TPMDC
Obama In Surprise Message To Netroots: 'Consider What We've Accomplished' (VIDEO)
President Barack Obama
Share
Send to a friend!
Las Vegas -- President Obama greeted progressive activists and liberal bloggers this morning via video message, telling the group during the final full day of Netroots Nation that he gets their frustration that "change hasn't come fast enough."
"I hope you take a moment to consider all we've accomplished so far," Obama said. Then the pre-recorded video showed a segment from MSNBC's Rachel Maddow rattling off the administration's achievements.
Obama promised, "we're not done." He said that the repeal of Don't Ask, Don't Tell is in the works and touted his own plan to draw down 90,000 troops from Iraq.
"We're moving America forward," he said, remarks that he's made many times before. "When we've come this far we can't afford to slide backward ... [to] failed policies that got us into this mess."
The president, suffering among this crowd for not being as progressive as they'd hoped, said that he wants the netroots to "keep making your voices heard, to keep holding me accountable, to keep up the fight."
Obama said "change is hard ... change is possible," and ended with, "let's finish what we've started."
Speaker Nancy Pelosi, there to face questions from the crowd, introduced Obama as the surprise guest. He made a similar surprise-by-video appearance in 2008 when the group met in Austin after he'd captured the presidential nomination. In 2007, he appeared at a presidential debate when the gathering was held in Chicago. Even though he earned a friendly reception (and the crowd sang him "Happy Birthday"), that year John Edwards won the presidential straw poll as the progressive favorite.
The only member of the Obama administration to appear at the convention so far was Transportation Secretary Ray LaHood, a former Republican who avoided providing any partisan red meat during his panel Thursday morning.
Watch:
Comments (204) | Join the Conversation!
Leave a comment
Follow us!
Most Popular
TPM Stories Now Surging on Digg.com
TPM Top News
© 2010 TPM Media LLC. All Rights Reserved.
Bwakfat
July 24, 2010 12:48 PM
Thank you Mr. President. I sure hope this goes a long way to healing some rifts. I do try to remind people that when you were elected you told everyone that you couldn't do it by yourself. We won't help you get it done if we stop pushing, questioning, and criticizing, and I am quite glad to see that you agree.
Here's to the Obama Administration critics of TPM, you're doing good. Don't let anyone say different.
Reply | Flag Abuse
Are you sure this comment violates TPM's Terms of Service?
Clarance Vine
July 24, 2010 1:16 PM in reply to Bwakfat
"We won't help you get it done if we stop pushing, questioning, and criticizing, and I am quite glad to see that you agree."
Ain't that sweet. Question Authority! My God, how could we! And the "pushing" and "criticizing"! My God, bunch of ruffians prodding the President, asking him to deliver. Can't have that.
Reply | Flag Abuse
Are you sure this comment violates TPM's Terms of Service?
destor23
July 24, 2010 1:19 PM in reply to Clarance Vine
Some people around here are too sensitive for it. But I guess Obama is telling us that he's tougher and more curious than his most ardent supporters seem to think. This is the Obama I like, by the way. The intellectual and little d democrat.
Reply | Flag Abuse
Are you sure this comment violates TPM's Terms of Service?
Clarance Vine
July 24, 2010 1:35 PM in reply to destor23
You might be right and would like to agree but then again it's your "guess" as to what he saying. And for me, he's realll good at "saying". This is the Obama I also used to like, but I personally find this new 'openness'(hold me accountable) insulting and dishonest.
Reply | Flag Abuse
Are you sure this comment violates TPM's Terms of Service?
Bwakfat
July 24, 2010 1:42 PM in reply to Clarance Vine
Except it isn't new, it isn't anything he didn't say on the eve of his election. Don't let your cynicism block your common sense.
Reply | Flag Abuse
Are you sure this comment violates TPM's Terms of Service?
Clarance Vine
July 24, 2010 2:59 PM in reply to Bwakfat
Try hard not to. The President though, mostly by his inaction and incremental approach to almost everything, makes it difficult for me to wear the "be happy" smile on my face.
Reply | Flag Abuse
Are you sure this comment violates TPM's Terms of Service?
CityGuy
July 24, 2010 4:16 PM in reply to Clarance Vine
The perfect is the enemy of the possible. His slow, incremental approach has already reaped many benefits. Charles Krauthammer, no friend of the president, is correct in saying that Obama has brought about fundamental change in America. What the president is doing is the equivalent of another New Deal. No wonder the GOP is fighting him every step of the way. Within a decade people will be taking the HCR provisions for granted-much like Medicare. Repugs know that they are on the wrong end of history. Thus the hysterics from the Right.
Reply | Flag Abuse
Are you sure this comment violates TPM's Terms of Service?
toddincabo
July 24, 2010 5:14 PM in reply to CityGuy
Exactly
This Dude is young and still learning and is still a million miles ahead of what shape we would be in if McCancer and the Twat got in there.
Sure he could have been more forceful on a public option, could have fired Geitner's ass a long time ago, and especially figured out that there is no way in hell he will get help from the Rethugs a lot sooner.
I mean, he has even been tripped up by Joe Blow Lieberman, Max Baucus,The Arkansas Bitch, Bin Nelson,....must I go on?
Get out there and vote toward the Liberal side and give this man something to work with.
Just think of the things we could get accomplished in his second term after the economy is finally kicking again.
Give the man some help, Hell...how many times did you hear him say he needed our help and that you can't wipe out all of shrubs 8 years of bullshit!
I hope and prey that soon he does a prime-time spot where he takes the gloves completely off....picks up a wrench....and beats the goddamn obstructionist, country crashing, Un-American, Rethug piece of shit across the head with it.....
Tell the country the truth about those bastards tanking this economy as much as possible for political gain....
He took an oath to defend this Country.... GET TO IT !
Reply | Flag Abuse
Are you sure this comment violates TPM's Terms of Service?
vasu
July 24, 2010 8:58 PM in reply to toddincabo
+1. And I almost shot water out my nose, McCancer and Twat! Perfect.
Reply | Flag Abuse
Are you sure this comment violates TPM's Terms of Service?
bibimimi
July 25, 2010 3:03 PM in reply to vasu
Damn. That IS good...
Reply | Flag Abuse
Are you sure this comment violates TPM's Terms of Service?
valgal
July 25, 2010 2:42 PM in reply to toddincabo
I've got a fine Louisville Slugger he can use.
Reply | Flag Abuse
Are you sure this comment violates TPM's Terms of Service?
whiterosebuddy
July 24, 2010 5:15 PM in reply to CityGuy
You are soooo right CityGuy...America has not seen this much policy change since the ProhibitionEra....if only they would look at what HAS been done instead of consistently focusing on what has YET to be done.
We are moving forward...but you do not win the race by being the HARE...the tortoise won.
Reply | Flag Abuse
Are you sure this comment violates TPM's Terms of Service?
Clarance Vine
July 24, 2010 6:15 PM in reply to CityGuy
that's quite a snark.
Reply | Flag Abuse
Are you sure this comment violates TPM's Terms of Service?
trblmkr
July 24, 2010 8:08 PM in reply to Clarance Vine
The cake is not baked yet re: Health Reform or Financial Reform.
On the former, we're still mixing the flour, on the latter, we just signed off the recipe.
In today's NYT, biz section article on how the healthcare industry is working to pick apart every new reg and how it's enforced. You can be sure the Big Money's gonna do the same.
Meanwhile Chamber of Commerce and Biz Roundtable are wailing like capitalism's been outlawed, smart politics.
Iraq's iffy and Afghanistan's a straight up mess.
Yes, we've done so much...
Reply | Flag Abuse
Are you sure this comment violates TPM's Terms of Service?
Clarance Vine
July 24, 2010 9:27 PM in reply to trblmkr
Nice avatar - looks like your drunk and your family is holding you up - just kidding.
Hey, I like to cook/bake and when the recipe calls for 2 cups of sugar you can't put in one and say you'll put the next cup in in the next batch (talking white chocolate chip cookies with pecans). Sure it's edible but you need the 2nd cup to do it right. Agree with you on latter - but depends heavily on regulators - which is fine as long as you're the boss. New boss come in and we get Chris Cox again.
Absolutely correct on picking apart HC before 2013/14. Dangerous position to be in. Smart people with time and money makes me nervous about HC legislation.
Yea, Chamber of Commerce and Biz Roundtable bitching about the good life. They bruise easily.
See nothing iffy about Iraq (it is THEIR country)and Afghanistan, forgetaboutit! Gotta get out - like folding KK with an A on the flop.
And yes, we do keep the world on their toes.
Reply | Flag Abuse
Are you sure this comment violates TPM's Terms of Service?
oleeb
July 24, 2010 11:11 PM in reply to CityGuy
What a load of malarky! Fundamental change? Please explain how he has fundamentally changed anything, let alone brought fundamental change to America? Krauthammer is insane! He's so far right and such a bitter old crank, his idea of fundamental change isn't exactly what anyone should be using as a measuring stick. There's nothing whatsoever that either you, Obama or Krauthammer could produce to support that completely absurd assertion.
Reply | Flag Abuse
Are you sure this comment violates TPM's Terms of Service?
Clarance Vine
July 25, 2010 1:03 PM in reply to CityGuy
For a CityGuy, you sure sound like a country bumpkin - just keep drinking the weak tea and keep following the turtle down the road. You're a wealth of O-Bot talking points:
The perfect is the enemy of the possible.
His slow, incremental approach has already reaped many benefits.
Obama has brought about fundamental change in America.
What the president is doing is the equivalent of another New Deal.
No wonder the GOP is fighting him every step of the way.
Within a decade people will be taking the HCR provisions for granted-much like Medicare.
Repugs know that they are on the wrong end of history.
CityGuy, keep worshiping at the Cult Obama because there's no saving you.
Reply | Flag Abuse
Are you sure this comment violates TPM's Terms of Service?
acriticalthinker
July 25, 2010 1:30 PM in reply to CityGuy
"His slow, incremental approach has already reaped many benefits. Charles Krauthammer, no friend of the president, is correct in saying that Obama has brought about fundamental change in America. What the president is doing is the equivalent of another New Deal. No wonder the GOP is fighting him every step of the way."
Obama IS keeping his pledge to "fundamentally transform" America from a constitutional, limited federal government toward a European style socialist/entitlement welfare state. Nutroots members want full blown socialism NOW. If Obama had dictatorial powers like Castro and Chavez have, Obama WOULD impose socialism immediately. Unfortunately, powers are still divided and representatives must answer to their constituents (which they will in November), so the best Obama could do was to set America on the greased skids to socialism.
Accomplishments?
Take over GM and Chrysler, with government and UAW as co-opwners. Check.
Set U.S. on path to nationalized single payer health care. Check.
Make more Americans dependent on government with higher unemployment and extended subsistence benefits that will keep voters on the Democrat unemployment compensation plantation.
Appoint liberal activist judges with "empathy" who will rule for the "little guy" rather than follow the law. Check.
Take over student loan program so that education and who gets loans will be politicized and government can favor Democrat constituents with special deals and loan forgiveness.
Cripple vital oil and gas industry. Check.
Just a partial list of Obama's considerable "accomplishments".
Reply | Flag Abuse
Are you sure this comment violates TPM's Terms of Service?
Bwakfat
July 25, 2010 3:58 PM in reply to acriticalthinker
You do know what acritical means, right?
Just wondering.
Reply | Flag Abuse
Are you sure this comment violates TPM's Terms of Service?
acriticalthinker
July 25, 2010 6:37 PM in reply to Bwakfat
Yes, I think it is a word that liberals use (by cutting off the "thinker" from my screen name) as a snide and "clever" (to fellow liberals) way of being able to dismiss a discordant facts or opinion without having to deal with the substance of the discordant facts or opinion. Do YOU know what "critical thinking" is? Just wondering.
Reply | Flag Abuse
Are you sure this comment violates TPM's Terms of Service?
Bwakfat
July 25, 2010 8:01 PM in reply to acriticalthinker
Sure, and I don't see much of it in the above screech.
I do see some fairly tiresome GOP talking points, and much uninformed opinion.
You might do better defending your friend ahmedsa, you know, that commenter you think is so substansive.
Reply | Flag Abuse
Are you sure this comment violates TPM's Terms of Service?
acriticalthinker
July 25, 2010 8:34 PM in reply to Bwakfat
I am often berated for my lack of critical thinking, so I believe this is a good time to describe what critical thinking is about and why I view myself as "a critical thinker" (though admittedly not always perfectly). In addition, for those intellectually honest liberals (and intellectually dishonest liberals too) who want to test their thinking and comments against a yardstick of what "critical thinking" is about, consider these excerpts (with a few comments of my own)from http://www.criticalthinking.org/articles/becoming-a-critic.cfm
“One of the hallmarks of a critical thinker is the disposition to change one’s mind when given good reason to change. Good thinkers want to change their thinking when they discover better thinking. THEY CAN BE MOVED BY REASON. Yet, comparatively few people are reasonable. FEW ARE WILLING TO CHANGE THEIR MINDS ONCE SET. FEW ARE WILLING TO SUSPEND THEIR BELIEFS TO FULLY HEAR THE VIEWS OF THOSE WITH WHICH THEY DISAGREE. How would you rate yourself?”
I went to college for 4 years and laughed at Archie Bunker and thought “Meathead” was brilliant—in other words, I was a liberal. But I was intellectually curious and open to other opinions, as well as observing what was happening around me in the “real world” and comparing it to what liberals had to say about what I observed about the results of their policies. I suspended my liberal beliefs, heard the views of others with whom I disagreed and compared them to “reality” for consistency, reasonableness, and intellectual honesty. Liberalism flunked those tests. Conservativism does not have the emotional appeal that liberalism has (it does not have the easy appeal of feeling good about oneself for one's "compassion"----particularly with other people's money and regardless of bad results), and it takes some extra thought, but it is worth the effort.
