Pres. Obama’s interview on “60 Minutes” last night was something else. As we await the Democratic cave-in on the Bush tax cuts, which is not only horrific monetary policy but proves the current crop of Dems can’t do simple math, we got Mr. Obama running as fast as he can away from what it means to be a Democrat.
KROFT: No one at the news conference yesterday asked you about the Tea Party. According to the exit polls, four out of ten voters on Tuesday said they supported the movement. How seriously do you take the Tea Party, and will it make the task of finding common ground with the Republican Party more difficult?
PRESIDENT OBAMA: Well, it’ll be interesting to see how it evolves. We have a long tradition in this country of a desire for limited government, the suspicion of the federal government, of a concern that government spends too much money. You know? I mean, that’s as American as apple pie. And although, you know, there’s a new label to this, I mean those sentiments are ones that a lot of people support and give voice to. Including a lot of Democrats.
This is rich. The person who is supposed to be the Democratic Party leader using right-wing talking points to destroy the purpose of government by not even making a case for it. Instead he props up the limited government is as “American as apple pie” malarkey that could have come from any Tea Party activist, including Rand Paul.
Next Mr. Obama spouted his other right-wing belief that people have a “suspicion of the federal government,” instead of providing a reasoning for the purpose of government, especially in hard times.
There has never been a more reckless and destructive political strategy coming from a Democratic White House.
Jim Webb gets it, even if he’s conservative on way too many issues. But when it comes to economics he’s dead on:
“I’ve been warning them,” Webb says, sighing, resting his chin on his hand. “I’ve been having discussions with our leadership ever since I’ve been up here. I decided to run as a Democrat because I happen to strongly believe in Jacksonian democracy. There needs to be one party that very clearly represents the interests of working people … I’m very concerned about the transactional nature of the Democratic Party. Its evolved too strongly into interest groups rather than representing working people, including small business people.”
Looking at his own reelection in 2012, assuming he runs again, Webb has to be concerned.
But maybe all of this capitulation and further compromising to the right will pave the way for Obama’s reelection in 2012. The story goes like this: Republicans will overreach making Obama look like a grown-up, so voters will give him the nod. At the very least, Pres. Obama gets to finally reveal his Republican political heart.
Consider this a preview on one scenario looking to 2012. Voters will have two exact Republican replicas from which to choose, Republican-lite (Obama) versus Republican hard right (Romney or Daniels or Thune or Palin, etc., etc.). Considering there is no Republican in name worth voting for yet, maybe the Republican in Democratic clothing will win the day. It won’t do anything for the Democratic Party, but that’s not Obama’s primary focus, as was proven Tuesday. It’s to win a second term at all cost, any cost, whatever it takes. It’s all about Obama.
At least you now know why Mr. Obama couldn’t make the Democratic case in the midterms. He won’t sell it, because he doesn’t believe in it.
People doing post-midterm analysis this Sunday were all talking about the only factor in the elections being the economy. There is no doubt whatsoever that the economy is the number one thing on people’s minds, but the Obama-Pelosi Democratic health care debacle was up their on the emotion scale. The other issue is character and competence, leadership ability, which was tied to every voter, though the White House won’t admit it. Pres. Obama failed all three, which is why Independent, seniors and women fled to the Right, with the rest of the ’08 Obama coalition not showing up. They don’t believe Obama has the leadership chops and so far they’ve been proven correct.
People aren’t going to vote for any politician who doesn’t stand for something and look like he or she knows where they’re leading. In dire times that goes double.
This post has been updated.
I know. Obama has zero leadership abilty. It’a also scary that he is setting up for the radical right to take over the country.
I’m still figuring out how we can get rid of him as the party nominee in ’12. Any ideas?
Hey Ga6thDem.
Obviously, that’s up to the movement progressives, but he deserves a challenge and should get one, regardless of outcome.
There is no one who would take on the challenge who can defeat him in 2012.
In fact, there’s no Republican right now who can do it either.
But someone on the Left should take up the charge. Otherwise the Democratic Party will soon come to stand for nothing.
I’m sure there’s nobody that could probably knock him off as the nominee as long as he has a lock on the AA vote and I imagine many working class whites won’t be voting in the Dem primary this time.
