–bumped–
After hailing Pres. Obama’s tax scheme deal with Republicans after the midterm elections, it was interesting this week to see that the Washington Post put Barack Obama in their loser category, which was led by progressives and liberals being the number one losers of the year. The only Democratic winner was Sen. Harry Reid. Here’s the caption under a very sad Reuters’ picture of Pres. Obama:
Loser: President Obama
President Obama took a self-described “shellacking” in the midterm elections after a year of struggling to get any major legislation through Congress. His popularity has tanked, leaving pundits to wonder if he can save his own hide in 2012 — let alone help his fellow Democrats.
Of course, if Pres. Obama had listened to progressives he might not have had such a stinker of a health care bill in ’09, which had him losing the message war to Sarah Palin that led to the Tea Party furor exploding. The overreach of the forced mandate hit critical mass in 2010, with Tea Party Republicans determined to defund “Obamacare,” as they call it, come January, then use it to take Obama down in ’12.
If Pres. Obama continues to ignore the word jobs, they just might be able to do it.
Then there’s the fact that Democrats simply quit acting like Democrats. The Democratic Party’s sad sack 2010 message campaign simply made the Right’s job easier, with the DNC logo above foreshadowing of the worst re-branding in the history of marketing, which was followed by a laughable midterm campaign theme that revolved around foreign money being funneled into campaigns. People hate that crap, but it won’t drive votes to Democrats from mad as hell voters.
When it comes to building things, the stimulus, as Lincoln said of Gen. George McClellan, has the slows. Ironically, when we think of our iconic stimulus programs – the Works Progress Administration (WPA) and other New Deal public employment programs – we think of the things they built: the Bonneville and Boulder (now Hoover) dams; the Triborough and San-Francisco-Oakland Bay bridges; the aircraft carriers Enterprise and Yorktown; LaGuardia and National (now Reagan) airports; and thousands of schools, post offices and roads.
ad_iconWhat’s more, the New Deal built them at a pace that seems almost incomprehensible today. When the winter of 1933-34 loomed, President Franklin Roosevelt wanted to forestall a wave of starvation in a nation that didn’t yet have unemployment insurance or food stamps. He authorized Harry Hopkins, his jobs-wizard, to create a four-month-long project (the Civil Works Administration) that would employ 4 million people. Beginning operations on Nov. 9, Hopkins had 2.6 million Americans on the job by Christmas and 4.3 million by February – this in a nation of 125 million. In their four months on the jobs, they built or improved 40,000 schools and 998 airports.
The Right’s huge year couldn’t have happened without an epic collapse of the Democratic Party purpose and messaging. There have been few years of utter political incompetence to match what happened in 2010, with the end of the year begging the question What do Democrats stand for?, or better yet, What are they prepared to fight for?
The only answer I can come up with after watching them in 2010 is nothing.
Yes, Republicans were always going to pick up seats in the House and Senate, but after having Sarah Palin beat the crap out of them on messaging before you’d think they’d have been prepared for a doubling down by the Right, as momentum against all things Obama built to the midterm crescendo.
Post shellacking, Democrats are running scared.
Pres. Obama doubled the Right’s midterm rout by finishing the year flip flopping on his campaign rhetoric against Bush tax cuts, taking a page from Bush 41′s “read my lips no new taxes” debacle, then doubled down on his flip flop by using Bush and Rush arguments to make the case for mill-billionaire tax cuts utilizing fearmongering that would make any wingnut proud or at least happy.
Those of you around in ’08, however, will also remember candidate Obama using this tactic on Hillary Clinton, calling her “Republican-lite,” even though he’s the one who ended up siding with banks on the foreclosure debacle, another issue Obama wouldn’t use to benefit Democrats before the midterms.
That’s how badly the Democratic Party is stuck out on a limb on this one.
Although the Right was always going to have a good midterm, the Democratic Party aided them in their cause by being so totally and completely inept in making the case for anything Democratic that the meaning of being a Democrat has vanished, gone up in smoke, pfft! The whole sorry spectacle culminated in Pres. Obama and Democrats making the Right’s case for them on economics to end the year.