Steps to becoming a critical thinker:
1. Clarify Your Thinking. Be on the look-out for vague, fuzzy, formless, blurred thinking. Try to figure out the real meaning of what people are saying. Look on the surface. Look beneath the surface. Try to figure out the real meaning of important news stories.
2. Stick To The Point. Be on the look out for fragmented thinking, thinking that leaps about with no logical connections. Start noticing when you or others fail to stay focused on what is relevant. When you are working through a problem, make sure you stay focused on what sheds light on and, thus, helps address the problem. Don’t allow your mind to wander to unrelated matters (like ad hominem attacks and non-substantive and glib dismissals of facts or opinions you disagree with). Don’t allow others to stray from the main issue.
When thinking is relevant, it is focused on the main task at hand. It selects what is germane, pertinent, and related. It is on the alert for everything that connects to the issue. It sets aside what is immaterial, inappropriate, extraneous, and beside the point.
3. Question Questions. Be on the look out for questions. The ones we ask. The ones we fail to ask. Look on the surface. Look beneath the surface. Listen to how people question, when they question, when they fail to question. Look closely at the questions asked. What questions do you ask, should you ask? Examine the extent to which you are a questioner, or simply one who accepts the definitions of situations given by others.
Most people are not skilled questioners. Most accept the world as it is presented to them. And when they do question, their questions are often superficial or “loaded.” Their questions do not help them solve their problems or make better decisions. Good thinkers routinely ask questions in order to understand and effectively deal with the world around them. They question the status quo. They know that things are often different from the way they are presented. Their questions penetrate images, masks, fronts, and propaganda.
4. Be Reasonable. Be on the lookout for reasonable and unreasonable behaviors — yours and others. Look on the surface. Look beneath the surface. Listen to what people say. Look closely at what they do. NOTICE WHEN YOU ARE UNWILLING TO LISTEN TO THE VIEWS OF OTHERS, WHEN YOU SIMPLY SEE YOURSELF AS RIGHT AND OTHERS AS WRONG. ASK YOURSELF AT THOSE MOMENTS WHETHER THEIR VIEWS MIGHT HAVE SOME MERIT. SEE IF YOU CAN BREAK THROUGH YOUR DEFENSIVENESS TO HEAR WHAT THEY ARE SAYING. Notice unreasonableness in others. Try to figure out why you, or others, are being unreasonable. Might you have a vested interested in not being open-minded? Might they?
My final thoughts. How do your comments and your thinking here (on this thread) rate on this "critical thinking" test? You do not have to reply here, just be honest with yourself, and be willing to make changes (only if necessary, of course).
Reply | Flag Abuse
Are you sure this comment violates TPM's Terms of Service?
JBL1955
July 26, 2010 12:34 PM in reply to acriticalthinker
"Yes, I think [acritical] is a word that liberals use (by cutting off the 'thinker' from my screen name) as a snide and 'clever' (to fellow liberals) way of being able to dismiss a discordant facts or opinion without having to deal with the substance of the discordant facts or opinion."
The lack of critical thinking in your response tells me you need to study those four points a little more carefully, particularly #2, as your response is a textbook case of "fragmented thinking, thinking that leaps about with no logical connections."
And, of course, providing facts instead of parroting right-wing talking points would probably go a long way to establishing you as an actual critical thinker.
Reply | Flag Abuse
Are you sure this comment violates TPM's Terms of Service?
acriticalthinker
July 26, 2010 6:08 PM in reply to JBL1955
Nice try in attempting to avoid the factual points I made in response to City Guy's comment that "Charles Krauthammer, no friend of the president, is correct in saying that Obama has brought about fundamental change in America. What the president is doing is the equivalent of another New Deal."
I AGREED with City Guy and pointed to SPECIFIC things "New Deal" type of actions that Obama has taken as part his pledge to "fundamentally transform" America (boy, has he!).
Which of the following "talking points" that you charge I have "parroted" are not factual:
1. Take over GM and Chrysler, with government and UAW as co-opwners.
2. Set U.S. on path to nationalized single payer health care.
3. Make more Americans dependent on government with higher unemployment and extended subsistence benefits that will keep voters on the Democrat unemployment compensation plantation.
4. Appoint liberal activist judges with "empathy" who will rule for the "little guy" rather than follow the law.
5. Take over student loan program so that education and who gets loans will be politicized and government can favor Democrat constituents with special deals and loan forgiveness.
6. Cripple vital oil and gas industry.
You should be HAPPY to acknowledge these very real accomplishments, but instead you avoid responding to the substance of my comments and persist in your laughable attacks on my "critical thinking" abilities----all the while displaying your inability to acknowledge reality or that the specifics that I presented were entirely relevant to the comment of the City Guy. I try to include self awareness as part of my critical thinking. You might do the same if you ever strive to be a critical thinker, and not just an ad hominem CRITIC of those with whom you disagree, but are unable to debate or refute on the substance of their comments.
Talk about not sticking to the point!!! In contrast to my on-point comments in response to City Guy, you instantly AVOID the points that City Guy and I were discussing (Obama's accomplishments that constituted "fundamental transformation" of America along the lines of the New Deal) and veered off on a question ("You do know what acritical means, right?")that shed ABSOLUTELY no light on those points, but was intended only to show how snide and "clever" you are so as to garner kudos from your fellow closed-minded liberals.
To your irrelevant question about whether I know what "acritical" means, I asked you a question that was related to your "clever" question, i.e. "Do YOU know what "critical thinking" is?" and posted a summary of what is involved in "critical thinking", to which you posted a reply that showed that you are not moved by facts or reason, you apparently are not willing, for even a moment, to suspend your liberal world view and beliefs to even partially hear (let alone fully hear) the views of those with whom you disagree (stamping your feet, singing "la-la-la, I can't hear you", and ignoring those views, coupled, of course, with name calling and snide attacks, seems to work best for liberals).
A little self reflection is good for everyone. I considered your suggestion that I study rule #2, before I rejected it (for the reasons stated above) as not particularly on target. For you, and most liberals here, I would suggest the part of rule 4 that I put in CAPS to begin with (for obvious reasons) as a very good place to start if one actually desires to engage in critical thinking:
"NOTICE WHEN YOU ARE UNWILLING TO LISTEN TO THE VIEWS OF OTHERS, WHEN YOU SIMPLY SEE YOURSELF AS RIGHT AND OTHERS AS WRONG. ASK YOURSELF AT THOSE MOMENTS WHETHER THEIR VIEWS MIGHT HAVE SOME MERIT. SEE IF YOU CAN BREAK THROUGH YOUR DEFENSIVENESS TO HEAR WHAT THEY ARE SAYING."
I came here to expose myself to and rationally engage with diverse views of liberals here and to perhaps learn something every once in a while (I will concede that sometimes, there is something of substance to be learned from a few liberals here). That is part of MY "critical thinking" process. I don't expect you to openly admit that MAYBE one or two of the points that I made in my reply to City Guy or to others here have at least a tiny bit of merit. I have come to understand that most liberals are VERY defensive about their "realities" and would not agree with a conservative even on the fact that 2 + 2 = 4. It is sooooo much easier to cleverly dismiss a conservative poster as an idiot and to completely ignore the substance of a conservative's comments than to acknowledge them as having ANY validity whatsoever.
Reply | Flag Abuse
Are you sure this comment violates TPM's Terms of Service?
Thinking-Independent
July 26, 2010 10:31 PM in reply to acriticalthinker
Well said! The American electorate is like a child that must be forced on occasion by a loving parent to do what they don’t want to.
Reply | Flag Abuse
Are you sure this comment violates TPM's Terms of Service?
acriticalthinker
July 27, 2010 11:38 AM in reply to Thinking-Independent
A portion of the American electorate IS like a child (naive, dependent, gullible, shallow, focused on immediate gratification and "feelings", and not concerned with long term effects or unintended consequences of policies that "feel good" in the short run but are disasterous in the long run---e.g. "free" health care, extended unemployment compensation put on the national "credit card", suspending oil and gas exploration, etc.)
However, the electorate can't be forced (and conservatives don't want to "force" them)to do what the electorate doesn't want to do. The job of conservatives to educate the electorate as to what is going on (for example, Obama's and Democrats' "accomplishments" or lack thereof) and to provide a vision of a better way, and encourage the electorate to make informed decisions that are in their LONG TERM best interests (unlike the "easy" parent who will always give his or kids candy at the check out lane---with someone else's money, to boot---without regard to whether a regular diet of candy---which the kid LOVES---will result later on in obesity, diabetes, rotten teeth, etc. To deny candy to kids would be "mean spirited" and display a lack of "compassion", and the kids will not like their parent(s) anymore).
You do know, don't you, that you will be on the s***list here for not giving my comments the usual liberal "smack down"? Dissent USED TO be the highest form of patriotism (during the Bush years), but not any more. Conformity with "progressive" thought is now the order of the day.
Reply | Flag Abuse
Are you sure this comment violates TPM's Terms of Service?
Thinking-Independent
July 28, 2010 9:53 PM in reply to acriticalthinker
I've never been very good at pretending. I happen to agree with just about every thing you've said. Free health care, what a hoot. They don't call them HEALTH SERVICE providers for nothing. It’s a service! And yes you have to pay for it. A hundred years ago a serious medical problem may have cost you and your family your best cow or goat. Doctors like milk too. Now they can just buy it instead of having to be a part time farmer which allows them to provide their SERVICE more often to more people.
Suspending oil drilling, wanting to tax energy so that the price of energy must “necessarily sky rocket,” don’t even get me started on that. That would just lead to the whole global warming farce. A minuscule change in the Sun or one substantial volcano and we have scientists right back in the 70’s whining about a new Ice Age and badgering people to burn more fossil fuels to stave it off.
I think we’ll see if the electorate can be forced into something. In a little more than 3 months I think we’ll know how offended they are. Oh, and yes, I know I may be on some folks’ S**t-List. I have been there before and will be again.
Reply | Flag Abuse
Are you sure this comment violates TPM's Terms of Service?
blkblt
July 25, 2010 11:09 AM in reply to Clarance Vine
Incremental is how you make lasting changes. If you wanted a Democratic version of GWB you voted for the wrong guy. President Obama is not a cowboy. The idea that you can change things without bringing the country along with you is wrongheaded. And you just have to look at the tea party et al to see that a large part of the country is deeply uncomfortable with any change at all.
Reply | Flag Abuse
Are you sure this comment violates TPM's Terms of Service?
oleeb
July 24, 2010 11:07 PM in reply to Clarance Vine
And that is exactly what it is: insulting and dishonest. He did this to placate people on the left (as he has done previously) after double crossing them over and over and over. It's arrogance turned into an art form.
Reply | Flag Abuse
Are you sure this comment violates TPM's Terms of Service?
Clarance Vine
July 24, 2010 11:18 PM in reply to oleeb
"It's arrogance turned into an art form."
Yes it is and he's got it down real good - plus the netroots just happy for the attention (really). I was an easy touch when He was talking hope and change. Now I just mute him when he starts talking.
Reply | Flag Abuse
Are you sure this comment violates TPM's Terms of Service?
oleeb
July 24, 2010 11:50 PM in reply to Clarance Vine
What startles me is how many people keep falling for the same very obvious trick! But there are obviously plenty of lemmings willing to follow him right over the cliff. It strikes me as funny too how many people are willing to give him a pass for gutting the phenomenal majorities in Congress he was handed through. The debacle in November is going to be 100% his fault and nobody seems to be pointing the finger at him though they ought to be.
Reply | Flag Abuse
Are you sure this comment violates TPM's Terms of Service?
bk
July 25, 2010 1:11 PM in reply to oleeb
Hello, 60 votes and the PARTY OF NO. The president has Congress to thank for lots of this. Did he hope to do more, yes; did he want to bring the GOP and the DEMs together, yes. But the GOP had other plans. Now with BIG money against him, and the GOP, some conservadems, and now the tea party, etc., it's any wonder at all that so much has been accomplished. If you study history at all, what he's been able to do, given the enormous difficulties, is historic. Could he do better, of course, but it a is a great start.
Reply | Flag Abuse
Are you sure this comment violates TPM's Terms of Service?
acriticalthinker
July 27, 2010 12:11 PM in reply to bk
"Hello, 60 votes and the PARTY OF NO. The president has Congress to thank for lots of this."
When a school bus driver is driving the bus over a cliff, "NO" is a VERY GOOD first step. The next essential step is removing the driver from his seat and getting the bus back on the road.
Obama DOES have Congress to thank for their complicity in ramming through his agenda. The voters will express their lack of appreciation for Dems' support of Obamunism in November.
Reply | Flag Abuse
Are you sure this comment violates TPM's Terms of Service?
LadyBlahBlah
July 24, 2010 8:25 PM in reply to Bwakfat
Well said. Some folks seem to think that keeping the President accountable by constant critique is their only task. He said keep working. Stay involved. Change takes time so have patience.
Reply | Flag Abuse
Are you sure this comment violates TPM's Terms of Service?
destor23
July 24, 2010 1:11 PM
I'm glad he addressed the group and I suppose this is the answer to anyone who wants people to stop criticizing Obama in public forums. Not only can he take it, he's intellectually honest enough to ask for it.
Reply | Flag Abuse
Are you sure this comment violates TPM's Terms of Service?
Clarance Vine
July 24, 2010 2:48 PM in reply to destor23
You say - "he's intellectually honest enough to ask for it."
I say - "just talkin' jive".
Reply | Flag Abuse
Are you sure this comment violates TPM's Terms of Service?
mophan
July 24, 2010 8:17 PM in reply to Clarance Vine
You say he is "just talking jive."
I suspect all of his messaging as much as anybody, but I ask myself every time "realistically, what more could have been done?"