I don’t see him winning right now looking at the electoral college. I don’t know a way for him to win losing FL, VA, NC, PA & OH. I think that the GOP can win but it would be an EC squeaker.
But yes, someone should primary him. He stands for nothing so he’s destroying the party.
I do think O deserves to be primaried, but I guess I just wouldn’t want to see a genuine center-left Dem saddled with the aftermath of primarying O. Wouldn’t want that person to squander his or her power base.
Well, then perhaps no one will show up to vote for him in the general then.
Heavy weight Dems with a following that are thinking of the Presidency are looking at 2016- Dean, Hillary(if she decides to jump in), Schweitzer of Montana, and whomever else emerges between now and then.
The challenge needs to come from someone who doesn’t care if its a quixotic bid-forget Kucinich-he’s blown any Liberal cred he ever had. The individual that could carry that torch would be Russ Feingold-he could really embarrass Pres Obama. and the establishment Dems in a primary. But to be effective the challenge has to start now or else Pres Obama gets to pass some more Republican legislation until he gets the challenge from the left.
Pres Obama if he continues this path of Republican lite will turn out to be the single worst President the Dems could have elected in the past 100yrs.
So much wasted promise and opportunity to change the country for the better.
I’m not convinced if he continues this path of Republican lite that he could beat the Republican candidate-As Harry Truman said-”give the people a choice between a real Republican and a fake Republican and they will choose the real one every time”
We need a black man or a hispanic to challenge him….I don’t know of one that’s a democrat…of coarse Obama isn’t a democrat either.
You know what though? If the GOP ran someone like Herman Cain he could take some of Obama’s AA vote in the primaries.
Good point dsue. Anyone who challenges him risks losing AA’s forever.
Primarying O is a waste of time and will end badly, imho.
Let the Obama permanent campaign know you will sit out the general if you have to.
It’s the only way left.
We need a LIBERAL president!
All these fiscal conservatives who have co-opted the DNC, via the DLC, have to go. They stand for what the RNC does, except on social issues. Fiscal conservatives pay lip service to small business and working class folk (which is code for WHITE PEOPLE!). They believe the only people who matter besides their corporate paymasters are those Independents, moderates, centrist, roadkill. This is EXACTLY why the DNC stands for nothing, today!
This American can still go back to when Bill Clinton stated “the era of big government is over.” Need I remind this site that he was supposed to be a Democrat. Lanny Davis, Mark Penn, Ed Rendell, Paul Begala? These critters think Obama should compromise away the Bush taxcuts and come back to the center from the Left. Do you reckon they would have been giving President Hillary Clinton the same advice and no one on this site would have objected? After all, those are the *smart* folks.
Before you start posting I am Clinton bashing, let me say this: I am not. I am trying to make a point that Hillary and Obama both would have saved Wall Street over Main Street. It’s in their DNA.
Again, it’s why I want a LIBERAL president and to rid my party of all these Madison Avenue-advised, corporate crony, centrists and moderates. Until then, Main Street will not matter. We shall see the Democratic party even further take in those HUGE billionaire bucks to fund their campaigns to compete with the Republicans. After all, that is what the Village Idiot MSM is advising Democrats to do. Further alienating the majority of America and rewarding the world’s ruling elites.
Folks on this site are still sore at Olbermann for his not supporting Hillary? Did you miss Hillary doing a somersault to be IN Obama’s administration? Why don’t you hold the same standard for her that you do media pundits? You should be equally sore at SOS.
Obama is finished in my eyes. But for many of you, you will *eventually* see that Hillary is part of the problem for the Democratic party, NOT the solution!
For the third time, WE NEED A LIBERAL PRESIDENT! Anything else, you might as well vote for the Republican. Thank you!
I’ve thought since ’08 that Obama would have been a registered Republican if it were not for the fact that being a Dem weren’t so much more electorally advantageous to him on an identity politics level.
