty good guy” would not:
Load the Catfood Commission with corporatists to predetermine the report
Decide that he could order the assassination of US citizens w/o due process
Conspire with BP to hide the true extent of the ecological disaster in the Gulf
Continue the employment of Geitner and Summers
Refuse to even investigate the myriad crimes of the Bush administration
Make no attempt to secure passage of EFCA
And these are just the ones that came instantly to mind.
Any man who wants Alan Simpson to play a central role in shaping economic policy is in no way good intentioned.
TURN YOUR BACK ON THE FOUL SMELLING ZOMBIE THAT WS ONCE THE DEMOCRATIC PARTY AND LET US GET ON WITH SECURING A CONSTITUTIONAL AMENDMENT TO REMOVE PERSONHOOD FROM CORPORATIONS!
Speaking about throwing people out on the street; how did Obama’s various attempts to fix the forclosure crisis work out? Not so well. I’m sure it would have been worse under a republican.
During the primaries in 2008 I knew Hillary and McCain were “pwned” by corporate oligarchs, Obama’s pwner’s were not as clear, but it seemed likely e was fully pwned as well.
Sure enough.
The kaiser roll comment is probably the best one in this thread. And I think Aimai is on target, Obama whiffed on selling this. It may have been the best deal he could get given the hostage taking party in the Senate. He still could have called it what it was – a minority holding Americans suffering from this economy hostage in order to give a $100,000 bonus to millionaires at a $400B cost to the deficit.
Given the alternatives I’m probably in the same camp as Aimai in 2012 as well. I don’t see a primary accomplishing anything positive. Obama will get the nomination regardless of who plays Ted Kennedy as the Ghost of progressive’s past. And a far worse Reagan will be the choice in the general, with PUMA actions having inflicted much greater wounds.
Concentrate on lobbying your state government on redistricting. Develop relationships and work to find progressive candidates for 2012 at all levels – local, state and federal.
He still could have called it what it was – a minority holding Americans suffering from this economy hostage in order to give a $100,000 bonus to millionaires at a $400B cost to the deficit.
Well, he came pretty close: “I have said before that the middle class tax cuts were being held hostage to the high end tax cuts.”
That’s from a very quick Google, there was more detail too. I am beginning to wonder how many of the outraged actually saw the press conference, as opposed to just the coda to it. He criticized the right more, and for longer, than the left.
(my emphasis)
Are you seriously trying to tell me that
Obambi(can’t call him that; Bambi was actually able to do things) President Hopey-Changey did “everything” he could do? Seriously? Then, I am sorry to say, you are either delusional or very stupid. I cannot think of a single circumstance where giving the other side everything they wanted without even a pretense of negotiation qualifies for that standard.OTOH, as I used to say in my programming days, “That’s not a bug, it’s a feature.” This is EXACTLY what Sir Change-a-lot wants: to have those with money and power like him. Ergo, he will do exactly what they want, and has done so.
Yes, I supported Obama in 2008, campaigned and voted for him. But, to be honest, this is pretty much what I expected when he announced the his economics team was going to be lead by Geithner, Summers, and Bernanke. Personally, before I can call it “change I can believe in”, there has to be some change.
And for those saying, “Yeah, but it would have been much worse with a Rethug in the White House”, tell me exactly how it would be different. From where I sit, this administration, like the one before it, is:
still in Iraq, still in Afghanistan, still planning to attack Iran, still claiming executive authority to do anything at all (like assassinate American citizens on American soil without due process), still running Gitmo, still leaving Wall Street deregulated, still more interested in secrecy than in transparency (just ask Julian Assange), still trampling the Constitution (at least Chimpy had the “stupid and ignorant” excuse — Obama is allegedly a Constitutional “scholar”), still enforcing DADT (and going to court so that it can continue), still…
OK, we don’t have Cheney any more, and Obama can actually speak in complete sentences. So I guess there’s that.
They were stupid/corrupt/ineffective. That good enough for you?
For one thing we’d probably already be in Iran. And carpet-bombing North Korea. And we certainly wouldn’t have drawn down as much as we have in Iraq since 2008.