Aside from Obama actually coming out in every legislation and strong-arming votes in his favor (which, I no doubt would have put him in a approval rating of GW, 20's) he has done as much as he could with what he has. This has been the MOST productive Congress in over 3 decades!
I wish for MORE. I will hang my hat on his judgment considering his accomplishments these past 2 years. I just ask Rahm is dismissed shamefully from his position.
In that, my confidence will rise considerably.
Reply | Flag Abuse
Are you sure this comment violates TPM's Terms of Service?
oleeb
July 24, 2010 11:32 PM in reply to mophan
What more could have been done? You're kidding right?
Like he had to give a free pass to war criminals? NOT! Like he had to suppress the photos the courts repeatedly said should be released showing how the US was, as a matter of policy, torturing prisoners? NOT! Like he had to kill the public option when nearly 70% of the country supported it and it was the only part of his healthcare bill a majority of the people supported? NOT! Like he had to escalate the war in Afghanistan? NOT! Like he had to agree to a private mercenary army under the auspices of the State Department for Iraq? NOT! Like he had to rollover for Wall Street and water down ever single provision of the financial regulation and reform legislation? NOT! This is only a small number of all the things he could very realistically done a much, much, much better job on.
Reply | Flag Abuse
Are you sure this comment violates TPM's Terms of Service?
blkblt
July 25, 2010 11:19 AM in reply to oleeb
He could have taken all those positions, of course none of that would have passed the house or the senate. So he would have been an ineffectual angry spittle flecked man screaming into the wind about how awful everything is. I think I prefer this.
Reply | Flag Abuse
Are you sure this comment violates TPM's Terms of Service?
Viva!America!
July 24, 2010 4:29 PM in reply to destor23
Destor & others please. Is this a reading comprehension problem? NO ONE has ever told you to STOP criticizing the president. It is the HOW. This type of "misunderstanding" is so common that anyone remarking on the criticism of Obama has to include the disclaimer: 'this does not mean you shouldn't criticize the president' - its ridiculous. Its a given why should anyone have to say it? I read criticisms of the president every day and some of them are so disrespectful that I have to wonder if they would have the guts to repeat those words to the president's face. In fact I would bet money that they wouldn't.
I know that you guys are well aware that HOW you criticize someone is important. Haven't you ever dismissed a comment because of its tone even if that person had a point? Many of you don't put up with the degrading remarks that are written here why should we accept that tone when it comes to the president?
And us ardent Obama supporters do know that he is very strong. That is why we push back when people needlessly trash his manhood. We know he can take whatever is coming at him. We are not protecting his feelings, we are asking for some respect for him and what he has accomplished. We are asking for balance and fairness. You know, the same thing that every person on this blog demands when someone is responding to their posts.
Reply | Flag Abuse
Are you sure this comment violates TPM's Terms of Service?
destor23
July 24, 2010 5:18 PM in reply to Viva!America!
Viva, you've always met my arguments with arguments of your own and I've always found you friendly and amenable to debate. So... yeah, when it comes to people like me debating people like you, you're fine.
There are other commenters here who have called me names, including "racist" and for no reason at all.
I am absolutely fine with my criticisms being subject to further critique by well-meaning and informed people such as yourself.
I hope to bring Free Ride into that camp though I realize I took the bait and was too aggressive and offensive a couple of times.
Reply | Flag Abuse
Are you sure this comment violates TPM's Terms of Service?
stillidealistic
July 24, 2010 11:37 PM in reply to Viva!America!
What he said.
Reply | Flag Abuse
Are you sure this comment violates TPM's Terms of Service?
dudeguy
July 26, 2010 2:25 PM in reply to Viva!America!
Amen, Viva.
Reply | Flag Abuse
Are you sure this comment violates TPM's Terms of Service?
EH
July 24, 2010 1:11 PM
In the last 18 months I've learned that banksters get all the tax money they want for bonuses but the unemployed have to fight tooth and nail for any half-step.
"Keep holding me accountable" implies continuation, or that he's listening to anything. When has he been held accountable until now?
Reply | Flag Abuse
Are you sure this comment violates TPM's Terms of Service?
destor23
July 24, 2010 1:18 PM in reply to EH
Hey, he fought and ultimately won on unemployment benefits. I think it's important to criticize but let's also show him some love when he gets it right.
I'm as angry about the bank bonuses as you are but remember that the problem was the original design of TARP didn't give the government much authority in matters of payment because the Bush administration didn't want it. I believe the government should have taken activist board positions in every company that got help. But that battle was lost before Obama took office.
Reply | Flag Abuse
Are you sure this comment violates TPM's Terms of Service?
Clarance Vine
July 24, 2010 1:45 PM in reply to destor23
Jesus, Destor, you disappoint - "But that battle was lost before Obama took office." He shares none of the blame?
Reply | Flag Abuse
Are you sure this comment violates TPM's Terms of Service?
destor23
July 24, 2010 1:55 PM in reply to Clarance Vine
I followed TARP pretty closely as I was a financial journalist at the time of the onset of the credit crisis. Once the government designed a program to basically infuse capital into for profit private companies and didn't demand a say in operations and management, the deal was screwed up in an irreparable way. That happened both with TARP and the AIG bailout. The only thing I think Obama could and should have done to improve things going forward would have been to have either not nominated Geithner to Treasury or to have fired him as the extent of his complicity with this bad deal became known.
But those bonus payments were gone the moments the wire transfers were made. No special tax or attempt to recoup them would survive a court challenge. The only way to have stopped them would have been to have had substantial board representation and to have objected before the payments were made.
We got hosed, but Hank Paulson is the one responsible.
Reply | Flag Abuse
Are you sure this comment violates TPM's Terms of Service?
Richardxx
July 24, 2010 2:33 PM in reply to destor23
Destor - thanks for explaining that. That was my impression also, but I don't have an sources outside the rather unreliable media.
The financial media seems to me to consist largely of two groups. One is the people trying to sell us financial products. These guys are responsible for almost all of the happy happy bullshit and such crap as "there are green shoots popping up - the future is looking better already." Since these are the people who are buying advertisements, these people dominate the business news and the majority of them are as ignorant as lumps of coal or tar balls.
The second group, smaller, is the group using the financial news for political gain. Again, they are as reliable and honest as flea market pickpockets.
Between them they seemed to me to drown out the flickers of good sense that occasionally appeared in the financial and economic news. They are still doing it, too.
You had to carefully read between the lines during the panic period when Wall Street was collapsing. Not only was the economic/financial news itself contaminated, after the Wall Street disaster hit the political news took over the entire subject. The complaint about Obama and the bail out is purely political. As you say, the bailout was set up by Paulson and was fixed into place before Obama was in office. Obama was locked into the existing structure when he swore in. Changes made at that time would have panicked the financial markets which were fragile already and besides, Obama's incoming team was organized to take on Health Care, not the second Great Depression.
I think I saw what you described with the help of Duncan Black and Nouriel Roubini. (I was blogging about the coming financial collapse in 2007. The CountryWide debacle made that clear.) I appreciate that you seem to confirm what I think I was observing.
Reply | Flag Abuse
Are you sure this comment violates TPM's Terms of Service?
again
July 24, 2010 5:47 PM in reply to Richardxx
Let me get this straight - you would rely first on some anonymous poster on TPM rather than read Simon Johnson, Yves Smith, Eliot Spitzer...
That doesn't make any sense, no one knows who Destor is, where he studied law and/or Econ and/or public policy. No one knows who he works for.
Accountability, please!
Reply | Flag Abuse
Are you sure this comment violates TPM's Terms of Service?
Clarance Vine
July 24, 2010 2:39 PM in reply to destor23
Yes, Paulson is responsible for his strategy - and not revealing it - not being able to account for hundreds of billions(?)of the TARP monies, not requiring the banks to lend government they received, etc. In other countries he might have been thrown in jail. Oversight panel said as much.
So that's it, the checks were wired to 1st in line and Obama said "gee, what do you want me to do, squeeze the banks or something, get them to lend, and grow the economy. How am I suppose to do that"?
Obama HAD recourse. He is the POTUS but did nothing to make the banksters 'uncomfortable'. And he could have if he exercised his position. If I remember correctly, a while back, Obama was to have a Monday morning meeting with the NYC bankers - but none of them showed. They were ALL "fogged in". And the President said NOTHING about it! You're right, the POTUS had no recourse. He is owned by the banksters, they own him like he paid them - 100 cents on the dollar.
Reply | Flag Abuse
Are you sure this comment violates TPM's Terms of Service?
EH
July 24, 2010 2:45 PM in reply to destor23
B.S. If this administration can use torture and rendition against US citizens with impunity, they can claw back the bonuses. You sell the current powers of the President short.
P.S. And he'll have to fight and win unemployment benefits again in what, 6mos? A year? It's not over and it's always a battle. He certainly didn't say that every unemployed person gets $500K, yet that's similar to what the bankers got: a lot of money just for being who they are.
Reply | Flag Abuse
Are you sure this comment violates TPM's Terms of Service?
hewhohasnoname
July 24, 2010 3:18 PM in reply to EH
"B.S. If this administration can use torture and rendition against US citizens with impunity, they can claw back the bonuses. You sell the current powers of the President short."
That's an ironic argument you're making there...
Destor seems to be asserting that the parameters for TARP were already set before Obama entered office, and were not easily and readily reconfigurable.
That is completely analogous to the establishment of torture and rendition under Bush and Cheney and your assertion that it has continued under Obama.
In an effort to argue FOR the powers of the presidency to alter circumstances established by a previous administration, you've implicitly acknowledged its inability to do so.
Reply | Flag Abuse
Are you sure this comment violates TPM's Terms of Service?
trblmkr
July 24, 2010 8:17 PM in reply to hewhohasnoname
Never mind TARP, try overturning 200 years' of contract jurisprudence. Anyone who received a bonus stipulated in a contract was basically untouchable.
Reply | Flag Abuse
Are you sure this comment violates TPM's Terms of Service?
arias
July 25, 2010 6:37 AM in reply to EH
Interesting EH. So you're claiming that he should have spent political capital trying to re-pass the 350 billion in TARP funds he was left with through congress so that monies to the banks would have more strings attached; this in the middle of a massive financial crisis bordering on depression and prior to passing a the stimulus. This of course, all before even getting to anything on his legislative agenda.
It's interesting what happens when the nearly limitless scope of your imaginative powers of the presidency come up against the logistical realities of what he would need to do in order achieve would you claim he was capable of, as if he could have effortlessly waved a wand somewhere.
"He certainly didn't say that every unemployed person gets $500K"
Nor should he have. The unemployed are ON THE DOLE DUDE. The reasoning behind your little tantrum here is pure gibberish.
Reply | Flag Abuse
Are you sure this comment violates TPM's Terms of Service?
Mateo123
July 24, 2010 3:48 PM in reply to destor23
How the fuck could the government have a say in the management? Seriously. What planet are you on? Do you think the government has any business running a bank? Come on. This is particularly true given the way that banks make money today. Unlike in the 1970s and 1980s, when banks made their money on the margin between deposit rates and credit rates, today banks make it on fees. Which government employees were qualified to operate a bank in this environment? None.
TARP was flawed from the outset. Its premise, rebuilding capital for the banks that lost it because of their aggressive lending and investment mistakes, was flawed. The banks' responsible behavior, after the failure of some institutions, would have reestablished the capital necessary to rebuild themselves and our economy. This would have cost substantially less than the hundreds of billions we spent. And, this reaction would have put to bed the notion that any publicly traded entity is too big to fail.
Reply | Flag Abuse
Are you sure this comment violates TPM's Terms of Service?
calbearinillinois
July 24, 2010 3:57 PM in reply to Mateo123
Two points - your price for TARP is too high - our final cost is under 200 billion after repayment and interest, not hundreds of billions; and the notion that banks would have just fixed themselves without crashing our entire economy is oversimplistic and ignores the fact experts of all stripes agreed doing nothing was not a viable option.
Reply | Flag Abuse
Are you sure this comment violates TPM's Terms of Service?
again
July 24, 2010 5:50 PM in reply to calbearinillinois
Really? Experts of all stripes? Then why was the FT's William buiter arguing for a temporary receivership?
Reply | Flag Abuse
Are you sure this comment violates TPM's Terms of Service?
Dave
July 24, 2010 7:04 PM in reply to again
The top 20 banks held about 90% of all deposits. B of A and Citigroup alone held close to 25% of all deposits in the country. Thats not billions but TRILLIONS of dollar to cover if these banks failed. The FDIC couldn't even cover the insured deposits. How bad a panic would that have been.
Also remember, Businesses often have to park many millions of dollars in banks for a short time for things like payroll or large purchases. These accounts would be wiped out if the bank went under while the money was there.
Reply | Flag Abuse
Are you sure this comment violates TPM's Terms of Service?
fkaZk0sm0
July 25, 2010 1:18 PM in reply to again
how is arguing for temporary receivership NOT agreeing that doing nothing was not a viable option???
Reply | Flag Abuse
Are you sure this comment violates TPM's Terms of Service?
destor23
July 24, 2010 5:22 PM in reply to Mateo123
Uh... any investor has the right to a say in management. That's why shareholders have rights. When we infused capital into the banks, we should have demanded the rights of active ownership.
Reply | Flag Abuse
Are you sure this comment violates TPM's Terms of Service?
again
July 24, 2010 5:42 PM in reply to destor23
Destor, I find your arguments lacking, at best, and will ask for which organization were you a soi-disant 'financial reporter'?
I think it's wise to bear in mind that there are legitimate reporters and economists: Simon Johnson is among them, but he was the former Chief Economist of the IMF, and he is not at all as kind to Obama as you are.
What are your actual credentials, since you claim to possess some kind of 'reporter's' insight?
Reply | Flag Abuse
Are you sure this comment violates TPM's Terms of Service?