This is a criminal case of political malpractice, because it’s through Democratic Party economic policy that we got Social Security, Medicare and every other social policy that aids the people, including funding to keep this country’s infrastructure from crumbling, but also our public health system from fraying. Now, I could go on and on, but you catch my drift, because I’ve been writing about it for months and months.
At every turn Democrats ceded territory to Republicans, moving rightward on policy, Pres. Obama appointing a Deficit Commission himself, then adding to the deficit through a tax cut scheme that isn’t paid for and embraced trickle down economics.
It sets up the Tea Party packed 112th Congress perfectly, which has quite a few Democrats up in ’12 that are already signaling they’ll play too. See Tester on the Dream Act, and Jim Webb on the tax issue, because he’s already got a Tea Party challenger.
Everyone is on a Right track. Austerity is in. Cutting spending is in… while hoisting wildly ridiculous tax cuts for mill-billionaires, continuing defense expenditures that make no sense, including deployments that should end goes on and on, just as if George W. Bush was still in office. With Obama’s indefinite detention about to hit the fan there is little else to say.
All Pres. Obama wants is a second term and he’s going to do whatever it takes to get it. That’s understandable and he’ll have lots of help, because when people look at what Republicans would do if they owned Washington it’s scary to contemplate, especially since we’re talking about Michele Bachmann leading the way.
However, now that Democrats have joined in on the Right’s economic plans, with Obama long ago catering to corporate interests, which is what every presidential candidate must do in our system to get to the White House, the truth is it doesn’t matter very much who wins in ’12.
There simply isn’t much difference between Democrats and Republicans anymore, though there hasn’t been for a long time.
However, at least the Right is alive and taking on the Republican establishment.
Nobody’s going to take on Pres. Obama. The Democrats are stuck with him.
And that means our country is shit out of luck.
McCaskill is certainly running scared here in MO. In the last four plus years I have recieved very few emails from her. Now I get them daily.
Jim Webb already has a Tea Party challenger, a woman, with George Allen in the wings, too.
It’s going to be a Beltway barn burner.
I always thought that the demise of the Democrats started with the primary. The far-left took over, demeaned every moderate Democrat, forced votes on clearly unpopular measures, and basically imploded.
The “far left” is a myth created by the Right and the media who likes comfy Republicans or Republican-lite, aka most current Democrats.
I agree. The Far Left never took over. Lots of young people that never voted or didn’t previously vote were part of the belief that Obama would deliver on his promises.
Obama spoon fed them along with a compliant Media that did no homework and drank the Kool Aid.
Fatigue with the GOP along with promised optimism allowed so many to really believe that this hugely inexperienced orator was the real thing. While no one knew anything about Obama’s past except spoon fed PR, or his shaky backround in the sewers of Chicago politics, or his main mentor,fundraiser, and backer Tony Rezko. Rezko has been in jail for a while and his relationship, dealings and backround with Obama were totally overlooked by the entire news media in their fanatical turn on. Hillary as usual was pilloried by the Press, the Media, and by Obama and the Obamatons who spread as much hatred and misinformation about Hillary as possible.
His voting record in Illinois legislature was overlooked, and no one could pin Obama down on specifics then or now.
What does he believe in? Reagan? What? How? er….
The naivete of the voters was an outgrowth of disgust with the GOP and Bush. But this newbie guy who rolled on with his impassioned speeches promising the Moon? If the media had done the job they are paid to do things might be very different.
Actually we voted for a conservative who instead of uniting and leading his party, has disgraced and betrayed it. Obama has dug a dagger into the heart of the Democratic Party and the Democrats don’t know how to stop the bleeding.
He has not led. He has made deals on every level with the Right and the Corporate Drug and Insurance guys in the backrooms. He has offered the Republicans success from the depths of their failure, and has split a Party in dire need of great leadership into a bunch of distracted weaklings who went along with him and showed no spine or opposition to the man who had promised otherwise.
The only hope left for the Democrats before Obama renders them totally irrelevant is a revolt from the strongest in the Party who openly oppose him and take him to task. Otherwise they are all fumbling cowards led by betrayal and lies as they accept this as they twist in the wind.