I wrote last week about the Democratic Big Tent having gotten too big to sustain (as it is under a hostile takeover from a fiscally conservative/miserly wing opposed to the FDR/LBJ domestic policy legacy) and I included the good old Truman quote:
I really don’t understand you guys. I don’t mean this as snark; I’m being completely serious. The caption criticizes Obama for channeling “his inner Republican.” Then it cites to an article on Jim Webb (who, we are told, GETS IT), whose main criticism is that Obama paid insufficient heed to him and other Blue Dogs. Same article says we need more Reagan Democrats. And by implication, fewer Alan Grayson types. So which is it — is making overtures to Republicans (and, by extension, Reagan Democrats) bad? Or is it something to be encouraged? The caption suggests one thing; the cite, the exact opposite.
FWIW, I think Jim Webb is 100% right. I passionately believe that progressives and moderates need each other, and that we need to stop the infighting. Having said that, I am astounded to see that the takeaway in certain quarters is that Democrats lost because they were insufficiently liberal. That’s bullshit. We lost because Republicans tied healthcare etc. around moderates’ and Blue Dogs’ necks like an albatross. Those who didn’t sink (Manchin, Heath Shuler, etc.) prevailed only because they explicitly disavowed the “Obama/Pelosi/Reid agenda.” Meanwhile, leading lights of the progressive wing (Grayson, Feingold) were swiftly shown the door. The polling data on indepedents gives the lie to the canard that Democrats would have retained the majority if they had fought harder for progressive causes. Shorter: Lawrence O’Donnell is right, and Greenwald is 100% wrong.
We have listened to progressives’ siren song for too long now. No surprise, then, that we find ourselves shipwrecked and desolate. Time to turn the page on Pelosi and Reid. Steny Hoyer should lead the House, and Schumer the Senate. And we should put together a plan, post-haste, to fix the economy, the deficit, and entitlement growth. And yes — the plans should and must be bipartisan. No matter how much you detest that word, it is the only realistic option left. Particularly now.
The 60 Minutes interview suggests that Obama is starting to get it. Good. He would do well to heed Jim Webb’s counsel. And if Hillary will not or cannot accept the Veep position for 2012, Obama could do much worse than to look in Webb’s direction.
ogenec-You couldn’t be more wrong.
The country overwhelmingly wanted a strong public option- it polled well even in red states, the majority of the country wants DADT repealed. the vast majority of the country wants to keep the tax cuts for $250K to stay but the Bush tax cuts for the upper 2% repealed, the majority of the country wants out of Iraq and Afghanistan. I could go on.
The country is way more progressive than the media theme wants you to believe. The fact that the Dems got the crap beat out of them is because they were not fighting for the progressive policy’s for which they were elected. The healthcare bill’s major problem is the mandate which is viewed as a corporate bailout-whicj it is.
It is President Obama who lacks the balls to fight. Untill Pres Obama finds his balls the Dems will lose.
So repeal DADT — that’s costless. Work with Rs on taxcuts. We’re out of Iraq, and on schedule to get out of Afghanistan. Which leaves the public option. Most polled favored it, but developed a severe case of alligator arm syndrome when asked if they would help pay for it. So forgive me if I don’t ascribe much credence to that poll.
ogenec
I agree repeal DADT, vote on the Defense Authorization bill-but Repubs have blocked its passage-whers the bipartisanship you tell me -you believe in it.-I blame this Harry Reid and the search for 60. The tax cuts -fuck the Repubs -tell me ogenc where are going to find the $4 trillion in savings in the budget that leaving the tax cuts in place results in?and. I’m for reducing the deficit also -so what do you want to do-cut Soc Sec, Medicare? We are not out of IRAQ-we have 50,000 troops still there and they will be there for a long time. Afghanistan-if you can’t see the that there are already forces starting to move the goalposts to 2014 your not looking closely.
You are fundamently full of shit and disingenous. Moving right or more to the center to appease blue dogs or Repubs is bullshit.That is a complete misread of the situation-the base disn’t show and the coalition Obama built abandoned him because he and the Dems went right instead of left. Pres Obama and the Dems -if they pass progressive legislation the Dems would still be holding the House.
I’ll give you a pass on the insults, because I feel your pain [clenches lower lip]. But let’s talk facts. The argument about Iraq is a red herring. We have 50,000 troops in Germany — are we still fighting WWII? We have nearly 30,000 troops in Japan — same question. We have 28,500 troops in the Korean Peninsula — are we still fighting that war? This criticism is absurd.