Bwakfat
July 24, 2010 6:02 PM in reply to again
What was inaccurate about what he wrote? Who are you to demand credentials?
Let's see yours.
Reply | Flag Abuse
Are you sure this comment violates TPM's Terms of Service?
again
July 24, 2010 6:18 PM in reply to Bwakfat
The difference is that I'm not trying to buttress my argument that there was nothing Poor Mr. Obama could do by claiming to be a 'financial journalist'.
If you do so, you should be prepared to respond with an honest assessment of your credentials.
As a non-financial journalist, I will cite ACTUAL financial journalists, economists, and former attorneys general and regulators who have an ACTUAL informed opinion, and who are transparent about who employs them.
Reply | Flag Abuse
Are you sure this comment violates TPM's Terms of Service?
Bwakfat
July 24, 2010 6:43 PM in reply to again
I happen to know, but even if I didn't, one look at his past blogs would attest to the fact that he knows his stuff.
Again, what was inaccurate about what he wrote? He isn't buttressing an argument, he is stating easily verified fact. There is a difference.
Reply | Flag Abuse
Are you sure this comment violates TPM's Terms of Service?
again
July 24, 2010 7:44 PM in reply to Bwakfat
Even Destor would likely point out the obvious fallacy of your first paragraph.
what is inaccurate about what Destor wrote?
as I already pointed out ( as have others) Destor's implication that obama's hands were in effect tied by Paulson's actions is misleading at best. Yes, Paulson bears the brunt of the blame for the creation of the bailout, but as Johnson, spitzer, yves smith, William Buiter, et alia have pointed out, this does not in any way excuse the lack of real action on Obama's part.
The reality is that Paulson is gone, geithner and summers are here, and the 'financial reform' Obama just signed is 2300 pages of loophole-able busywork.
And that opinion is shared by no small number of ACTUAL financial journalists, even at The New York Times. You can listen to a comprehensible and responsible and accountable evisceration of the bill on last week's 'Fresh Air' with Terry Gross and one of the Times' reporters.
Reply | Flag Abuse
Are you sure this comment violates TPM's Terms of Service?
Bwakfat
July 24, 2010 8:09 PM in reply to again
You were replying to the statement that when the funds were given, the U.S. as a major stockholder should have had active oversight.
What about that statement was incorrect?
As for the opinion the President could amend these agreements, that he never signed, it is a questionable opinion at best. It's a bit disingenuous to "shout down" an opinion by asking for credentials unless you're willing to put up yours. Reading OpEd pieces doesn't necessarily qualify one for anything but partisan bullying.
Reply | Flag Abuse
Are you sure this comment violates TPM's Terms of Service?
oleeb
July 24, 2010 11:39 PM in reply to Bwakfat
Actually Bwak, most of the funds were distributed under the Obama regency. You may recall the House refused to allow Bush to spend more than a certain amount of the TARP funds before leaving office precisely so Obama could be the one controlling what went on. Sadly, all Obama did was to continue Bush's horrendous policies or, in some cases, make them worse. So while the original bad idea was Paulson's, it was Geithner under Obama and that creep Summers who called the shots for most of the money that went to save the banks while tens of millions of Americans lost their jobs and were given zilch by way of government help beyond unemployment benefits which don't amount to one one hundredth of a single bonus check at Goldman Sachs that you and I paid for.
Reply | Flag Abuse
Are you sure this comment violates TPM's Terms of Service?
Bwakfat
July 25, 2010 4:01 PM in reply to oleeb
Well, they did put Elizabeth Warren in the position of overseeing that, so I don't think their intentions were all bad.
I do think Geithner is misguided, true to his class, and Obama needs to can his ass.
Reply | Flag Abuse
Are you sure this comment violates TPM's Terms of Service?
fkaZk0sm0
July 25, 2010 1:14 PM in reply to again
actually, Destor was not 'trying to buttress (his) argument' by claiming to be a financial journalist. he referenced his employment as a financial journalist in the course of explaining why he had been paying close attention to TARP. he supported his arguments (as he always does) with actual arguments. he was not, as you accuse, making an Appeal to Authority.
ironically, your accusing Destor of making an Appeal to Authority amounts to an Ad Hominem because you make no effort to challenge his arguments with arguments of your own beyond (irony on top of irnoy) your own Appeals to Authority by invoking other journalists who may or may not actually disagree with Destor's arguments.
Reply | Flag Abuse
Are you sure this comment violates TPM's Terms of Service?
oleeb
July 25, 2010 12:53 AM in reply to Mateo123
Very easily actually and that is why Paulson tried to make sure there was nothing the government could do in that respect thought it could easily have been revised at any time had Obama wanted it to be revised but he didn't. The way in which the US could have had a say would have been to receive shares in return for the bailout money and with those shares, a concomitant number of seats on the board of each of the institutions receiving the money. That's how, ironically enough, Wall Street insisted the government handle GM and Chrysler but just as admantly insisted the government not do when it came to their own bankrupt firms.
Reply | Flag Abuse
Are you sure this comment violates TPM's Terms of Service?
It's Pat
July 24, 2010 1:52 PM in reply to destor23
Reply | Flag Abuse
Are you sure this comment violates TPM's Terms of Service?
Richardxx
July 24, 2010 2:48 PM in reply to It's Pat
Obama will get exactly the kind of loyalty going up as he demonstrates to his subordinates going down. That was his biggest failure in the Sharrod case.
Obama's administration is more ready to cater to Beck and breightbart than it is to investigate their accusations of a government employee. Obama's White House set the standards Tom Vilsack followed. They knew better during the primary and the election.
I don't care how many pieces of legislation with good titles the Obama people get passed. If the base doesn't think they can trust him, he isn't going to be able to defeat the Republican enthusiasm gap this November.
Obama, for all the apparent positive things that have passed this last year, is beginning to look like a failed Clinton and perhaps even a Jimmy Carter Presidency. Neither did enough to build the Democratic base. A video to the Netroots convention isn't going to change that.
Reply | Flag Abuse
Are you sure this comment violates TPM's Terms of Service?
It's Pat
July 24, 2010 3:16 PM in reply to Richardxx
Reply | Flag Abuse
Are you sure this comment violates TPM's Terms of Service?
Richardxx
July 24, 2010 3:34 PM in reply to It's Pat
If a national Democratic Party even exists, then Obama leads it. If he loses one or more of the Houses of Congress then there is damned little that Obama will be able to do effectively. That will be Obama's fault. Within our political structure there is no one else who can rally the party nationally.
This idea that the President only comes out of White House during Presidential elections ignores the fact that the Constitution spread the government powers around into checks and balances. The Republicans have been fully aware of that since Nixon resigned.
If the Democrats don't act like a national party then they will be handing the country back to the conservatives and the Democrats should be replaced. With TV, cable and the Internet there simply is no longer any room for a political party that exists only as an alliance of state parties.
Reply | Flag Abuse
Are you sure this comment violates TPM's Terms of Service?
It's Pat
July 24, 2010 4:05 PM in reply to Richardxx
Reply | Flag Abuse
Are you sure this comment violates TPM's Terms of Service?
Richardxx
July 24, 2010 4:34 PM in reply to It's Pat
The voters won't do what they aren't being tasked to do. And Obama is the national face of the Democrats. It is my opinion that the health care legislation dragged out as long as it did in part because Obama did not provide any leadership to the voters. I don't think that Obama and his small group of insiders like that kind of politics, but I really think it's going to be very much needed this fall.
As to the Republicans not having a leader but still being out there working their butts off, that's a function of the wealthy conservatives funding the movements. The teabaggers make up the largest astroturf organization ever fielded. Then there is Karl Rove's organization which has collect millions of dollars from four billionaires. Cindy McCain's inherited wealth bought John his Senate seat and the conservatives concentrate on rural and small state elections. Those are just samples of how the conservative money is skewing the political system.
The Republicans use money politics and the media to swing elections. Money is also used quite successfully to repress the Democtratic vote. The Democrats can only counter that with motivating and organizing as many people as possible. My complaint is that the process of motivating the base is not happening.
You state "Obama is not on the ballot." I disagree with you. He very much is, and if he doesn't act like it he is going to lose a lot of the power he had coming into office.
The American first-past-the-post voting system sets up a condition in which only two parties will exist. If the Republicans act like a national party and the Democrats don't, the current media system in America (TV, cable and the Internet) will give the power back to the Republicans. That's in spite of the fact that the majority of Americans want and prefer the Democrats.
If you are motivated to vote for losers then feel free. That's what the Nadarites did. But if the Democrats can't win then the losing elements need to be replaced.
Reply | Flag Abuse
Are you sure this comment violates TPM's Terms of Service?
It's Pat
July 24, 2010 6:20 PM in reply to Richardxx
Reply | Flag Abuse
Are you sure this comment violates TPM's Terms of Service?
tytester
July 24, 2010 4:52 PM in reply to Richardxx
I fully agree. Obama is an absolute disaster as a leader of the Democratic party. He has no experience and no qualifications to lead the party. As a POTUS he may be OK, but as a party leader he is absolutely incompetent.
It took him more than a year to realize that Rahm-bo is giving him advice that badly hurt the Dem party. Ditto Geitner. Obama is apparently learning as it is not accidental that you do not hear anymore from Rahm-bo or Geitner (both of them used to be in the news all the time before Scott Brown won). However, this learning process is not fast enough to save the Dem majority in November - just two weeks ago Obama literally bent over for Scott Brown on the finance reform bill instead of working with Feingold and Cantwell.
So how do you expect Dem voters to have loyalty to a party leader that kissed Scott Brown's ass? (And FYI, I think "kissed" is an understatement, it was more like "licked clean".)
Reply | Flag Abuse
Are you sure this comment violates TPM's Terms of Service?
wendy davis
July 24, 2010 10:11 PM in reply to tytester
Axelrod as White House spokesman is a disaster, too, though. He seems to be lying and apologetic and defensive all at once. They should hide him, I think.
Reply | Flag Abuse
Are you sure this comment violates TPM's Terms of Service?
Dave
July 24, 2010 3:29 PM in reply to Richardxx
It was Vilsack who fired Sharrod! Also, he apologized! He made a mistake but, in the end, Fox and Breitbart are the villians. Blame should go to the guilty not the gullible.
Reply | Flag Abuse
Are you sure this comment violates TPM's Terms of Service?
Richardxx
July 24, 2010 3:48 PM in reply to Dave
The White House sets the tone for the administration. Vilsack was doing what he thought the White House expected.
The Army teaches that the leader is responsible for everything his subordinates do or fail to do. After WW II we hung on Japanese General for war crimes his subordinates committed without his knowledge and we were right to hang the man.
Too many people today are ready to let the leader get off because it was his subordinates who committed the crime. Well, the privilege of being a leader includes the privilege of taking the blame when your subordinates screw up. The leader should have set the proper policy.
Obama screwed up setting the policy. Vilsack should resign and Obama should have already asked for it. That is one way the leader gets the message out to the rest of his subordinates. And leaders are there to be messages as well as to give orders. Anyone in a leadership position who doesn't recognize that they will take the blame for what their followers do does not belong in leadership.
When a leader's followers screw up badly the leader is the designated scape goat. (That's in addition, of course, to the direct responsibility the person who screwed up has.) There is no excuse. That is a major function of leadership. If you don't like it, don't take the job. If you don't apply that doctrine of leadership then people in your organization tend to not follow the policies that the leaders provide.
Reply | Flag Abuse
Are you sure this comment violates TPM's Terms of Service?
Thinking-Independent
July 27, 2010 12:06 AM in reply to Dave
With regard to Ms Sharrod; I can see how you may want to hold Breitbart at least partly accountable but how is Fox in any way accountable for her firing?
Reply | Flag Abuse
Are you sure this comment violates TPM's Terms of Service?
calbearinillinois
July 24, 2010 3:38 PM in reply to Richardxx
Frankly, I think the "base" deludes itself on a regular basis about its size and influence. Clinton didn't give a damn about progressives because he wasn't one - he really believed in market solutions as much or more than George HW Bush (NAFTA, proposing CAFTA, de-linking human rights and trade with China, encouraging bubble behavior in the markets and de-regulating a ton of industries with GOP help). Clinton was all about Clinton.
As to Obama, he has to play the hand he's dealt. He is a centrist/incrementalist, but in reality every President is only as radical as their Congress allows them to be. FDR could get a ton of things passed for economic aid in 1932-34, but couldn't touch issues involving race and gender. Plus his reward was to have the Supreme Court destroy huge chunks of legislation until 1937, by which time he'd scaled back on spending because he lost his conservative wing. Obama never had the support of blue dogs and the Nelsons/Landrieus/Dorgans of the world for really aggressive legislation, and you know it.
Even so, he's already passed a number of measures Clinton didn't (healthcare, financial reform), set the table for undoing some of the worst mistakes of the Clinton era (DOMA, DADT), and passed a ton of legislation that languished under the prior administration and in some cases all the way back to Reagan (fully funding IDEA (in the ARRA), Lilly Ledbetter Act, Matthew Shepard Act, the Community Choice and CLASS acts (both part of the healthcare bill and designed to help improve social services for the disabled) as well as keeping us out of a fiscal cataclysm, making the largest investment in basic and applied science and development in a generation. I think that stacks up pretty well against anyone.
Reply | Flag Abuse
Are you sure this comment violates TPM's Terms of Service?
Goober Peas
July 24, 2010 4:02 PM in reply to calbearinillinois
Careful there, you are spreading a mistruth. IDEA (Individuals with Disabilities Education Act) was NOT fully funded through ARRA. According to the American Speech-Language-Hearing Association (a professional organization of service providers):
http://www.asha.org/advocacy/federal/ARRAFAQs.htm
"Is IDEA fully funded because of this investment in special education?
