Since the US Senate Runs Everything, Obeying the Whims Senate is the Only Reasonable Course for the Obama White House
Today’s punditry by, the NYT’s Helene Cooper, is ostensibly about Joe Biden’s changing role in the Obama White House, but the subtext is really about how utterly powerless everyone in Washington is who is not a Republican Senator.
“If he’s going to try to get anything done in a partisan divide, and a divided Senate, Biden is a tremendous asset because he knows the players, the institution, and he has credibility,” said John Podesta, the chief executive of the Center for American Progress, who led Mr. Obama’s transition team after the 2008 election.
Mr. Podesta said Mr. Biden could succeed where Mr. Obama’s White House advisers could not because there was a perception that the vice president, while close to the president, was not too close.
“One of the values that Biden brings is that he is sort of an outsider,” Mr. Podesta said, adding that the view of the vice president as a player distinct from the senior West Wing staff is “an asset that the president can utilize.”
See? Everything is going to be okay now because Joe Biden knows people.
Shessus….this Administration is a CLUSTERFUCK!
I guess the concept of 3 co-equal branches of government is hard to understand. Apparently everything that went on during the Clinton and Bush administrations went down the memory hole as well. Congress passes the laws. If the President wants a law to pass then it must go through Congress.
With filibuster abuse right now we have a system where the President gets a veto and the Senate gets a veto. This isn’t the way it’s supposed to work but it’s the current reality.
I guess UI wants us to deliberately ignore all the dishonest, anti-progressive, and incompetent acts that Obomba has performed all on his own. (Hint: that means the other “co-equal branches of government” had nothing to do with them.)
Knock it off with the Obomba dumbass.
UI,
Thanks for the civics lesson. I hope you are comforted by all that book learnin’ of yours when we get stomped by Republicans again. It felt good in the mid-terms. Didn’t it?
Listen, I get why you want to rally around this President. I GET IT. It isn’t working. Time to proceed to plan B. Confrontation. Shove some hard votes on the ruling branch. Put them between a rock and a hard place. At least try. At least fucking try.
Don’t negotiate away single player before the game even starts. Don’t negotiate away middle class tax cuts before you even get to the table.
This is a dysfunctional situation in which people who agree with the President’s campaign themes are regarded as unreasonable and the President continues to have faith in the eventual goodwill of people who have admitted that they are out to crush him.
But Okay. It is all the Senate. It is all the Senate’s fault. The Senate’s fault,…the senate….the fucking senate….
I’ll murmur that to myself as we continue to give ground.
It takes a simple majority to change the Senate rules with the help of Joe Biden on day one of the convening of the next session.
I will withhold my complete fury with the DEMs until steps are made –when or if that move is taken or not– to reduce the supermajority threshold on a great deal of Senate procedural activity.
The Cooper article was definately as you say, Jason, evidence that caving to GOP (slash corporate capital?) behind the scenes for undebated ends is one hell of a means to governance and evidently a Biden specialty – the DE Way.
Apparently everything that went on during the Clinton and Bush administrations went down the memory hole as well.
Bill Clinton fought like hell for his tax increases and passed them 51-50 with Al Gore’s vote, setting up a decade of prosperity and a balanced budget. Now Bill is telling us to just let Obama give up, and the VP is on the wrong side. Joe Biden gets a big old Skippertee salute.
I’m beginning to think this is all about the fight. That if Obama made a lot of angry speeches and the end result was the same then everyone would be okay. There is a point to that, and I’m not against it.
But how we’re fighting now (and, really, since Obama took office) is not productive. The vitriol directed at this President is something I’ve never seen before. It’s very personal – and only helps the GOP.
When I read comments from A1 and delacrat I have nothing to say. Seriously, how does one debate that? You’re either with ’em, or agin’ ’em. There is no middle ground. And if you think “progressives” are the most furious, try talking with minority voters. The split that’s forming between these two groups has little to do with policy and everything to do with tone.
I’d hope we could address this in a way that makes things better, but I’m not hopeful.
Yes, focus on January 5, 2011. That’s the day the new Senate rules will be voted on. There are some interesting proposals out there, especially Udall and Merkley.