Democrats then go back to the wilderness for the next 20 years or forever as the Right Takes America down.
The Democratic Party slide, sidle and slip to the Right continues.
Obama will be the Dem nominee in 2012, and at least at this point, certainly appears as if he will achieve his goal of being elected President of the United States for the second time. This outcome, we will be told yet again (and again and again) is better than the alternative, which is the standard by which we are suppose to measure success. Aiming any higher is just silly. And probably selfish, and at least part of the time, socialist and maybe racist.
Colin Powell was shown visiting with the Obama’s last night at the marvelous Kennedy Center achievement awards on CBS. I couldn’t help but think of how Colin Powell lost his integrity by advocating weapons of mass destruction. Likewise Obama has lost his integrity. Is it social acceptance, money, or fear of authority that makes men do such things?
With Gen. Powell, he simply wasn’t equipped for the political world. He is a soldier first, last and always, so he served his president unflinchingly.
As for Pres. Obama, he never had any political core or compass, with his only goal to stay in office 2 terms, no matter what it takes. His whole persona is built around the ideas of others, then compromising on what can be gotten between what’s proposed.
I wouldn’t be surprised if there’s a place in the Obama administration for Colin Powell in the weeks & months to come.
Powell who was the Enabler obviously suffered all you say. Fear,Greed,Power,and a lack of will. Comfort is king in this kind of position. He sold himself to the Devil at the UN for doing Bush/Cheney’s bidding.
Obama is actually far, far, worse. To begin with he has never distinguished himself in serving his country as Powell has, nor does Obama possess the clout and experience Powell actually displayed throughout his career. Until Powell met up with Bush/Cheney. He was being the obedient “good” Republican showing his loyalty for all they had done for him, blah blah.
Obama is touchingly lightweight by comparison and has NONE of Powells experience, bravery, or intellect. Obama is a fake. But both men have taken the easy way out and caved in to power,money, and obedience.
In the end both have caved.
what about this buzz about hillary leaving the admin in 2011 and richardson taking her place. i could see that happening. i think richardson would be a good sec of state and a latino which could help obama in 2012 a bit i guess.
Hillary was always expected to leave the administration very soon, which she’s telegraphed for quite a while. After all, she needs time to rest up, take a breath, then get ready for 2016.
John Kerry would make a much better choice for SoS.
true. time for hillary to get off this sinking ship. however i know many hilary supporters who are invested in obama bc of her being in his cabinet. if she is gone doesnt this affect his coaltion? and yes kerry would be better and lord knows he is begging for the job as well. perpahps kerry will get some other role in state as well?
Kerry needs to get out of the Senate.I think it’s limitations are driving him crazy.
I have not forgiven Richardson for his “judas” behavior but I do think he is a skilled negotiator and there should be a future for him in the State Department. Maybe a Holbrooke like figure in Asia?
The few Hillary supporters that will bail on Obama if she leaves State are inconsequential to “his coalition,” which has frayed in many places, including big shot donors, which has been written about openly. But most Dems will join in come ’12 regardless of where Hillary is situated.
If Kerry working for Richardson would be stupid, but that doesn’t mean he wouldn’t do it. If Richardson gets the nod I’m sure he’ll do a good job.
I love Meyerson’s comments about the New Deal. They illustrate what’s missing today. A sense of confident direction and the will to move forward.
I am still awed by the specter of a President unable to explain or defend his economic tax policy decision, then having to call on the former President to explain and defend said decision, then excusing himself to go to a bleeping Christmas party. The Democratic party has no leader. It has a bunch of pundits running around like idiots trying to convince everyone that the opposite is true. Nothing is more obvious to the people, than the effective leadership or lack thereof, of the President. They won’t be fooled. Not by any amount of propaganda to the contrary.
“A conservative is a man with two perfectly good legs who, however, has never learned how to walk forward.” – Franklin Roosevelt
The tendency toward political conservatism is the tendency toward stagnation, as Pres. Roosevelt observed. Progressives, be they Democrats or not, must continue to progress. Keep walking forward, even if you’re the only one walking.
Psssttt….Obama’s a winner, not a loser. That’s because he’s a Republican.