No. However, ARRA would bring the percentage from its current 17.2% to 34.2%, a significant step forward, but still not full funding. When IDEA was originally enacted in 1975, Congress committed to providing 40% of the national average per pupil expenditure to assist SEAs and LEAs with the excess cost of educating students with disabilities,”
Also, the funding must be spent by Nov. 2011 and it is a one-time shot unless congress passes another stimulus, which seems highly unlikely at this time.
I’m all for giving credit where credit is due but IDEA has NEVER been fully-funded and it still isn’t. Obama did make a one-time increase in funding available through ARRA but it is not a permanent fix to the perennial underfunding that costs public schools so much money to implement.
Reply | Flag Abuse
Are you sure this comment violates TPM's Terms of Service?
calbearinillinois
July 24, 2010 4:12 PM in reply to Goober Peas
Sorry, I forgot the exact percentages. It's only a doubling of the funding, nothing important. It is still a big step, not that the professional complaining class will note.
And I suspect the IDEA budget request won't slide back, stimulus or no stimulus. Such line items tend to be sticky things.
Reply | Flag Abuse
Are you sure this comment violates TPM's Terms of Service?
Goober Peas
July 24, 2010 10:54 PM in reply to calbearinillinois
Wow, a non-apology apology! And pointing out a factual error (and a rather big one, at that) on your part makes one a member of the “professional complaining class”? It must be hard to breathe at the altitude where your exalted presence dwells, oh mighty one!
Reply | Flag Abuse
Are you sure this comment violates TPM's Terms of Service?
calbearinillinois
July 25, 2010 12:29 AM in reply to Goober Peas
It didn't read like an apology because I was not apologizing. I had gotten the numbers wrong, and I acknowledged it. I wasn't trying to put you in the professional complaining class - I was referring to the people in the disability services community who refused to celebrate the massive addiitional funding because it wasn't a pink unicorn. Sorry if you couldn't tell the difference between a general comment and a personal attack - it wasn't about you (unless you are one of the people still wishing for a unicorn, in which case I stand by my comment).
I'm the parent of an autistic child and I, for one, am grateful for the funding. Personally I'd rather celebrate getting a hell of a lot more rather than complaining that we didn't get every single thing on our wish list. I'm tired of how many people who know how hard the road has been keep trying to find reasons to stay pissed off, in the process making it seem like nothing positive has happened.
Reply | Flag Abuse
Are you sure this comment violates TPM's Terms of Service?
tytester
July 24, 2010 5:11 PM in reply to calbearinillinois
"Obama never had the support of blue dogs and the Nelsons/Landrieus/Dorgans of the world for really aggressive legislation, and you know it."
The problem is that after he saw that he did not have the support, he did nothing to gain it. A real party leader would have whipped most of these senators in line. Instead, he all but kissed Lieberman's ass. So how do you expect the conservative Dem senators to support Obama when he panders to Lieberman?
Obama is a failure as a party leader, and we can only hope that the Dem voters will hold their noses and show up to vote in November.
Reply | Flag Abuse
Are you sure this comment violates TPM's Terms of Service?
Dave
July 24, 2010 6:47 PM in reply to tytester
I don't think that that has ever happened. The problem is everybody who can list the accomplishments of past presidents forgets the failures and compromises that also occured. I'm sure that all of the people who are bashing Obama now won't shut up about how great he was 20 years from now when they have a new Democrate to beat up. Nobody can ever compete with an idealized past.
Reply | Flag Abuse
Are you sure this comment violates TPM's Terms of Service?
calbearinillinois
July 25, 2010 12:43 AM in reply to tytester
Tell me how you whip a senator from a safe seat in Montana whose constituency is conservative to vote like a progressive? Seriously, do you know anything about the sort of voters who support the Baucuses and Bayhs of the world? I do, and no matter what the public at large or Dem base thought about the value of the PO or single payer, it wasn't going to work for those constituencies.
I can't really think of a good example of a President whipping Senators against their home districts. The Civil Rights Act, for example, was passed because some Republicans (who'd be Dems today) supported it even as Southern Dems opposed it, not because LBJ could get the Dems to vote in lockstep (and it crippled the party for decades to come). The New Deal was broadly popular because of the desperate straits the country was in, but by 1936-37 the conservatives in the Dem party boltd from spending, FDR couldn't bring them back and the US sank back into recession until WWII. Lincoln only had half a Congress to deal with, and even he couldn't get them to support many of his legislative proposals.
So who exactly is the miraculous leader whose model you think President Obama is failing?
Reply | Flag Abuse
Are you sure this comment violates TPM's Terms of Service?
oleeb
July 25, 2010 1:26 AM in reply to calbearinillinois
"I can't really think of a good example of a President whipping Senators against their home districts."
Ya mean like Bush did over and over and over? They eventually lost the Senate because of it, but he did it more than a few times. He also whipped numerous Democratic Senators too. But Obama is powerless of course and can do nothing to force members of his own party to support his policies, unless it is war spending and then he can make open threats through his chief of staff that any freshman in the House who doesn't support the war funding bill will be cutoff at the knees and they will get zero help from the President in their reelection and can expect zero help from any of the party committees. Naaaaa, he can't whip any of em into shape. There are a number of very similar things that apparently Obama is unable to do regarding Senators as well that all other Presidents have used but he claims he can't. I say: BAH!
Reply | Flag Abuse
Are you sure this comment violates TPM's Terms of Service?
arias
July 25, 2010 7:03 AM in reply to oleeb
What? Are you trying to claim that Obama could have whipped established senators like Nelson/Bayh into line like the threat to freshman house dems? That comparison is ludicrous and you know it.
Please provide some real examples of things he could have threatened senators with in order to force them to vote against their constituencies.
Reply | Flag Abuse
Are you sure this comment violates TPM's Terms of Service?
tytester
July 26, 2010 5:58 PM in reply to calbearinillinois
There are many, many ways a President can influence how a given senator votes. The most obvious is to go to the most impoverished town in the state and hold a town hall meeting and answer any and all questions why the bill is needed - it would have worked for PO and it would have worked like hell for finance reform. He can also privately discuss (e.g., on AirPlane One) with the senators the negative consequences if the senator does not vote the way the Pres wants. He can also close some (non-DoD) federal agencies in that state claiming that consolidating the services else where would save money. But the easiest of all things that Obama could have done is to make it clear to the senator that Obama will ACTIVELY support a primary challenger. This alone would have worked like a charm because there is nothing more dangerous to a Congress critter than losing an election.
But Obama did not do any of this either because it is easier to pander to Lieberman and Scott Brown or, more likely, because Obama indeed does not care about the base of his party.
Reply | Flag Abuse
Are you sure this comment violates TPM's Terms of Service?
acriticalthinker
July 25, 2010 9:02 PM in reply to calbearinillinois
"As to Obama, he has to play the hand he's dealt. He is a centrist/incrementalist, but in reality every President is only as radical as their Congress allows them to be."
That is as close to a reality based observation as one will see from a liberal here. Except for the "centrist" part (in his heart, Obama is one with or even to the left of the netroots), it is correct. Until our Presidents have the powers of a dictator (and don't think for a minute that Obama doesn't long for the powers of Castro and Chavez), a President can want single payer nationalized health care (or anything else on the left's wish list) with all his sizable heart, but if the votes are not there in Congress (which is another way of saying that there has to be support from VOTERS who will vote in the next election), a President just does not have the power to simply impose the netroots' agenda. The representatives and Senators in Congress (the Democrats, at least) ARE pretty far left. But they were not elected to advance a far left agenda, only to bring a little hope and a little change. It is not nice to govern against the will of a majority of voters. Dems have done that, especially with health care, and in November voters will retire Dems who imposed the Dems' agenda, and not the peoples' agenda. If voters wanted what Dems are pushing (only more so, as some lefties believe), then Dems would be looking to PICK UP seats in November and Republicans would be looking at a blood bath. Believe that Obama has accomplished great things for the country, if you wish, but realize that is wishful thinking and not reality-based thinking.
Reply | Flag Abuse
Are you sure this comment violates TPM's Terms of Service?
Clarance Vine
July 24, 2010 2:55 PM in reply to destor23
"fought and ultimately won".
This wasn't a Civil War battle. Pleaaassse! It took the WH 3 weeks to get Senator Byrd's replacement from W VA to DC to vote. That's the 'battle' you refer to.
Reply | Flag Abuse
Are you sure this comment violates TPM's Terms of Service?
oleeb
July 25, 2010 12:30 AM in reply to destor23
Destor, really. He fought on unemployment insurance and he won? He didn't lift a fucking finger. Had that bill been a real priority of the White House it would have sailed through. It was not at all a priority as the unemployed have clearly not been a priority for the President. To claim he fought for that bill is insulting to the intelligence of anyone who was actually paying attention. The truth is, he has fought for precious little since being elected and almost nothing that would fulfill his campaign promises including his big one to bring fundamental change to DC. He is the numero uno supporter of the status quo and spends nearly all his time protecting it.
Reply | Flag Abuse
Are you sure this comment violates TPM's Terms of Service?
Apphouse50
July 24, 2010 1:19 PM
Speaking as one who refuses to be silenced in those occasional moments when I feel he's doing less than he should or has done something truly dumb, this statement from him confirms what I basically believe about him: he's not perfect, but he knows it, and he's classy enough -- and smart enough -- to take the heat. He's my president and I want him to succeed.
What a pity the us/them nonsense gets thrown around with such vitriol when the "them" is Dems who see thing a bit differently from other Dems.
Good on him.
Reply | Flag Abuse
Are you sure this comment violates TPM's Terms of Service?
Clarance Vine
July 24, 2010 1:21 PM
Great line - "Keep holding me accountable" - when he knows we can't hold him accountable.
Reply | Flag Abuse
Are you sure this comment violates TPM's Terms of Service?
destor23
July 24, 2010 1:33 PM in reply to Clarance Vine
I get the cynicism but I think Obama knows that on some level we can hold him and the Democrats accountable. Some big elections coming up in 2010 and 2012. Not only does he have to worry about lefty enthusiasm for the party in general, but I think he might have to contend with a symbolic but pointed challenge from the left in the 2012 primary.
Reply | Flag Abuse
Are you sure this comment violates TPM's Terms of Service?
Ahmedsaid
July 24, 2010 1:29 PM
It doesn't get any more silly, simpering, & supercilious than an Obama speech. Totally vapid & vacuous. But, he is speaking to Nutroots, so...
Reply | Flag Abuse
Are you sure this comment violates TPM's Terms of Service?
Bwakfat
July 24, 2010 1:33 PM in reply to Ahmedsaid
Yeah, if he only wore a skirt, you'd be drooling over him.
=D
Glad to see you have access to a Thesaurus, but even your fancy words don't dress up your lack of coherent thought.
Reply | Flag Abuse
Are you sure this comment violates TPM's Terms of Service?
acriticalthinker
July 24, 2010 2:05 PM in reply to Bwakfat
Bwakfat
Your reply to Ahmedsaid could be summed up in one word" "Boooooo"
Not a single coherent thought in your reply, just that you disagree with Ahmedsaid. Ahmed was aptly commenting on the content and style of Obama's speech, as well as noting the audience to which it was addressed. A skirt on Obama would not help one bit.
Reply | Flag Abuse
Are you sure this comment violates TPM's Terms of Service?
Bwakfat
July 24, 2010 2:18 PM in reply to acriticalthinker
No, no he wasn't. I am not unaware of that posters penchant to drool over conservative women like vapid Palin or vacuous Bachman. It tends to be ugly, so please don't blame me for this commenters lack of character or integrity. That is not my concern. If you're a fan of that type of sexist trolling, we don't have much to discuss.
Oh, and please do get a sense of humor, my comment was about as serious and substantive as addle-pated Ahmedsa's. I seriously doubt that he(?) listened to the speech. Telling the netroots to keep pushing and reminding people that change happens not from the top down, but rather the bottom up is plenty substantive.
If you don't agree, then give me a reason, otherwise, I'll be holding you in the same regard I do for one of the least "substantial" and offensive trolls on this site.
Thanks.
Reply | Flag Abuse
Are you sure this comment violates TPM's Terms of Service?
destor23
July 24, 2010 2:25 PM in reply to acriticalthinker
Bwakfat's comment had style, panache and humor. Hand around awhile and we'll teach you some taste, son.
Reply | Flag Abuse
Are you sure this comment violates TPM's Terms of Service?
stillidealistic
July 24, 2010 4:42 PM in reply to destor23
Yup! As is most often the case, she rawks!
Reply | Flag Abuse
Are you sure this comment violates TPM's Terms of Service?
Bwakfat
July 24, 2010 6:06 PM in reply to stillidealistic
awwww, thanks.
=D
Reply | Flag Abuse
Are you sure this comment violates TPM's Terms of Service?
Lono65
July 24, 2010 2:00 PM
He gets it. If there is no vocal faction on the left countering the shrieking Teabagger nonsense from the right, Obama can't argue that a significant number of Americans want more progressive policy.
All the hyperbolic rhetoric from those who resented his nomination from the beginning and will never support him no matter what he accomplishes doesn't help things, but there's nothing to be done about them.
Reply | Flag Abuse
Are you sure this comment violates TPM's Terms of Service?
destor23
July 24, 2010 2:07 PM in reply to Lono65
Very smart comment.
Reply | Flag Abuse
Are you sure this comment violates TPM's Terms of Service?
Richardxx
July 24, 2010 3:00 PM in reply to Lono65
The shrieking teabaggers consist of the most massive astroturf operation ever fielded. Check to see who is funding it - Dick Armey is standing up for the same group of conservative billionaires and wealthy conservative oligarchs as those funding Karl Rove's operation, the Heritage Institute, the Discovery Institute and so on.
This is the big money conservatives attacking the American middle class. The effort to extend the Bush tax cuts on the wealthy and to eliminate the inheritance tax are clear evidence of who is fielding the teabaggers and the other crazies.