Bill Clinton fought like hell for his tax increases and passed them 51-50 with Al Gore’s vote, setting up a decade of prosperity and a balanced budget.
Yes, Republicans didn’t filibuster the budget.
Yeah, I’m sorry I have to talk about civics and history. If you want me to leave, I will. Obviously people aren’t interested in my contribution.
Here’s a little history lesson.
July 29, 1993:
Yes, Republicans didn’t filibuster the budget.
You only get one shot per year to do reconciliation. It’s all about priorities.
Clinton used it for his tax plan and got filibustered on health care.
Obama used it for corporate health care and got filibustered on his tax plan.
Who do you think made the better choice?
Pandora, don’t leave, just defend your viewpoint.
I think you don’t understand why fighting for the tax increases means so much to me. In 1992 there was talk about deficits as far as the eye could see and reduced prospects for the next generation. I was working a crappy job and didn’t see any future. I voted for Clinton, and then everything got better. The broad-based prosperity created by the plan Clinton fought for enabled me to claw my way into a professional career. If Clinton hadn’t fought for that tax plan, I don’t think I would have a house or a family or a career today. Clinton was fighting for me. I am bitterly disappointed Obama will not do the same.
First, I think you’re addressing UI.
Second, please notice that I left you out of my comment. I can debate you, and sometimes even come around to your way of thinking! 😉
What I can’t debate is the destructive rhetoric of Obama sucks – something you don’t partake in. What am I supposed to do with that? Also notice that these comments are issued without a plan forward or without the reality of vote counting, crazy Senate rules, etc.. If all some people want to do is throw rotten tomatoes, fine. Just don’t ask me to take them seriously.
Well said anon. And Clinton didn’t even have two wars to shoulder. (UI is who mentioned leaving btw).
I agree with all above who are pointing out that most of this is the hard reality of vote counting. That is why Jan. 5th is key. We can get it done if we fricking have the will. I can’t imagine that we won’t.
Now we’re getting somewhere.
A lot of people think that ending the tax cuts for the wealthy is the top priority. I certainly agree that they are anti-stimulative and are a big source of our problems. I’ve written this many times before.
Obama had competing priorities – ending the tax cuts for the wealthy, unemployment extension and getting additional stimulus. He obviously thinks that UI extenstion and additional stimulus are more important than ending the tax cuts. That’s why he made the deal.
Considering he got criticized about jobs, jobs, jobs this makes sense to me. As far as the deal goes, I’m on the fence. I hate extending the Bush tax cuts. I think the SS payroll tax holiday is not a big deal (and not the end of SS as some think) because people on the left were suggesting this very same thing last year and in 2009.
I do think this is the best deal he can get right now, and I don’t think we’ll get a better one next year with a Boehner-led House. One unrecognized danger is that if UI goes down, Congress will probably extend in the next Congress along with a cut in something but the media narrative will be Democrats don’t care about the unemployed while Republicans do.
I actually think Obama pretty smoothly set himself up as the champion of the middle class in his press conference. He set himself up as fighting for the middle class & unemployed with the Republicans as the hostage takers on behalf of the rich. So really, I don’t necessarily think it was bad politics.
Hope springs eternal.
Comment by pandora @ 10:24 am:
“The vitriol directed at this President is something I’ve never seen before. It’s very personal – and only helps the GOP.”
Pandora,
The “vitriol directed at the this President” is because, on issue after issue, this President “only helps the GOP”.
Sorry, delacrat, but you’ve been spewing the vitriolic rhetoric since the beginning – which is one of my points.
This Krugman is a must-read addition to this thread:
http://krugman.blogs.nytimes.com/2010/12/12/orwellian-centrism/?src=twt&twt=NytimesKrugman
via Eschaton
And I’m not hoping, Jason. I’m not overly optimistic, nor am I overly pessimistic. Trying to stay realistic. There is something between Obama is the best President ever and Obama sucks.
“It is all the Senate. It is all the Senate’s fault. The Senate’s fault,…the senate….the fucking senate…”
Trust me. I’m trying to make myself buy it.