But if you don’t feel like discussing facts and want to talk conjecture about what will happen in the future, let’s do that. My prediction is that when Sunnis and Shi-ites resume their civil war (already ramping up – surprise!!), the resulting atrocities will compel the same liberals shouting “get out now!” to urge the then-current White House to intervene for the sake of the poor Iraqis. Watch for it — it may be five or more years hence, but it’s coming.
Let’s return to facts. If you cared to look below, you will see that I’m not in favor of extending the tax cuts. For anybody. I don’t think we can afford it. Few people talk about the provenance of the tax cuts anymore, but I remember clearly how they came about. Bush argued that the Clinton surplus warranted a substantial tax cut. Dems reluctantly went along, but compromised on a sunset, in case the surplus went away. Well, thanks to Bush’s profligacy, it did. So the tax cuts, per the deal, should have expired. But the trap had been sprung — Republicans successfully argued that letting the cuts expire (in accordance with their agreement) would be a tax hike. Well, we can’t have THAT.
I think both parties should honor their agreement and let all tax cuts expire. But each side is jockeying for their constituency. Dems say preserve for the middle-class; never mind that they constitute most of the $4 trillion you spoke about. Rs say preserve for everybody, even the wealthy; never mind that the wealthy have done extremely well over the past 10 or so years, and at the expense of the working- and middle-class.
I think both sides are full of it, and their partisan leanings only exacerbate the situation. We need to stop invoking the working- and middle-class to push policy prescriptions whose short-term benefits are illusory, and whose medium- to long-term effects are catastrophic. Social democracies in Europe are learning this lesson the hard way. We have to do the same, before it is too late.
The weird thing for me is that we have seen this movie before. We have seen the destructive effects of protectionist legislation, like the Smoot-Hawley Act – we raised tariffs, so other countries raised theirs, and trade ground to a halt. Everybody suffered. FDR, the liberal lion so often championed in these pages, bitterly opposed it. So why is the Fed printing %600 billion? This is the 2010 version of Smoot-Hawley, because more dollars in circulation weakens currency, which boosts exports (and reduces imports). But other countries will not stand for that. Germany etc. are already warning Obama ahead of G20 that he’s got to stop the madness. If he won’t, they will devalue their own currencies to remain export competitive.
The Fed should stop doing the bidding of the White House and Treasury with its easy money policies. Again, we’ve seen this movie before. Google the “1951 Jurisdictional Accords,” which established once and for all the independence of the Fed.
So round and round we go. Down the drain. I’m saying we need to stop the madness, and get back to policies that make sense for the 21st Century, and for Americans. To the extent that either side remains beholden to its ideological faction, we will not be able to do that. Again, there’s precedent. The Clinton surplus came about because WJC (over the strenous objections of liberals) reformed entitlement programs like Medicare and welfare.
Right on cue: http://online.wsj.com/article/SB10001424052748703514904575602820114533804.html?mod=WSJ_hp_LEFTTopStories This is going to end very badly.
Hey ogenec.
The reason Republicans were able to tie HCR etc. around moderates and Blue Dogs’ necks like an albatross is because there was no there there. Remember the Obama permanent campaign hung the health insurance mandate around Hillary’s neck during the ’08 primaries then turned around and passed that mandate without any public mechanism. In a very visceral way, the electorate knows this is a boondoggle to the insurance industry when there was nothing tangible in their lives that they could really point to as a *meaningful* improvement in their lives. Instead they are wondering why their premiums are up and Obama wasted so much time to expand the customer base for the insurance co’s at the expense of the taxpayer dime. Poor people aren’t getting health CARE either, they’re getting junk insurance. There is a difference. The GOP got to milk the backlash to a policy that was hatched at their own Heritage Foundation and brand it as “Government takeover of healthcare” when it’s nothing of the sort. It’s government-in-bed-with-Wall-Street takeover. Wealthcare indeed.