You don’t appear to have any actual solutions there, just criticism.
“He criticized the right more, and for longer, than the left.” — That and a buck fifty will get you coffee. Never mind that the left was factually right and the right was wrong on taxes (as they were on health care, bailouts, wars, etc. etc.), but to criticize both equally but only get naked, hot & steamy with his BFF Boehner while consistently flipping the left the bird really doesn’t make Sir Change-a-Lot an equal opportunity pragmatist. I’m sure Boehner & Co. can take a little criticism while they laugh all the way to the bank… meanwhile, the great unwashed masses on the left have f-all to show.
Oh, and I hate Geithner, Summers and Bernanke too. I think Obama’s decisions on economic policy have been terrible.
But that wasn’t what I commented about. What do you think he should have done in this particular case?
Not waiting until the last minute when we’ve known both about the expiration of the Bush tax cuts AND about the unemployment situation for literally YEARS would be a start. I realize that various Dems in tight races didn’t want a vote held prior to the election for various reasons, but that doesn’t mean it’s a good idea to wait until there are two weeks left in the lame duck session to spring something like this on the people who are supposed to be on your side. Congressional Dems are reacting the way they are because they haven’t been kept in the loop.
I do understand that for people who are desperate for more help on the UI front it seems like a good deal, but that 13-month extension, which doesn’t include the 99ers, comes at an unacceptably high cost. Which could have been avoided had there been some planning done on the Dem side, or had Obama not thrown away his bargaining chips before anyone got to the table.
And I also wonder what freezing federal pay got him.
It’s an “unacceptably high cost”, but the alternative was cutting those benefits off right at the Christmas holiday.
You don’t think the Republicans wouldn’t have turned Obama inside-out for the next three weeks painting him as a Scrooge? You don’t think the media would have lapped that interpretation up rather than the accurate one that the Republicans would prefer the unemployed just accept slave wages and no security?
You’re not dealing with rational people, here.
What would you call your comment? Sure looks like “criticism, not solution” from here.
You want solutions? Fine…
– Fire Geithner, Summers, and Bernanke.
– Get the hell out of Iraq and Afghanistan NOW, not in 2011 or 2014 or whenever the hell it is this week.
– Leave Iran alone.
– Announce (and enforce) that nobody will be assassinated for any reason without any due process.
– Close Gitmo.
– Make at least a pretense of regulating the FIRE industries.
– Act out your own words on transparency.
– Preserve, protect, and defend the Constitution as you swore in your oath of office.
– Drop the appeal on DADT.
Did I really have to say all that for you to get it?
And in this particular case (your #56):
– Don’t wait till the last minute to do anything.
– Stop negotiating with yourself (lawnmower, anyone?)
– Stop treating Rethugs like they are capable of either shame or actual compromise.
– Announce that you are totally opposed to tax breaks for millionaires under all circumstances and let the Rethugs try to defend them.
– DON’T cut back on contributions for Social Security under any circumstances (this is just a Trojan horse for the Cat Food Commission to get their way).
– Grow a pair.
That enough for you?
Changelessness we can’t believe in.
Money quote:
Getting that 1979 Feeling Again.
Money quote:
Maybe TheBobs is right: this IS the best he can (or wants) to do.
It isn’t exactly easy to just drop everything and run from a military conflict. You can’t just say “okay, grab your gear and go”.
An orderly withdrawal that won’t look like the 21st Century version of Saigon will take months, minimum.
Um, hello? You (thingwarbler) bother to quote me as saying that “He criticized the right more, and for longer, than the left” and then complain “to criticize both equally …” I did not say that. You know I did not say that. So why are you saying it, in response to what I did say? Sheesh, the level of discussion here is sinking toward the morass of the crazy right.
The Chinese central bank just announced that they are torpedoing Obama’s chance to be re-elected: http://news.yahoo.com/s/nm/20101208/ts_nm/us_china_economy_growth.
So how does the unemployment extension get passed?
Why is it the “only” alternative? Why hasn’t Obama been out there slamming the Republicans as Scrooges? Why not use those 8 minutes of hippie-punching to go after the people who are *really* standing in the way of a UI extension? Why is UI coupled with tax breaks for the rich in the first place, especially when the public overwhelmingly is in favor of letting those tax breaks lapse?