Exactly pandora. I feel the need to defend Obama because no one else is doing it. I may not agree with a lot of his decisions but I understand where he’s coming from. Maybe it’s the scientist in me, we spend a lot of time thinking about what is.
Comment by pandora @ 11:16 am:
“And I’m not hoping, Jason. I’m not overly optimistic, nor am I overly pessimistic. Trying to stay realistic. There is something between Obama is the best President ever and Obama sucks.”
Realistically, that something is not Obomba. He sucks.
Obama blew his reconciliation shot on HCR which is not helping us. Whether Obama sucks or not, he made the wrong choice.
I guess the new lesson for Dems is “Use reconcilation to pass your economic agenda in your first term – everything else comes later.”
You’d think the man who ran on “It’s the economy, stupid” would have explained that to Obama.
UI wrote:“I feel the need to defend Obama because no one else is doing it.”
Since you “spend a lot of time thinking about what is,” maybe you should think about the “what is” of why “no one else is doing it” and why so many of his most ardent supporters are finally understanding that they have been lied to and deceived.
And if you liked the 2010 election results, then keep defending him and you’ll love 2012.
2012 depends on how the economy is doing.
Tax cuts would have been difficult to do through reconciliation because of the Byrd rule.
..and the horrible, baddiness of the omnipotent Republicans in the US Senate.
And the Ben Nelsons and the Joe Liebermans who vote with the repubs way too often.
It really is amazing that a bunch of people who know the rules of the entertainment they watch every Sunday forwards and backwards can’t be bothered to wrap their minds around how legislation gets done. But they are perfectly willing to sit back and treat their politics as thought it is sports talk radio. All bluff and bluster and airing of one’s superiority in making decisions for the team. We’re not to notice, apparently, that no one is beating down your door for all of this sideline coaching wisdom.
You don’t much care about either the politics or the accomplishments. You care about whether or not you can boo or cheer from the sidelines, as if you are watching some WWF bullshit. As long as this is all it means, you will always be disappointed. Just like most progressives or liberals were *very* disappointed in Bill Clinton when he was President. I was — often. He accomplished some good things and did some horrible things. It is really amazing to listen to how perfect Mr. Bill (and his much DLC) now is. When if you were willing to look at this with some realism, the thing that is clear is that policy and legislatively, Obama has been vastly more successful in implementing his agenda than Bill Clinton ever was. But Bill Clinton was — and still is — better at the political optics. Bu here we have so-called progressives with not only a complete unwillingness to clearly remember Bill Clinton’s tenure, but won’t even come to grips with Obama’s really bad hand here.
Guess who worked for Joe Liebermans’ reelection?
Obama has been vastly more successful in implementing his agenda than Bill Clinton ever was.
Agreed. It’s just the wrong agenda.
There you go. In two unthoughtful posts the exact reason why Obama can publically scold and throw under the bus the so-called progressives.
I’d be amazed if you could allow that politics is (even a little bit) like a courtroom. But that would be the little bit of water over your dam of denial. The whole charade could come crashing down if that one little recognition of my actual point was conceded. Instead you have to turn my argument into a cartoon. The first refuge of someone who has lost an argument.
That’s fair, but what choice do I have when I am made out to be a villan? When I am jeered and booed by someone who has actual power?
How many times have I conceded that point? So many times, only to have thrown back at me every time I have the utter nerve, the audacity, to suggest that some portion of the President’s job is leadership.
I hate to blow everyone’s mind but the horrible badness is going to be transferred to the House next year. That will be where good legislation goes to die or where terrible legislation that must be killed will come from.
Jason,
I still love you.
My little Grinch heart just outgrew the X-ray thingy. I’m not kidding, thanks for that. I still love you and Cassandra and have nothing but respect for you guys (and scorn for anonone).
suggest that some portion of the President’s job is leadership.
You aren’t looking for leadership. What you want is Chain of Command. You want the President to tell Joe Lieberman to vote This Way and have Leiberman turn on his heel and execute. Democrats aren’t organized this way if you hadn’t noticed. And *leadership* won’t change a shit hand into a Royal Flush.