Reply | Flag Abuse
Are you sure this comment violates TPM's Terms of Service?
WaitWut?
July 24, 2010 2:00 PM
Thank you, Mr. President, for remembering us. I may not be a Progressive, but the left is the left and we need you to hold us together. We're doing a pretty crappy job of it ourselves.
We all have the same destination. We just have different ideas on how to get there. If we don't stick together, we'll be forced backwards. Keep it together my lefty brothers and sisters. We've got a few battles ahead.
Reply | Flag Abuse
Are you sure this comment violates TPM's Terms of Service?
Max Thrax
July 24, 2010 2:16 PM
"keep up the fight."
Yeah, but what if Glen Beck is mean to us?
Reply | Flag Abuse
Are you sure this comment violates TPM's Terms of Service?
destor23
July 24, 2010 2:16 PM in reply to Max Thrax
Then it's up to you to be mean to Beck.
Reply | Flag Abuse
Are you sure this comment violates TPM's Terms of Service?
Given Up
July 24, 2010 2:25 PM in reply to destor23
I think the problem is that Beck already thinks that the whole world is being mean to him so its not like he'd notice the difference, also I suspect he wouldn't care.
Somehow the Right Wingers have really thick skin (skulls?), unless it comes to faux outrage.
Reply | Flag Abuse
Are you sure this comment violates TPM's Terms of Service?
destor23
July 24, 2010 2:37 PM in reply to Given Up
True. But he's not who you need to reach. He's just a performer. If he knew how to make millions catering to liberals, he'd be a liberal.
What we have to do is reach his followers and the media that takes him seriously.
Reply | Flag Abuse
Are you sure this comment violates TPM's Terms of Service?
Max Thrax
July 24, 2010 2:47 PM in reply to destor23
"What we have to do is reach his followers"
Who's crazier, them or you?
Reply | Flag Abuse
Are you sure this comment violates TPM's Terms of Service?
destor23
July 24, 2010 3:02 PM in reply to Max Thrax
Trust me, they have no idea.
Reply | Flag Abuse
Are you sure this comment violates TPM's Terms of Service?
Max Thrax
July 24, 2010 2:26 PM in reply to destor23
...but that wouldn't be bipartisan.
Reply | Flag Abuse
Are you sure this comment violates TPM's Terms of Service?
freaktown
July 24, 2010 2:30 PM
interesting how he tells us to keep up the fight when his administration isnt even willing to fight, in fact, they go out of their way to AVOID fights.
Reply | Flag Abuse
Are you sure this comment violates TPM's Terms of Service?
kunda311
July 24, 2010 2:50 PM in reply to freaktown
I suspect all the many significant accomplishments briefly glossed over in the Rachel Maddow video included don't mean jack squat to you either. Yeah, it's easy to mouth off behind a computer keyboard. If you can do a much better job than Obama, why don't you run for President?
Reply | Flag Abuse
Are you sure this comment violates TPM's Terms of Service?
kash79
July 24, 2010 2:55 PM in reply to kunda311
That's the dumbest and weakest counter attack I have witnessed in a while. Dude, you're behind the keyboard "mouthing off" as well- show some chutzpah and wit. Really, you be the president? That's your defense?
Reply | Flag Abuse
Are you sure this comment violates TPM's Terms of Service?
freaktown
July 24, 2010 3:32 PM in reply to kunda311
because im not 35 so i dont meet the constitutional requirements...
and im not saying he hasnt accomplished anything. im saying he doesnt fight for the things that are important and that hed rather bow down to republicans and ben nelson if it means avoiding a fight
Reply | Flag Abuse
Are you sure this comment violates TPM's Terms of Service?
hewhohasnoname
July 24, 2010 3:02 PM in reply to freaktown
I'm not sure how you square that notion with the fact that this administration has, as Rachel noted in the video, accomplished more than has been accomplished in a generation, including triumphs had previously eluded several presidents considered to be among the greatest in the history of the nation.
And, by the way, we put all the blame on Obama and Congress. But where's the fight at the grassroots level that puts enough pressure on Congress to vote for things like comprehensive climate legislation?
We can't just sit back and complain when things don't go like we don't want them to. Change comes "from the bottom up."
Reply | Flag Abuse
Are you sure this comment violates TPM's Terms of Service?
hewhohasnoname
July 24, 2010 3:04 PM in reply to hewhohasnoname
*We can't just sit back and complain when things don't go like we want them to. Change comes "from the bottom up
Reply | Flag Abuse
Are you sure this comment violates TPM's Terms of Service?
freaktown
July 24, 2010 3:35 PM in reply to hewhohasnoname
right. because all that grassroots organizing for a public option really worked out well for us, didn't it?
grassroots organizing doesnt mean sh*t if politicians feel like they can ignore it
Reply | Flag Abuse
Are you sure this comment violates TPM's Terms of Service?
calbearinillinois
July 24, 2010 3:52 PM in reply to freaktown
I understand your frustration, but what exactly is the President to do when the Senate rule is 60 votes and guys like Baucus, Ben Nelson and Dorgan have to go along with all legislation for it to pass? Hold his breath? Try to force Montana, North Dakota and Nebraska to be more progressive? Not gonna happen, no matter what show the President makes.
We have a divided government for a reason, to ensure that only consensus driven legislation is passed. The modern rules on filibusters and quorum calls in the Senate have enhanced that to a supermajority for most legislation. Even if it were 50 getting the final few votes on most issues would drive legislation to the center - just as the Constitution envisions.
Reply | Flag Abuse
Are you sure this comment violates TPM's Terms of Service?
hewhohasnoname
July 24, 2010 4:21 PM in reply to freaktown
Grassroots organizing has to be effective enough to create political pressure on the government to accomplish the goal.
Was there ever even an actual march on Washington in favor of the public option?
There was a virtual march in favor of healthcare reform generally, and healthcare events around the country, as well as phone drives for the public option... But, I can't remember any high-profile events. Definitely correct me if there were some...
The debate would've been much different with more high-profile showings of support for healthcare, and high-profile support for the public option specifically. Things probably would have played out differently if, instead of sitting back and slamming Obama for "not fighting hard enough," more of us were out there fighting for what we wanted.
You also touch on another important point: It's easier for politicians to overlook certain demands when we're not vocal enough.
But, I think you're too negative about the impact of the people. Congress was close to dropping healthcare. But people -- through their phone calls, petitions, marches, etc. -- demanded that they didn't.
I don't think enough noise was made for the public option on a major scale. However, enough rukus was indeed made for health care in general, and I would be wary of dismissing that pressure as inconsequential.
Reply | Flag Abuse
Are you sure this comment violates TPM's Terms of Service?
again
July 24, 2010 5:58 PM in reply to hewhohasnoname
Bs - we busted our asses organizing for the public option, and Obama let us twist in the wind.
Reply | Flag Abuse
Are you sure this comment violates TPM's Terms of Service?
hewhohasnoname
July 24, 2010 8:49 PM in reply to again
Ok.
Reply | Flag Abuse
Are you sure this comment violates TPM's Terms of Service?
Viva!America!
July 24, 2010 4:41 PM in reply to freaktown
You do realize that sometimes in life you don't get what you want, right? you are aware of other grassroots organizations that had to fight for decades to get what they want, right? You do know that it takes more than online petitions, phone calls and blog posts to get what you want from congress, right? Getting involved in political causes can be very depressing and draining, you have to be in it for the long haul.
Reply | Flag Abuse
Are you sure this comment violates TPM's Terms of Service?
whitesauce
July 24, 2010 6:01 PM in reply to hewhohasnoname
Progressives have put plenty of pressure on Congress since President Obama took office. It gets lost sometimes with all the attention paid to the Tea Party, but I would think you would have heard about it, especially during the fight for health care reform.
Reply | Flag Abuse
Are you sure this comment violates TPM's Terms of Service?
hewhohasnoname
July 24, 2010 9:02 PM in reply to whitesauce
Yeah, I did. That's what I'm saying: There was pressure put on Congress to pass healthcare reform. But, when the PO was on the chopping block, or even close to it, there was grassroots organizing -- mostly through phone calls and local efforts -- but no major, high-profile efforts that the media would've been forced to pay attention to.
Instead of us presenting the fact that much of America supported the PO, it looked like (largely because the media presented it as such) the PO was only something "the left wants." [The media's coverage was largely influenced by their perception that the Tea Party's high-profile march on Washington was primarily in opposition to "big government" (though in reality many other things were thrown in).]
A cross-section of America in favor of the PO marching* on Washington would've resonated and changed the dialogue about how the PO was a darling of the left, and not embraced by much of the nation.
{*I keep saying "marching," but I'm using that as shorthand for ANY high-profile, attention-grabbing event that could shift the dialogue.]
Reply | Flag Abuse
Are you sure this comment violates TPM's Terms of Service?
Goober Peas
July 24, 2010 11:03 PM in reply to hewhohasnoname
You seem to be forgetting your recent history here. The PO was a giveback to the progressives, who, from the get-go, asked for and were promised universal, government run health care. The PO was dangled as a possible alternative by the administration who then proceeded to tell the senate to kill it to avoid a massive firestorm from the insurance companies.
Universal health care for all was given away at Obama’s secret meetings with the health insurance CEO’s, remember? The non-televised on C-Span deals where the new Wellpoint director actually wrote the legislation. Historic? Yeah. For the first time the government is going to force citizens to purchase a service from a private, for-profit industry and use the IRS as their private police force.
You can spin and spin and spin and claim that crap is gold but the vast majority of Americans know better and they aren’t fooled.
Reply | Flag Abuse
Are you sure this comment violates TPM's Terms of Service?
hewhohasnoname
July 25, 2010 12:44 AM in reply to Goober Peas
You really should check your history. Who "promised universal, government run health care" to progressives?
You've described a system that neither Edwards, Clinton nor Obama ran on.
Universal healthcare was the overarching promise, and that was achieved. A government-run healthcare plan was initially a PART of the overarching healthcare plan, yes. But, universality is not dependent on government sponsorship; a government plan is not a necessary condition for universal healthcare.
[Also note, and I'm not sure why more progressives aren't paying attention to this fact: NOTHING precludes the addition of a PO at a later date! This law will be tweaked, just as Social Security was improved to include working women and minorities not originally covered.]
And, I recommend that you read about why the mandate was included (even in Hillary's plan). Many independent healthcare experts (i.e., people who are not industry shills) have advocated for the mandate, because it puts enough people in the system to drive down costs generally, and specifically because it allows, among other benefits like free preventive screenings, people with preexisting conditions to get insurance.
Also, I'm sorry, but do you realize how unglued it sounds to intimate that the White House was publicly supportive of a public option, but privately working to undo it?
Yeah, I know that there has been all kinds of speculation and "reading of tea leaves" about the nature of the WH's support for the PO. But, I still haven't seen anyone produce a list of enough Senators who were publicly committed to voting for the PO. According to every person working on the issue, the votes were not there. The WH began backing away from it when they realized there was no way to get the votes -- Lieberman, Nelson, Lincoln, Landrieu, etc. were never on board. [People were so focused on what the WH -- who was supporting the PO -- was doing that those Senators skated by pretty much unperturbed, save the online rants against them and some phone calls to their offices.]
But, of course, the WH gets blamed for not having the votes to put it forward.
Talk about forgetting history!
And you wrote:
"Universal health care for all was given away at Obama’s secret meetings with the health insurance CEO’s, remember? The non-televised on C-Span deals where the new Wellpoint director actually wrote the legislation."
No, I don't remember that. And, I'm pretty sure you don't either. Because it never happened.
"The White House's decision to release the information marks another departure in policy from the Bush administration, which fought all the way to the U.S. Supreme Court to withhold the names of participants in an energy task force, run by then-vice president Richard B. Cheney, that was dominated by representatives of the oil and gas industries.
The Obama White House has made little secret of its intent to meet frequently with industry representatives in hopes of gaining their cooperation on reform efforts. One March 5 health-care summit, for example, was hosted by President Obama and featured more than 150 people, including physicians, business leaders, union representatives and consumer advocates. Four of the industry group leaders on the new White House list attended that summit."
http://voices.washingtonpost.com/44/2009/07/22/white_house_discloses_meetings.html
This is from the Kaiser site, but it's still relevant:
"Today, Kaiser Permanente Chairman and CEO George Halvorson, and other private sector health care leaders met with President Obama to discuss the need for containing rising health care costs. The coalition, which includes Service Employees International Union, America's Health Insurance Plans, American Hospital Association, American Medical Association, Advanced Medical Technology Association, and Pharmaceutical Research and Manufacturers of America committed to cutting health care costs by $2 trillion over the next 10 years."
http://xnet.kp.org/newscenter/clinicalexcellence/2009/051109halvorsonreform.html
Notice that the coalition includes the SEIU, among others.
I do remember initial meetings on CSPAN, televised committee meetings on CSPAN, and a 7 hour (!) meeting between the Dems and Reps on CSPAN near the end of the process.
Reply | Flag Abuse
Are you sure this comment violates TPM's Terms of Service?
Goober Peas
July 26, 2010 8:14 AM in reply to hewhohasnoname
Yes, as a firebagger I remember quite well fighting for single payer, universal health care and being winked at over and over by every politician I talked to. The plan was to go PO first and then gradually move into single payer. Now the goal post has been moved far, far to the right and the plan is to require purchasing insurance with no cost limits from private insurers and hope that in some distant future the PO will be passed by some unicorn democratic congress of the future. And you call that success??
Reply | Flag Abuse
Are you sure this comment violates TPM's Terms of Service?
Richardxx
July 24, 2010 3:11 PM in reply to freaktown
I forget who it was, but a guest on Rachel Maddow explained that Thursday night. Obama is the President. If he gets into a fight with Glen Beck he lowers his own stature and raises Beck's just by acknowledging Beck.