IOW, how do we know what kind of deal might have been had if Obama hadn’t bargained away his position before coming to the table?
Because the narrative is “The Democratic Party controls the majority in both Houses and the White House. Therefore, how can the Republicans *possibly* obstruct anything?”
I’ve been fighting that narrative for months, but the media never blames it on Republican obstruction. NEVER. It’s always the party in power’s fault.
So why would this be any different than the last 2 years has been?
petesh, sory my bad if “equally” offended you. My point was this — and remains the same: even if he criticized the the right “more and for longer” — they got what they wanted, the left, as usual, got nothing. So what is the value or point in him criticizing Boehner & Co however much when they know they can just turn a deaf ear to his harping?
Apology accepted, and sorry I got testy. Thing is, I don’t think you are right. Did you watch the rest of the presser? Did you see the reaction from DeMint (who thinks Republicans gave away the store)? Did you see the policy response from Krugman? Krugman complains strongly about Obama’s “lashing out at purists” but also calls the deal “the best of a very bad situation.” To say the left got “nothing” does not take into account the unemployment benefit extension, especially, as well as the general needed new stimulus. Benen quotes an analysis that has Obama getting $450 bn for his “wish list” vs $120 bn for the rich (and $360 bn mutually agreed).
Now, do I think CONGRESS should have passed a tax deal before the election? Hell, yes! Obama did ask them too. They did not do it. I don’t think Congress has a damn leg to stand on when it comes to criticizing this deal — and I don’t think Obama is the one who be bearing the brunt of criticism. He got testy — I don’t blame him for that, either. (Obviously, I couldn’t talk, I do it myself! ) Onward and upward …
And you don’t see that as relevant at all to the current situation? With all due respect, as the nuns use to say to me in grammar school, put your thinking cap on, Mr. Spotts.
When Obama picked Larry Summers as an economic adviser it was almost an exact analogy to the moment when Carter chose Warren Christopher (to whom tbogg gives advice) as Sec of State.
Sigh.
The only constituency that counts in the USA these days is one that has a net worth of at least over $1,000,000 (and that’s the folks in the kiddie pool).
There’s a fine blue print already laid out for President Obama to follow if he intends to run for President in 2012:
-quit halfway through your term
-”write” book(s)/go on tour(s)
-can anyone say “reality show”?
-twittertwat/shoutyface like there’s no tomorrow
-pimp your kids
-show some leg to rev up the base (shit, get your kid to titshimmy (h/t kenoshakid))
-run for President
It’s not a proven formula, but will distract folks while Goldman-Saachs fucks them and fills your campaign coffers…..
Yeah, it means vote third-party and say hello to President Palin.
With all due respect, if you think that’s the solution you’re the one who needs the thinking cap.
Reading comprehension problems tonight? I didn’t suggest it as a “solution.”
I was responding to your thoughtless contention that “voting for a third-party in this system is essentially the same as not voting at all.” It clearly is not — as shown by your statement “vote third-party and say hello to President Palin.”
I’m not the one you should be warning about voting third party. You should be warning your buddy, Barack, that behaving in a manner that begs for a third party may not be wise.
He’s not my buddy, and frankly at this point I am sick and fucking tired of the allegation that he is.
Obama sucks. Sorry, but let’s just keep it simple. It’s a sad but true reality. I can’t believe how bad he is, actually.
That bullshit is bullshit, it just goes by a different names.
President Palin is hyperbole, but the notion that voting third party against Obama will assure a Republican victory 2012 is not a thoughtless contention.
Three of the last five presidents took office because a third party candidates drew support from their opponent’s base.
Are you really sure that showing your displeasure with Obama in this fashion is really worth the risk of putting another Republican idiot in the Oval Office?
Going with Tbogg’s school C+ grade analogy.
Right now, Obama probably feels the same way that I did, in Business School, when my faculty assigned study group partners I didn’t do their fair share of the work on group projects.
There is plenty of blame to go around and everybody seems to be trying push it all on Obama’s shoulders.