I’d be amazed if you could allow that politics is (even a little bit) like a courtroom
A courtroom? A place where you have to not only have to live with the rules of engagement and the law of the land, but also a complete command of how to make use of those rules and laws? A place where it helps to have some storytelling or acting chops?
So your point is what, then? That if Obama had better acting chops rather than a pretty good grasp of how to count votes that he would be doing better?
And, like UI, cassandra_m continues to ignore all the dishonest, anti-progressive, and incompetent acts that Obomba has performed all on his own. Those acts are what reveal what kind of corporatist leader he is.
It isn’t about us coming “to grips with Obama’s really bad hand here.” It is about you coming to grips with what a dishonest, anti-progressive, and incompetent leader he has been.
You can lash out and call people names all you want, but the facts are that many of his most ardent supporters are finally recognizing the truth about the person they once passionately supported. Meanwhile, his poll numbers are plummeting, unemployment is rising, poverty is growing, and the rich are getting richer.
But I suppose you’d call someone like Dr. Cornel West a “fact-free asshole” now, too.
“So your point is what, then? That if Obama had better acting chops”
I’d be happy if he had ANY chops beyond his campaign chops.
“Meanwhile, his poll numbers are plummeting, unemployment is rising, poverty is growing, and the rich are getting richer.”
And you are still overcome by the hostility, hatred and criticism that oozes from your every post. You give liberalism the bad name it enjoys with the other 80% of the populace.
Ah, the obligatory retreat to the fainting couch.
Enjoy yourself there then.
Obama’s poll numbers aren’t plummeting. They’ve been pretty steady for a year now.
Well I’ve had my say, and I’ll admit that I’m sad about being on the right side on this one. I never thought Obama would be this bad at this part of the job, but so it goes. People who pretend that the job of the President does not include building and selling a decent case to the jury are living in a dreamland.
In the end, the notion that Obama is bringing a knife to a gun fight is all wrong. He is bringing cookies to a gun fight.
And they’re well above 50% with Democrats.
Anonone and delacrat are symptomatic of something I have experienced from self-identified liberals since the dawn of Reaganism: anger, hostility and self-righteousness over the inability of the vast majority of the public to agree with them.
There is one notable example of this attitude, whom I shall not name here, who has for at least two decades tried to change minds through sheer passionate belief in her liberal positions. It instead sends out the message that liberals are unhinged, intractable and vicious toward any deviation from their positions.
For anonone and delacrat: How, if at all, is your contempt for Obama different from your contempt for actual conservatives? Moments of anger are understandable. Nonstop anger is pathological.
anger, hostility and self-righteousness over the inability of the vast majority of the public to agree with them.
Polls consistently are in favor of a public option health care, and opposed to tax cuts for the rich. It is the inability of the politicians to implement policies that not only are popular, but which they were elected on.
“Because the Senate runs everything…” “Obama lashes out amid calls to free Assange”
the US President ”expressed his regrets for the deplorable action by WikiLeaks”,
What a champion of government transparency and Freedom of Speech is our constitutional lawyer President.
anon: And yet my point remains. If the persistent reaction is anger, hostility and self-righteousness, it’s pathology. And that reaction is the one constantly expressed, whether the issue in question polls well or not.
Beyond that, my comment was not about those two, it was about strident liberalism in general. Only the final section was aimed at them, which is why it was addressed to them. I should have added you, too.
“What a champion of government transparency and Freedom of Speech is our constitutional lawyer President.”
What a fool is anyone who expects any president of an imperial republic, of any political persuasion, to champion government transparency.
Anger is rational when focused on politicians who are thwarting the will of the people, especially when the thwarted policies also happen to be good policy.
No, it isn’t. By definition, anger is not rational. What would be rational would be doing something more useful than expressing that anger on a fucking blog. Stop portraying your jerking off as a heroic act of freeing the sperm.
Don’t be a churl and intentionally miss Geezer’s point. You are pouring out your irrational anger on other DE Liberal readers. Not on politicians, so stop pretending.
Oh snap. What Geezer said.
“Don’t be a churl”
That’s my point — they can’t stop being churls, because that’s what they are at heart. Just like the liberal I wouldn’t name, who tries to silence anyone who doesn’t agree.