But where is Tim Kaine? Why doesn't Obama have any surrogates out there defending him and - more important - attacking FOX and the other ants. Obama needs to be above the fray, but where the Hell is the fray? Besides Grayson, that is.
Can Alan Grayson be cloned?
Reply | Flag Abuse
Are you sure this comment violates TPM's Terms of Service?
hewhohasnoname
July 24, 2010 3:22 PM in reply to Richardxx
Jonathan Alter made that argument.
Reply | Flag Abuse
Are you sure this comment violates TPM's Terms of Service?
Richardxx
July 24, 2010 3:50 PM in reply to hewhohasnoname
Thank you.
Reply | Flag Abuse
Are you sure this comment violates TPM's Terms of Service?
Bwakfat
July 24, 2010 3:25 PM in reply to Richardxx
Nice thought.
=D
Reply | Flag Abuse
Are you sure this comment violates TPM's Terms of Service?
chitowner
July 24, 2010 5:02 PM in reply to Richardxx
My theory is Obama is primarily concerned about his personal brand. He kept his distance from the Democratic Party establishment in the primary and refused to closely meld his massive (and effective) 'Campaign for America' organization with it during the general election - or even now.
Like you, I don’t see a strong set of surrogates taking to the airwaves and podiums pressing his agenda and consistently linking it to core Democratic values. Even though Kane is his friend, I rarely see him on cable or C-SPAN. Certainly not the public profile Dean or McAuliffe maintained. Obama seems to want everything to revolve around him or his WH staff with Dems left to do their own thing. Against the well-oiled conservative spin machine that makes day-to-day messaging very tough.
Reply | Flag Abuse
Are you sure this comment violates TPM's Terms of Service?
Max Thrax
July 24, 2010 5:30 PM in reply to Richardxx
He acknowledged Beck by throwing Sherrod under the bus rather than have Beck be mean to him. Beck is the master, Obama is the butler fetching drinks and hor' douerves.
Reply | Flag Abuse
Are you sure this comment violates TPM's Terms of Service?
bluebell
July 24, 2010 3:00 PM
Well, at least I didn't John Kerry and his $500K evasion of sales taxes on his new yacht and I really did campaign for him. But who needs the b.s. The Minnesota National Guard is going back to Iraq.
Reply | Flag Abuse
Are you sure this comment violates TPM's Terms of Service?
Clarance Vine
July 24, 2010 3:14 PM in reply to bluebell
Yea bluebell, just saw that about an hour ago. And do you know what he says to the seniors that had to ride a bus to Canada to buy their prescription drugs they couldn't afford in the good old USA - HURRAY FOR ME AND FUCK YOU!
Reply | Flag Abuse
Are you sure this comment violates TPM's Terms of Service?
bluebell
July 24, 2010 3:36 PM in reply to Clarance Vine
I just have total contempt for that guy. The states totally need every cent they can find. I mean they have to be shaking the couch for pennies. I don't know what they're cutting in MA but they're cutting aid to the poorest of the poor everywhere else and police, fire, raising property taxes..... Here he is richer than God and he can't even pay his sales taxes to the state of MA where he and Mrs. Billionaire live on a yacht for God's sake. I mean Marie Antoinette or what. Why aren't there pitchforks!!
Reply | Flag Abuse
Are you sure this comment violates TPM's Terms of Service?
Bwakfat
July 24, 2010 6:05 PM in reply to bluebell
We're all outside Cheney's bedroom, trying to raise a pulse.
The pitchforks will deal with Kerry in the order of magnitude of offense.
=D
Reply | Flag Abuse
Are you sure this comment violates TPM's Terms of Service?
kenga
July 26, 2010 5:18 PM in reply to bluebell
Just for the record - Rhode Island is much more badly fucked than Massachusetts is right now.
Debt ratio, flood damage to public infrastructure, economic growth, you name it.
I'm much more bent out of shape about corporate tax incentives in MA, which comprise a much bigger loss of revenue than some luxury tax on a single yacht.
Reply | Flag Abuse
Are you sure this comment violates TPM's Terms of Service?
hewhohasnoname
July 24, 2010 3:01 PM
I'm not sure how you square that notion with the fact that this administration has, as Rachel noted in the video, accomplished more than has been accomplished in a generation, including triumphs had previously eluded several presidents considered to be among the greatest in the history of the nation.
And, by the way, we put all the blame on Obama and Congress. But where's the fight at the grassroots level that puts enough pressure on Congress to vote for things like comprehensive climate legislation?
We can't just sit back and complain when things don't go like we don't want them to. Change comes "from the bottom up."
Reply | Flag Abuse
Are you sure this comment violates TPM's Terms of Service?
bluebell
July 24, 2010 3:15 PM in reply to hewhohasnoname
True, so don't expect me to vote for war in Iraq and Afghanistan. I made that mistake last time and you betcha change starts with me and my vote.
Reply | Flag Abuse
Are you sure this comment violates TPM's Terms of Service?
hewhohasnoname
July 24, 2010 3:20 PM in reply to bluebell
Were you unaware of Obama's well-stated position on Afghanistan when you cast your vote?
Reply | Flag Abuse
Are you sure this comment violates TPM's Terms of Service?
bluebell
July 24, 2010 3:39 PM in reply to hewhohasnoname
Mea culpa, mea culpa, mea maxima culpa. I will not sin again.
Reply | Flag Abuse
Are you sure this comment violates TPM's Terms of Service?
Dr Lemming
July 24, 2010 5:40 PM in reply to hewhohasnoname
Go back and look at Bluebell's comments during the election. That will tell you everything you need to know about his/her current meme.
Reply | Flag Abuse
Are you sure this comment violates TPM's Terms of Service?
bluebell
July 24, 2010 6:04 PM in reply to Dr Lemming
I don't know what you mean. I was always over the top totally opposed to the war in Iraq. The one and only reason this gal chose Obama in the primary over Hillary was Iraq. Granted, it was clear from the day he caved on FISA that we were likely to get just another Republican light. I gave him a chance. I hoped he'd have the guts to really do the change thing on foreign policy. I got Hillary anyway at State where she could do plenty of neo-lib damage. I do blame the party more for delivering our health to big insurance, but Obama cannot evade responsibility for his foreign policy.
I will not vote for more war. You have to admit I didn't really have a choice in 2008. It was war or war. It will be war or war again. Both parties have become war junkies. They either don't want to quit or do not know how to quit. They've both become convinced that their candidate cannot appear tough unless the candidate is supporting or waging a war ----- ALWAYS. It is beyond sick and I vow to you I will not vote for it again.
Reply | Flag Abuse
Are you sure this comment violates TPM's Terms of Service?
arias
July 25, 2010 6:25 AM in reply to bluebell
I don't get it. You claim you "didn't have a choice in 2008". Are you claiming you'll have a choice in 2012? What exactly are you saying when you claim you "won't vote for it again"?! Please explain.
Reply | Flag Abuse
Are you sure this comment violates TPM's Terms of Service?
Grokenstein
July 24, 2010 3:02 PM
To Clarence and company: fine. Next time, once again toss your vote for Nader or whichever unelectable gadfly you know won't win. Throw the country back to the GOP for the sake of your own self-righteousness and aversion to responsibility.
Let's see what gets accomplished then.
Second option: grow up.
Reply | Flag Abuse
Are you sure this comment violates TPM's Terms of Service?
Richardxx
July 24, 2010 3:26 PM in reply to Grokenstein
I voted for the Democrats and avoided Nadar like the plague he was. That's in spite of Mollie Ivins recommending that we Democrats in Texas vote for Nadar since voting Democrat was useless.
But when I voted for Obama in 2008 I was voting for a combative candidate. I was also impressed with his ground game. All that seems to have died effective on January 20th 2009.
I could see the White House not bringing up lesser issues such as DADT during the Health Care campaign, but the health care legislation lasted too long with too little public leadership from Obama. He seems to really like backroom compromise deals and he seems to dislike trying to rally the public behind him.
Well, that's going to be a failed strategy come this November. Obama and his inner group may not like it, but I'd rather they changed gears before the November election than after. They have about 90 days, and the last 75 won't really count.
And they'd for Damned sure better stop throwing bodies out the back of the sled to appease the conservative wolves at FOX and on the Internet! I still think Vilsack should resign. Obama is doing to have to do something in public to at least stop the bleeding from that incident. They screwed up big time.
A politician who doesn't fight back is toast. Obama has to do something to remove the "toast" image.
Reply | Flag Abuse
Are you sure this comment violates TPM's Terms of Service?
Clarance Vine
July 24, 2010 4:23 PM in reply to Grokenstein
No 2nd option - already grown up. 1st option only option.
Yes, many are in a conundrum - but not the dead end you're referring to. BTW, at the time Nader had it right: there was no difference between the two parties. Didn't see it at first, you know, Civil Rights, Medicare, etc, but since the Reagan Era, and aside from Clinton, what have the Dems, the Congress, done for me? Not much. It so blatant and apparent that both parties today are the Party of Business. It makes the O-bots uncomfortable but is hard to argue against.
So, what are the choices if the country is still going sideways in 2012 with 10% unemployment, and we're still "withdrawing" from Afgan and Iraq, etc? If it took me that long to "pull out" I'd have ten kids instead of two. Either someone challenges Obama in the primaries (not likely)or people get behind a third party candidate. Perot peeled off about 19% of the votes (20,000,000) in '92. And aside from "looking under the hood" Perot really had little to offer as a serious candidate. Yet 57% of those that voted for Perot were classified middle class (incomes $15K to 49K) and 29% were classified upper middle class ($50K+). And he spend only 65 million (his own money) campaigning in only 16 states. Sounds interesting to me, how 'bout you?
BTW, spare me the "self-righteousness and aversion to responsibility." judgments. My God, where do you come up with that one - aversion to responsibility! You a preacher?
Reply | Flag Abuse
Are you sure this comment violates TPM's Terms of Service?
lester
July 24, 2010 3:30 PM
Talk, talk, talk, talk......typical and original Obama. Talk is cheap.
Reply | Flag Abuse
Are you sure this comment violates TPM's Terms of Service?
sangsue
July 24, 2010 3:36 PM
From today onwards, I will not use the word I used to and will just say the left has a wide spectrum. With that proviso I find it very interesting that those of you to the far left of the spectrum seem to want Obama to write the bills and pass them. You think Obama can rule by fiat, yet you hated when W/Chaney did just that.
And Obama isn't trying to please Glen Beck, he's trying to please the people towards the middle of the spectrum. Some things are more towards the right. Others are more towards the left.
I also find it interesting how people on the far left on the spectrum blame Obama for everything yet not one of you have mentioned the Congress or the Senate. They're the ones who write or don't write the bills. They have the same bank/health insurance ties as Obama does.
I understand that the only thing you'll be satisfied with is if it's a 100 percent your way but with the Congress and Senate we have now, finding a consensus is the best we're going to do.
Also, what do you consider to more important than something else? What are you willing to sacrifice to help make your issues and demands happen?
Reply | Flag Abuse
Are you sure this comment violates TPM's Terms of Service?
bluebell
July 24, 2010 3:44 PM in reply to sangsue
He doesn't have to write any bills to get out of Iraq and Afghanistan. He's the Commander in Chief. He doesn't have a declaration of war from Congress. He can take responsibility for the funerals.
Reply | Flag Abuse
Are you sure this comment violates TPM's Terms of Service?
calbearinillinois
July 24, 2010 4:07 PM in reply to bluebell
Actually, the AUMF for Iraq is a declaration (or as close to it as you'll get in modern parlance), and we have a similar authorization re the "war on terror" and NATO resolutions that gives him that authority/responsibility in Afghanistan. We are getting out of Iraq, and I believe the administration is committed to getting out of Afghanistan on the the 2011-12 track (regardless of what Karzai says about 2014). However, if Obama just unilaterally tried to pull out everyone, there'd be a call by conservatives and chickenhawks in both parties to impeach him for dereliction of his duties as Commander in Chief.
I know you'd think absolute command includes the right to decide to disengage, but rushing in or running away in the eyes of Congress is a one way ticket to hearings and removal proceedings.
Reply | Flag Abuse
Are you sure this comment violates TPM's Terms of Service?
bluebell
July 24, 2010 5:01 PM in reply to calbearinillinois
In other words, the Democrats have been cowed and intimidated from the day weasels like Hillary voted to go to war based on lies to keep our young men and women deployed in combat perpetually without cause.
Let the impeachments begin!
Reply | Flag Abuse
Are you sure this comment violates TPM's Terms of Service?
kash79
July 24, 2010 3:37 PM
President sounds like a boyfriend who forgot an anniversary or something sweet talking the girlfriend. He's good at this sort of theater.
BTW, what does "hold me accountable" mean? Does he mean to hold him accountable at the polls in 2010 and 2012? If not it doesn't mean much really.
Reply | Flag Abuse
Are you sure this comment violates TPM's Terms of Service?
Clarance Vine
July 24, 2010 4:42 PM in reply to kash79
Sounds like you're "good at this sort of theater" also. Me too. Miss those days. Ah well.
Always stumped by the "hold me accountable" phrase. Way too much wiggle room. Reminded of watching Nixon on TV (very long time ago) answering a question. He would ramble for a bit and then take off, all over the universe, before he returning to the podium. But the dodge didn't appear deliberate. He was just crazy. And that just came to me. I'll be fine.
Reply | Flag Abuse
Are you sure this comment violates TPM's Terms of Service?
Geoff Johnson
July 24, 2010 3:49 PM
Can we make it standard practice to link to this article whenever some TPM commenter tells folks to just shut up and follow the president relatively uncritically? Obama himself doesn't seem to want that, which is hardly surprising, and I give him credit for it. Here's hoping the "leave the president alone" crowd gets the message here.