True. Even though it was Obama who stood up there at a press conference and angrily told progressives and liberals who got him elected that they were sanctimonious whiners and should shut up – it could have been anyone!
We need a new term for “Hippie Punching”. It’s far too cute and sort of inside-joke-ish to convey cowardly, mercenary abuse of those in your own party who worked hardest to get you elected just so you can show off for others whose votes you want.
“Triangulation” isn’t any better, sounding like someone playing in a high school orchestra.
Cowardly cynical political betrayal doesn’t have much of a ring to it I know, there’s got to be a better little catch phrase someone can come up with.
The thing is, he could do nearly every one of those things and he would get exactly the same response from the Republicans as he’s getting now, namely calling him a socialist who’s destroying the country and refusing to negotiate or compromise about anything that doesn’t involve giving in to what they want (like tax cuts for the rich).
Which means, he should do them.
The great myth among David Broder (go look at his column today, he’s in Heaven) and everyone else like him who’s defending this “moderate bipartisanship” of Obama’s is that all of this watering down and capitulation actually gains Obama much of anything.
While listening to Obama’s response to the question about his liberal critics, I didn’t hear any Hippie bashing, he didn’t tell anybody to shut the F up.
He said that we have a very long slog ahead of us, and he expressed frustration with people who brand him a failure just because its taking him more than two years undo forty years worth of damage done to this country by the Republicans.
It’s not written in stone that taking a harder line with the Republicans would have produced a better result. It could have just as easily backfired on him and we could gotten less or even nothing.
Obama’s behavior doesn’t necessarily brand as a political cynic, it could be that he is just less of a risk taker than you are. Which to me is understandable because he knows that he doesn’t have the tools he needs to be bold and that if he takes a risk and gets nothing millions of people will be harmed.
Then you saw it very differently from most other political observers.
By the way “hippie bashing” doesn’t have anything to do with real hippies. It means triangulation by rhetorically criticizing the left. This is why I think we need a new term. What Obama did was this, without a doubt.
David Broder praised Obama for purposely displaying his independence from the Left flank as a wise political move. Dionne in the same op ed section saw it as triangulation also but was less positive about Obama doing so, here’s what he said:
It’s being widely reported as a conscious strategy of positioning by people talking to insiders in the White House. Aside from that it’s bleeding obvious that this is what it is.
We’re just talking about, by the way, his standing there at the press conference and getting visible angry at progressives and liberals, far more so than he did at Republicans by anyone’s measure. The whole debate about what he could and couldn’t have gotten I posted about in my first comment way above, for what it’s worth.
There are things to debate about the negotiation, but amai, and TBogg’s point was about his shameless abuse of those who supported him most.
I apologize for suggesting that.
I’ve been thinking about it and I’ve decided that Obama’s political skills begin and end with his ability to get himself elected. He just isn’t able to do more than that, and I would argue that he doesn’t care to do more than that.
Maybe the media never blames it on Republican obstruction because the guy in charge of the White House never blames it on Republican obstruction. And if he does, he undercuts it with a good dose of hippie-punching.
He’s stepping on his own message.
Except that’s what you heard, not what he said, and certainly not what the media is reporting he said.
Obama is trading a lot for the economy, but he’s not doing anything that will actually improve the mid-to-long term economic situation for the lower 90% income bracket. He’s kicking the can down the road until 2012, when the GOP has the house, plus giving them a whole boxful of ammunition for the GOP to take over the senate AND kick Obama out of office.
I was actually listening to the live broadcast of his response to that question. Of course the media didn’t report that, its not as sexy a story as saying he got angry with his base for their lack of support!
What i wrote above wasn’t a direct quote, he said he is working to implement a long term strategy, like the Republicans have been doing for the past forty years, with the support of their base. Given the level of support that the Republicans have enjoyed in the past, I don’t blame him if he is frustrated that his base demands instant gratification, especially when our Constitution was deliberately designed to prevent drastic shifts in policy.
One of the things he is doing for the bottom 90% in this compromise is he’s preventing a 50% tax increase for the poorest tax payers in this country. People who will actually spend that money and stimulate the economy.