Just as conservatism was scorned by the vast public until Reagan put a sunny face on it, so liberalism will be scorned by the public until someone who isn’t perpetually angry and self-righteous emerges as its spokesperson.
These three certainly ain’t it.
How the hell do you know what else I am doing?
The irrational thing is to fail to feel anger.
Making up new definitions for established words is exactly what conservatives do. If what else you’re doing is anything like you’re doing here, reevaluate. It’s not effective. I agree with you and yet I tire of your juvenile inability to express yourself without anger. And rather than convince those like Pandora and Unstable Isotope, you alienate them into defense of Obama — the opposite of what you’re trying to achieve.
Expressing anger under these circumstances is either lazy or stupid. Learn how to persuade people, then come back.
Geezer – you are using a bankrupt “holier than thou” argument. A blog IS the place for words.
No, that’s you acting holier than thou. And I was criticizing words of a particular sort, not all words. Are you dense, or just pretending to be?
If you don’t feel anger over this then you are blowing smoke about agreeing with me:
Let’s see if Obama’s new GOP friends will help him in 2012.
Geezer: Nobody is alienating anybody into defense of Obama and it is pretty condescending to UI and Pandora to imply that their positions are less than sincere.
In regards to complaints about anger and “churlishness,” I remember a few short years ago when this site was nothing but anger and churlishness towards Shrub and republicans. If you want to talk about a decade of non-stop “anger, hostility and self-righteousness” look no farther than the person who founded this blog. Note that I am not saying that there is anything wrong with that, but you are.
Apparently, anger and churlishness are fine and dandy here when the President is a republican but not OK when the President is a Democrat who is executing the EXACT SAME POLICIES. Well, I don’t buy that hypocrisy, and you shouldn’t either.
UI: In regards to his approval plummeting:
“A new McClatchy-Marist poll:
“Obama’s standing among Democrats dropped from a month ago, with his approval rating falling to 74 percent from 83 percent, and his disapproval rating almost doubling, from 11 percent to 21 percent… His position among independents remained virtually the same, with 39 percent approving and 52 percent disapproving. A month ago, it was 38-54.”
http://www.mcclatchydc.com/2010/12/10/105105/poll-obamas-losing-support-romney.html
You can come up with all the rationalizations you want for your behavior. You’re not fooling anyone but yourselves about them being exactly that.
Anon: So unless I feel anger, agreeing with you on policy grounds isn’t enough? Thank you for proving my case: The reason 20% of Americans consider themselves liberal, even though more than half of them agree with liberal positions, is your anger. Sorry, but that’s how I see it.
As for the difference between Jason’s anger at Republicans and yours at Democrats, there isn’t all that much — though I would point out that Jason didn’t post his angry rants here expecting to find agreement with them among Republicans. Your positions seem to be, “Anyone who doesn’t share our anger is our enemy.” I see that attitude every day from the fire-eating conservatives at Delaware Politics. It’s no more right when you do it than when they do.
Ultimately your anger is childish, off-putting and counterproductive. Churlishness is the least of your sins. You can grow up and act like an adult, or you can get accustomed to the adults here telling you to grow up and act like an adult. Or maybe you can go fight with people who actually disagree with you instead of us.
I declare Geezer “Most Valuable Commenter.” The agree with me 100% or you’re my enemy attitude is seriously off-putting. I don’t understand what the point of fighting with us is. If we want the same thing, let’s work together to accomplish it.
When you begin to hold all the other commenters and contributors to DL to the same nebulous standards of discourse that you’re somehow trying to hold me, then maybe your criticisms will have some legitimacy and integrity.
Otherwise, it is clear that many of the criticisms of my comments have far more to do with avoiding addressing the substance of my opinions than how they are expressed.
If you want to read “agree with me 100% or you’re my enemy attitude” (which I have never espoused even though I express my opinions strongly) take a closer some of the other writers here. They are consistently far more vicious and profane it their ad hominem attacks on people who disagree with them than I ever I am.