Bipartisan for the sake of itself is not the answer. We need the grassroots holding both parties accountable for working for their corporate masters rather than the people. That means the left going far as all get out left. If the right is going to be out their opposing O on the basis of nonexistent gov’t takeovers and socialism, than the left needs to get out there and even more loudly oppose him for corporate welfare and lemon socialism.
out
theirthere opposing.“We need the grassroots holding both parties accountable for working for their corporate masters rather than the people.” – Wonk
Absolutely. Actually holding all Electeds accountable, refuse to play by the rules that play us against each other.
Hey WTV. I’m not remotely interested in bipartisanship for its own sake. But I do believe that the relatively sane
elements of both parties, and independents, can come together to fashion solutions that work for most American people. I’m extremely frustrated with this eternal game of “The Five Blind Men and the Elephant” that constitutes today’s politics. Democrats say, pay for entitlements and spending by taxing the rich. The Republicans say, cut spending across the board (except for Defense). And balance the budget. But cut taxes while you do that.
Each faction’s prescriptions are narrow-minded. And internally inconsistent, to boot. But a package that takes elements from each could work. And it would appeal to a broad swath of people. And I don’t buy the argument that this a fight between the grassroots and corporate masters. Say what you will about wealthcare etc., but Obama’s Fed is literally printing money to “rescue” the economy. That’s intended to benefit Main Street, but it will only lead to rampant inflation and “beggar-thy-neighbor” actions by other countries that wind up hurting the working- and middle-class even more.
We are at an inflection point, and what happens over the next two years will determine if we can get this country back on a sound footing. We need everyone to put on their thinking caps, and not reject ideas because they have a D, R, or I by their names. When David Stockman, the architect of Reagan’s tax cuts, is screaming from the rooftops that we need to let the Bush tax cuts expire, that should tell you all you need to know about the desperate straits in which we find ourselves.
Are we concave up? Or are we concave down…..
We’ll know soon enough.
In 2012 Obama and Sarah Palin can hold debates over which one of them is the true follower of Ronnie Raygun.
OMG Ogenic, I most strongly and adamantly disagree with your type of Democrat. Your solutions are why the Democratic party stands for nothing.
Steny Hoyer is a DINO. Go ahead and run Webb. You have lost the liberal base and you won’t get it back running to the Right. Like Truman said, people want the REAL thing, not people who pretend to be populist yet are just paying lip service to populism when it comes time to govern!
This American will NOT sell his soul to Wall Street just to get lip service when it comes to social issues.
IMHO, you have already channelled your inner Republican so why not just VOTE Republican? Sheesh!
Obama gets it because he is it. Like I have said and others on this site have posted, the Democratic party has been co-opted by those who don’t have the cajones to BE Republicans. Two words, for ya and they ain’t LOVE YOU!
No surprise that you disagree — I’ve read your posts. And I could turn right around and say that I disagree with you. But where would that leave us?
Obama, much less any other Democrat, cannot win in 2012 without winning independents. So progressives like you, and [insert perjorative of your choice] like me need to make common cause. And fast. That means you get some of the things you want, and I get some of the things that I want.
I join progressives in their contention that Obama has largely AWOL in the enfranshisement of the gay and lesbian community. He should move much faster, and much more comprehensively. There is a limit to how much he can do by executive order, but he is nowhere near that limit. He should get a move on already.
For my part, I am concerned about things like the deficit, entitlement growth, and providing a transition to the knowledge-based economy. I think that entitlements should be means-tested. I also think that the cap on social security taxes should be raised significantly, if not eliminated. And I think the retirement age should be raised slowly over a number of years, with folks at or above a certain age [to be determined] grandfathered in. And I think the corporate tax rate should be reduced, but that the Bush tax cuts should be allowed to expire.
I won’t bore you with exegeses as to why I believe that these policy prescriptions make sense. But I do contend that, to accomplish them, we need to work with independents and centrist Republicans. So we can either set about doing that, or we can retreat to our respective enclaves and insist on 100% ideological allegiance. And let’s see how that strategy plays out.
“I won’t bore you with exegeses as to why I believe that these policy prescriptions make sense. But I do contend that, to accomplish them, we need to work with independents and centrist Republicans. So we can either set about doing that, or we can retreat to our respective enclaves and insist on 100% ideological allegiance. And let’s see how that strategy plays out.”