Well wait until 2011 !! There will be teaparty candidates with power in the next congress. Congresswoman Michelle Bachmann on the Intelligence Committee and Senators Rand Paul and Jim Demint and many others !! I am sure there going to pull the President their way. I am sure but hope cuts are not going to take place but I am sure they are including SS and medicade and medicare and other programs are on the chopping block. This is one News Years where I am feeling chills and am scared about whats going to happen.
The President or this country will not be the same without SOS Hillary Clinton at the helm. I can’t blame her though for leaving, if she decides to like what she has been saying !! She is one damm good SOS !!
The Left has to be willing to fight in 2012. Fight Obama and Obamaism. Every step of the way. Obama will lose more Democrats in 2011 as he moves Right. I don’t think we should run scared of tipping the election to the Repubs. A strong effort by us in 2012 could pay dividends in 2016.
I remember last week I came here and accused many of the followers of this site being HRC supporters who are stuck in the past. And now today, I come back and there is all this talk about Hillary Clinton this and HIllary Clinton that. And Ms. Marsh showcasing a smiley face icon at the idea of HRC running in 2016. This all proved my point. Also, the economic policies pursued by Obama would have been same if HRC were sitting in the oval office. His economic team is full of Clintonites. You howl at Obama for being too conservative but forget that the Clintons are much further to the right than he is. And Ms. Marsh how could you attack the individual mandate when HRC was in favor of it during the campaign and Obama opposed it. It was in the bill only because progressive members of the House wanted it in. Your critiques don’t make sense. Those who think there would have been some drastic difference between Obama’s policies and Clinton’s are deluding themselves at best. Obama’s a republican? How absurd.And HRC also supported helping out the failed banks.
Also there is a big difference between Democrats and Republicans. Are the Dems perfect? Certainly not. But to say there is no difference is so far out, it’s laughable. Tell that to the college students, like me, who will now only have to deal with gov’t concerning student loans, and not the banks. Tell that to women who will now be able to sue for discrimination. Tell that to the young children who now have healthcare insurance because of the Dem’s expanding S-Chip. Something the Republicans continually blocked. These aren’t small items.
Ri-ight. I’ll definitely police my winky-smiley icons now, since you don’t get it.
um… do you bother clicking on links?
http://www.taylormarsh.com/2010/10/13/obama-republicans-side-with-banks-in-foreclosure-nightmare/
No one knows what Hillary would have done, but she’s not Bill, proving so by being against NAFTA. But Hillary’s mandate was not predicated on an insurance company monopoly. Freezing federal workers pay? Very doubtful, but who cares? She’s not president.
Other than that, you’re just dense, determinedly so.
http://www.taylormarsh.com/2010/12/30/the-political-moment-of-the-year/
No one knows what HRC would have done? Do you really believe that? If so, that’s such a cop out. We know exactly what she would have done, which is the same the thing Obama did.
Furthermore, you wrote ”The overreach of the forced mandate hit critical mass in 2010”; this has nothing to do with insurance company monopoly. You didn’t mention that. The root of the argument concerns forcing people to acquire health insurance which you used as a base to attack Obama. Maybe you weren’t as clear as you could have been in your feverish attack. That’s your fault not mine.
I’m a determined realist madam. You, however, seem to be stuck in this strange, odd time warp from the 1990s with your cheerleading of a bygone era. Your absolute faith in one political family, from yesteryear, is naively detached and shows what happens when we worship political personalities instead of sound policies.
It was hard to miss Obama competing with Hillary as to who had the better position on healthcare. Obama repeated over and over that no one would ever be compelled to accept any part of a healthcare program that they did not want.
I actually got tired of hearing him say this. I also remember Hillary insisting that without first streamlining and digitalizing Medicare/Medicaid records to form a national health data base a program would not succeed or be financially feasable as she made the case for nationalizing the record and having amodern and efficient way of marshalling information and reaching targets accurately.
So we got Obamacare from the backroom of BigPharma and BigInsurance in those private meetings in the WH with Obama
being oh so oblique and cautious as he threw it out to a deranged Congress with NO leadership, direction, or staked position.
It’s been a scam.