I know that, in fact, I am in strong agreement with virtually all of the contributors on this site regarding the ultimate progressive policy outcomes. However, I place my loyalty to my liberal ideals way ahead of any loyalty to the Democratic party or any elected official, including the President.
Your loyalty to your liberal ideals is what makes you insufferable and makes people disagree with you rather than agree with you. Again, self-justify however you choose. Just don’t be surprised when people attack you instead of your target. Perhaps you haven’t noticed, but your approach isn’t working.
I don’t have “nebulous standards of discourse,” because how you address others here isn’t the issue. I can be as vile as anyone. For example, I am telling you very specifically that you’re an asshole, though I mean it in the nicest way possible.
I have never understood why the people who are most certain in their “ideals,” whether liberal or conservative, are the least happy and most angry. That anger defeats your purpose. Try being results-oriented for a change. I assume the result you’re after is convincing others here to adopt your positions. It’s not working.
All you have left to do now is tell us it’s because our ideals aren’t as high as yours and your journey to the dark side will be complete.
Comment by Geezer at 7:32 am:
“Your loyalty to your liberal ideals is what makes you insufferable and makes people disagree with you rather than agree with you.” – Geezer
The flip side of that is “abandonment of liberal ideas is A-OK and we’re agreeable to that”.
Fine, Geezer. I get it. But nobody else here (including you) has a magic formula for getting people to agree with them or way to measure their results.
I am not surprised when people attack me instead of my arguments. Again, that is pretty standard for discourse around here. But I will say it again: when commenters and contributors begin to hold themselves and each other to the same lofty level of discourse and debate that they are trying to hold me to, then their criticisms will have some legitimacy and integrity.
BTW, I do understand that you’re calling me an asshole in the nicest way you know how. 🙂
P.S. Anger may not be “rationale” but it is a motivator. It is how it is channeled that is important.
Geezer is from the “going along to get along” school of thought – avoiding conflict is more important than any issue. No thanks. You can keep your GOP downward death spiral. I’ll take anger over your flat lack of affect any day.
It is sick that my last best hope of blocking the capitulation is now Jim DeMint and his crew.
Never fall in love with a politician because they will break your heart every time. Truth.
Because, once they become an incumbent, job number one becomes getting reelected. So it follows that job number two becomes pleasing most of their constituents most of the time. NOT the base. The base helped to get them there but won’t be able to keep them there. Purity is for one-term officials. Representing ALL the constituents, including the Independents and Republicans, is how it is done term after term. And senority equals power. The longer an elected can stay around the more likely s/he is to have some levers to pull. The system is designed to reward centrists and punish purists, on both sides. That’s why it is so stable.
Exactly, Auntie Dem.
I am not sure you are aware of how dishonest and offensive it is to use the “purist” label for people who want to end the Bush tax cuts. I think if it continues I will be forced to end my restraint against applying the correct names to your position.
All due respect to auntie, but hogwash. Chasing the vaporous middle is a mugs game that has hobbled the democratic party for 20 years. Lord knows I hate George Bush, but he had it right. Ignore the middle and create a tidal wave from your base that will pull them in.
Auntie’s philosophy is tantamount to giving up on ever having a Dem policy enacted.
It’s not those who want to end the bush tax cuts, anon. It’s those who refuse to acknowledge that the terrorist GOP has made it so IF we end the bush Tax Cuts for the rich, many many many unemployed poor will also loose their income. I have yet to hear from a lot of progressives that they are willing to throw fellow americans out into the could in order to stick it to the wealthy.
The GOP wont give in. They are just like Al Queda, and should be treated the same way.
Chasing the vaporous middle is how Democrats get elected, especially nationally. There aren’t enough of the base to do it by themselves. So I guess that if you want to be elected you play the mugs game.
Auntie Dem, honestly, what is your point? The system isn’t stable at all; it is utterly unstable with the wealth of this country being inexorably concentrated and our democracy, environment, freedom, and lives being sold to the highest bidder.
Seriously, how can you possibly say the system is stable?
A free fall is stable, for a while.
IF we end the bush Tax Cuts for the rich, many many many unemployed poor will also loose their income.