The Republicans, centrist or otherwise, DON’T work with the Democrats. Has there been anything more clear than that? If the President does not agree with Democratic ideals, or not enough to fight for them in the face of GOP obstructionism, then why are we worried about re-electing him? A faux-Democrat President with a GOP Congress is the worst thing that can happen. Just how bad does it have to get for 90% of the country for one of the political parties to actually fight for them?
It is not true that centrist Republicans don’t want to work with Democrats. There is a substantial contigent of Republicans who want nothing to do with Republicans, to be sure. But to turn that into universal criticism of ALL Republicans is unwarranted and unhelpful.
Bob Corker and Scott Brown worked with Dems on wall street reform. (which is why both are prominent Tea Party targets for the next election cycle.) Lieberman and Lindsey Graham were working with Kerry on a climate change bill, until partisans on both sides tried to use immigration as a wedge issue. Result: We have neither immigration reform nor a climate change bill.
I don’t think we should compromise ideals or principles. But tactics are entirely fair game.
“want nothing to do with Democrats.”
The important part of all that is that, while some GOP will work with Dems, they virtually never VOTE with Dems. It was just a matter of time before Graham and Lieberman were forced by the GOP leadership to abandon their folly. Grabbing one Senator every once in a while is not “working” with the GOP. It’s watering down Democratic values to get one vote.
I agree that there are some GOP who WANT to work with Dems, but I don’t see it happening in this political climate any time soon. I only hope that the Teabaggers gum up the system a little to allow some interesting partnerships. Maybe the middle can take back the country and we can finally get something done which benefits the 90% of the country which needs it.
“Maybe the middle can take back the country and we can finally get something done which benefits the 90% of the country which needs it.”
Amen, brother.
In two words…FU*K HIM.
“It won’t do anything for the Democratic Party, but that’s not Obama’s primary focus, as was proven Tuesday. It’s to win a second term at all cost, any cost, whatever it takes. It’s all about Obama.” — TM
It won’t do anything good for the Dem Party, that’s certain, but it does yet more harm. And it makes the point, yet again, that it is indeed “all about Obama.”
“At least you now know why Mr. Obama couldn’t make the Democratic case in the midterms. He won’t sell it, because he doesn’t believe in it.” — TM
And with each new action, decision, statement, Obama shows that much more about what’s been true all along (or at least that’s my take): he’s never been remotely “progressive,” and he’s making the decisions he wants to make.
An article well worth the read:
http://goo.gl/nACPW
In fact, it was predicted.
I don’t want to find common cause with the enemy.
I think what needs to be done is Obama strapped into a chair and waterboarded by the likes of Cheney, Bush, Condi and Rumsfeld while all the Democrats in DC who voted TO invade Iraq can lead the choir singing: “That Saddam Hussein is a bad, bad man. Unlike our enemies, we don’t torture, we use enhanced interrorgation techniques. We don’t spy on our enemy, we spy on our own. We don’t have war criminals, we have patriots working for Halliburton and XE (i.e. International Data Solutions). We love the military INDUSTRIAL COMPLEX because we support our troops.”
After all this is done, Obama still strapped in, shall be made to watch all of his campaign speeches from 2008, plus his bogus Keynote Address at the DNC convention in 2004,
I shall demand PUBLIC VIEWING so I can sip my tea and toast Wall Street’s finest!
Given the results of last weeks election and Obama’s reaction thus far, his performance can be seen as political malpractice. All we, the people, can expect is more of the same. When he leaves office at the end of his one term, he and his family will retire to a life of luxury without a care in the world, while the American people will be the ones who bear the full brunt of the actions and choices he is making now on our behalf.
As a consequence of his actions and choices Democrats may suffer such humongous losses, and Republicans will use their newfound power to destroy, hurt, annul, dismantle, torpedo, liquidate, enrich and impoverish. In other words, their rich friends will thrive &prosper; the middle and working classes will decline and fail. Thus, he could leave in his wake irreparable damage that may not be able to be undone for generations to come.
And no one is saying a word.
People are quite vocal on blogs but there seem to be no “wise men”or women willing to speak truth to power at this time to force a change of course. He could destroy everything.