We have nothing to fear but fear itself. If we give in on this, they will only take more hostages. In the long run this deal will hurt working people and the poor even more. The jobless recovery will continue with no jobs, and the rich getting richer.
A leader would begin taking hostages of his own. It would be a lot more ethical to take the rich hostage than the poor.
We held all the cards – why are we giving in?
clearly you dont know anyone who is in that situation. if you did, you wouldnt be so ready to sacrifice fellow humans to get your way.
This Deal is yet another down payment on Starve-The-Beast. If you let it go through without your best effort to stop it, or worse yet if you actually support it – you are the one sacrificing fellow humans.
UI is 99 weeks; tax cuts for the rich are forever (after January).
And ending the tax cuts for the rich will force business to hire (to avoid the taxes) and bring back jobs. We should be fighting for jobs, not endless UI.
The hostages are always the same – the poor and the middle class. The GOP are willing to sacrifice this group (read Democratic base). I’m not sure how we change hostages, but if we hold this same group hostage I’m not sure how we win.
You keep going back and forth between saving the poor, and winning the next election. Which is it?
I contend that killing the deal and fixing it in the first half of 2011 accomplishes both.
If the unemployed are still hostages in 2011 – the hostages will save themselves. They will demand Republicans extend UI.
Republicans aren’t going to vote for Obama. Some Democrats are now not going to vote for Obama. And if Republicans and Democrats aren’t going to vote for Obama, what do you think the independents will do?
I’m okay with that, anon. My only question is how we’ll fix it in 2011 with a Republican House. Sheesh, we couldn’t even fix it with Dem majorities – which tells me Dems really didn’t want to fix it.
The hostages are always the same – the poor and the middle class.
And Clinton tax rates for the middle class doesn’t exactly amount to a “hostage situation.” Especially if you are simultaneously fighting to cut them cleanly by April 15.
Agreed, again. But I’m still not seeing how this becomes a reality. Can you show me how this happens? Sorry, I’m feeling a bit wonkish today. 🙂
it isnt the tax rates, it is the unemployment insurance. Say right now that you are willing to cut off income for americans just to make rich people pay more…. right at the beginning of winter.
pandora, the Dems will vote for a middle class tax cut. Political pressure needs to be applied to the R’s to peel away some votes to get to 60. Obama has never made the Rs feel any political pain for their intransigence.
What anon said:…the unemployed are still hostages in 2011 – the hostages will save themselves. They will demand Republicans extend UI.
How long do you think Senators and reps from an R states with high unemployment would hold out if Obama or his surrogates started visiting some of those states to raise grassroots support, i.e. “your reps are against middle class tax cuts and giving UI benefits”?
At least he could try.
Say right now that you are willing to cut off income for americans just to make rich people pay more…. right at the beginning of winter.
Yes. That is better than giving in to the people who want to end social spending forever. What part of “trap” do you not understand?
Have you read the Paul Ryan roadmap?
anonone,
It is stable. A Democratic president, house and senate couldn’t deliver on promises of change. It won’t change. You can shuffle the players all you want in the short term but Washington will keep on keeping on. Because the electorate will keep on keeping on — in the middle, or right-of-middle. That’s the way it’s designed. Obama likened it to an ocean liner that you can’t suddenly swing off course.
jason330,
Due respect right back at ya. I’m wondering if the intrinsic problem is that the Republicans always bring brass-knuckles and we bring foam-rubber boppy-clubs. Umm, maybe it’s because we tend to be social workers and nice folks who care for others, while the rich or wannabe rich Republicans tend to be the meanest MFers in the valley. They play politics by the same rules they play life, and so do we.
“How long do you think Senators and reps from an R states with high unemployment would hold out if Obama or his surrogates started visiting some of those states to raise grassroots support”
forever. Do you understand that the republicans are total scum? they have nothing but contempt for people who arent wealthy christians and they have no problem turning their base against the unemployed if it means they wont have to help the unemployed.
It’s bad enough elected officials are proposing letting americans starve to death. Now so called “progressives” are joining the chorus too just to make a point? That is even more sickening than having to say “Speaker Boehner” for the next 2 years.