Reply | Flag Abuse
Are you sure this comment violates TPM's Terms of Service?
kash79
July 24, 2010 3:53 PM
I cringe every time he utters the word "change" these days. Typically, if I hear "change" coming out of his mouth, I close the window or stop the video.
Reply | Flag Abuse
Are you sure this comment violates TPM's Terms of Service?
Max Thrax
July 24, 2010 5:21 PM in reply to kash79
I had the same reaction when he used the word 'fight'.
Reply | Flag Abuse
Are you sure this comment violates TPM's Terms of Service?
Got Kids
July 24, 2010 3:53 PM
Let US finish what we started. True that!
Can I offer a proposal that might help energize the Dem base and even draw conservative acolytes; campaign finance reform? Specifically the Fair Elections Now Act or a constitutional amendment affecting campaign finance. I've touted FIX CONGRESS FIRST here before.
Trouble is the Dem and Rep machines will want nothing to do with this but good medicine is rarely taken voluntarily.
Best regards to all.
Reply | Flag Abuse
Are you sure this comment violates TPM's Terms of Service?
Mateo123
July 24, 2010 4:00 PM
Well, I suppose Obama should be commended for actually acknowledging the frustration that many of us feel. We feel slighted that we didn't get a public option. We feel disappointed that there is talk of renewing the Bush tax cuts. And, we're angry that Guantanamo is still around. And, Don't Ask Don't Tell? That's an abomination.
I think that Obama gets these points. I think he understands it when those of us who pay taxes read that over half of us don't -- and that too many of us who do pay taxes get too many deductions. The result is a trillion and a half dollar deficit. It's unsustainable. So is the massive spending in Afghanistan and in Iraq. Shifting from one to the other isn't sufficient.
I suppose this is the start of the actual election campaign. Am I excited? No. But, I have to participate. Even if I am disappointed. I know the alternative. We all do.
Reply | Flag Abuse
Are you sure this comment violates TPM's Terms of Service?
calbearinillinois
July 24, 2010 4:25 PM in reply to Mateo123
PO - By all means, be mad at the conservaDems who prevented it. But don't think for a second we would have passed comprehensive health care without their votes, or would have gottne a PO with their votes. They weren't ready, and there isn't a darn thing Baucus/Lieberman/Dorgan/Bayh needed from Obama that would have changed that.
Bush cuts - 95% of them were always going to be kept - that was in Obama's platform. The estate tax will come back, but the number for the exemption and the percentage will depend on a number of things. The only cuts Dems aren't renewing are on the very wealthy and even if the Dems lose the house the GOP won't get the full slate renewed (too many fiscal conservatives in both parties in the Senate).
Gitmo is around, again because chickenhawk Dems and a handful of blue dogs wouldn't fund the renovation of the Thompson prison even after the President agreed to acquire it. Be mad at those idiots, by all means, but unless you live in their district there isn't much you can do.
And don't buy the "half don't pay taxes" line - that only applies to income tax and reflects how many people are really struggling in our country. Every employee pays various federal, local and state taxes, along with SS and unemployment withholding, and even the unemployed help by paying sales and similar excise taxes.
Reply | Flag Abuse
Are you sure this comment violates TPM's Terms of Service?
Richardxx
July 24, 2010 4:56 PM in reply to Mateo123
That's a lie. Flat out lie. I've prepared income taxes in a low income part of town and most of the people here pay well more in FICA taxes than they do in income taxes.
When you read that over half of working people don't pay taxes that refers only to income taxes.
And by the way, Social Security is fully funded. That's why the baby boomers were paying in more than was paid out since Reagan revamped the FICA taxes and lowered benefits in 1983. If there is ever a year in which the FICA taxes and the trust fund are insufficient to pay the benefits for the year then by law (passed in 1935) the benefits will be lowered to match the taxes paid in. So there is no Social Security deficit.
The only deficit is the one caused by the Bush tax cuts and the unnecessary Bush wars. It's because the uberwealthy don't what to pay their share of the cost of this nation. The wealthy oligarchs who want to rob you though the banks don't want you aware of that. Look at your credit card fees. More than the interest you pay and that's too high.
(And nominate Elizabeth Warren for the Consumer Protection Agency.)
Reply | Flag Abuse
Are you sure this comment violates TPM's Terms of Service?
Mateo123
July 24, 2010 5:07 PM in reply to Richardxx
I think the idea of someone making $50,000 and having a large mortgage (that they likely don't need) and a few kids paying $0 in income tax is freaking ridiculous. This was about making sure the top .5% got their massive tax deduction/reduction. They did it by making many on the bottom pay very little. It doesn't work for me. It shouldn't work for you. We all use roads. We all use bridges. We all use schools.
Again, poverty level is one thing. But $50,000 per year isn't poverty level. And, yes, I am talking about the people who live in New York, where the median income is $74,000 and I am talking about people who live in Mississippi, where the median income is around $36,000.
Clinton managed to have marginal rates for the bottom group at 15%. Under Bush, that marginal rate moved to 10%. The result has been that many more no longer pay federal income tax. And that contributes to the massive deficits. Bush was wrong on many fronts, including his income tax rates.
Reply | Flag Abuse
Are you sure this comment violates TPM's Terms of Service?
Max Thrax
July 24, 2010 5:23 PM in reply to Mateo123
Yeah, the alternative is a President that kowtows to FOX 'news'....oh wait!
Reply | Flag Abuse
Are you sure this comment violates TPM's Terms of Service?
July 24, 2010 4:27 PM
All this looking forward has let war criminals go free.
How about the right now?
Reply | Flag Abuse
Are you sure this comment violates TPM's Terms of Service?
kash79
July 24, 2010 6:26 PM in reply to Michael
Obama is also at some level a war criminal, if you universally apply your high moral ethic.
He inherited Iraq and Afghanistan war crimes and war criminality from Bush, Guantanamo itself is a criminal site. And bombing Pakistan week in and week out with drone attacks without any U.N. approval, killing dozens of civilians is a war crime as well. Of course, it is U.S. bombs that destroy Palestine homes, women and children every week and month.
I think this has less to do with "looking forward" and more to do with covering your own bases. Ignore, rather than take a higher moral ground. At a certain vantage point no architect of the U.S. foreign policy is innocent.
Reply | Flag Abuse
Are you sure this comment violates TPM's Terms of Service?
Max Thrax
July 24, 2010 5:20 PM
So what he's saying is support a primary challenger in 12?
Reply | Flag Abuse
Are you sure this comment violates TPM's Terms of Service?
again
July 24, 2010 6:09 PM in reply to Max Thrax
Very funny. And sad. Kash got it right, Obama sounds like a chastened philanderer.
I don't care if pols cheat on their spouses. But they better be loyal to their base.
Reply | Flag Abuse
Are you sure this comment violates TPM's Terms of Service?
LadyBlahBlah
July 24, 2010 8:29 PM in reply to again
Obama may not even run, being tired of hyper critical, refusing to work for change electorate.
Reply | Flag Abuse
Are you sure this comment violates TPM's Terms of Service?
Goober Peas
July 24, 2010 11:10 PM in reply to LadyBlahBlah
Well that’s a strong argument in his favor. He’s going to take his brilliance home and not play anymore because the mean liberals are ungrateful?
Reply | Flag Abuse
Are you sure this comment violates TPM's Terms of Service?
again
July 25, 2010 12:08 PM in reply to Goober Peas
Obama, it turns out, is actually the precious unicorn that conservadems on this site keep referring to when they bash true Democrats who weren't even asking for anything that radical in the first place. Even Nixon supported the public option.
Reply | Flag Abuse
Are you sure this comment violates TPM's Terms of Service?
Bussta Brown
July 25, 2010 10:36 PM in reply to Max Thrax
Keep holding your breath if you haven't gotten over Hillary not winning the nomination. It ain't happening in 2012 either.
Reply | Flag Abuse
Are you sure this comment violates TPM's Terms of Service?
BenP
July 24, 2010 6:56 PM
State Department planning to field small army in Iraq.
http://www.mcclatchydc.com/2010/07/21/97915/state-dept-planning-to-field-a.html
Pragmatism or Recidivism? Like the ever expanding Corporate/Government apparatus, the line seems blurrier every day.
Reply | Flag Abuse
Are you sure this comment violates TPM's Terms of Service?
Squire T
July 24, 2010 7:18 PM
What a great message.
Reply | Flag Abuse
Are you sure this comment violates TPM's Terms of Service?
Reefdancer
July 24, 2010 8:10 PM
How many morons posting does it take to ruin a perfectly nice message?
Reply | Flag Abuse
Are you sure this comment violates TPM's Terms of Service?
whiterosebuddy
July 24, 2010 8:36 PM
"Growing up in a culture permeated with prejudice, imbibing it, so to speak, with their milk, millions of white Americans find that Negroes are useful screens to hide themselves from themselves. Repeated studies have shown that Negro hate is, in part, a socially-sanctioned outlet for personal and social anxieties and frustrations. From this standpoint, racism is a flight from the self, a flight from freedom, a flight from the intolerable burdens of being a man in a menacing world."
Lerone Bennet Jr. Ebony magazine 1965
Reply | Flag Abuse
Are you sure this comment violates TPM's Terms of Service?
oleeb
July 24, 2010 11:03 PM
What a load of patronizing crap from our allegedly Democratic President!
I've worked for many politicians over the past 30 years and this dodge is an old one that requires some real chutzpah, particularly when you are a politician who has reneged on almost every important campaign promise he made and most importantly the one about bringing change which he most clearly and inarguably has not brought. In fact, the opposite is true. 90% of his first 18 months in office has been devoted to shoring up the status quo and the richest of the rich while close to 20 million citizens languish in unemployment, while nearly 6 million have lost their homes to foreclosure and while known war criminals are given a pass by this guy who pledged solemnly to restore the rule of law. I feel sorry for anyone gullible enough to see this arrogant trick for anything other than what it is which is a little pat on the head to the left while patronizing the netroots with his bullshit "challenge" to hold him accountable. How? How do you hold accountable someone who ran on restoring the rule of law who continues to undermine it? How do you hold accountable someone whose central promise on healthcare was a public option (without which his plan is nothing but subsidies for insurance companies)and who abandoned that option in a deal made with the devil where he promised to kill it while lying to the public and saying that wasn't so? How do you hold accountable a politician who owers his winning of the nomination to the labor movement and especially SEIU who supports a creep like Blanche Lincoln who won her primary by attacking labor like any Republican would? How do you hold accountable a guy who said on Jan. 21st, 2009 that "the hallmark of my administration" will be transparency who then does a complete 180 degree turn and becomes the President who not only expands secrecy more than Bush but who takes prosecuting of whistleblowers to new levels? Anyone who trusts this guy after flip flopping on all his major promises has no sense at all. The legislative victories he touts as his big accomplishments are not really all that significant at all. He's asking to be lauded for doing the basics of being a Democrat by passing a budget that does a bit more for people but not nearly enough? Ya gotta be kidding me! Do people just expect nothing so are grateful for anything? Sheeesh! Other than healthcare he hasn't gotten one piece of major legislation passed that does anything at all to help the common people of this country get back to work. And the healthcare bill, while significant, is a disaster waiting to unfold before us. To say it is a collection of half measures for the benefit of the insurance and drug companies is to be kind. Do NOT believe this guy folks! He's not trustworthy and his track record since the election makes that abundantly clear.
Reply | Flag Abuse
Are you sure this comment violates TPM's Terms of Service?
stillidealistic
July 25, 2010 12:10 AM in reply to oleeb
I'm not going to even waste my keystrokes...
Reply | Flag Abuse
Are you sure this comment violates TPM's Terms of Service?
Subliminability
July 25, 2010 12:41 AM in reply to oleeb
Your appraisal is very ungenerous.
Reply | Flag Abuse
Are you sure this comment violates TPM's Terms of Service?
oleeb
July 25, 2010 1:16 AM in reply to Subliminability
The truth is ungenerous then.
I wish I were wrong, but the evidence is quite clear. The man says one thing and does another. Pretty straightforward by and large.
Reply | Flag Abuse
Are you sure this comment violates TPM's Terms of Service?
dijamo
July 25, 2010 8:50 AM in reply to oleeb
Thanks for saving me keystrokes! :)
Reply | Flag Abuse
Are you sure this comment violates TPM's Terms of Service?
readytoblowagasket
July 25, 2010 9:12 AM in reply to dijamo
Me too, LOL!
Reply | Flag Abuse
Are you sure this comment violates TPM's Terms of Service?
spam
July 25, 2010 7:48 PM in reply to oleeb
Lies. His central promise on healthcare was a public option, you say? Right, just like the part where Nader had no effect on the 2000 election:
http://firstread.msnbc.msn.com/_news/2009/12/23/4424556-did-obama-campaign-on-public-option
http://www.huffingtonpost.com/2009/12/22/did-obama-campaign-on-the_n_401204.html
Reply | Flag Abuse
Are you sure this comment violates TPM's Terms of Service?
oleeb
July 26, 2010 12:14 AM in reply to spam
It's not a lie. It's just something mindless bots don't like to have to hear and face up to. He ran for President touting the public option as the centerpiece of his healthcare proposal. It was the only aspect of his healthcare proposal that had strong public support and it was the only feature that made his healthcare proposal acceptable to the public. Poll after poll made this abundantly clear. So in order to get all the unpopular and business friendly provisions passed he lied to the public about still being for a public option while secretly making a deal with the drug industry to kill the public option which he did. That's the truth. 100% and unvarnished. I know you don't like it, but all your stamping of feet and holding of breath cannot change the truth. Sorry bout that.
Reply | Flag Abuse
Are you sure this comment violates TPM's Terms of Service?
itheuser
July 25, 2010 2:19 AM
Much of the raving appears to be derived from a truly childlike understanding of how politics is fought, and what appears to be a deep intellectual misunderstanding of the actual laws in place.
Democratic politics is not about a one-off power grab. You are always thinking head, and adjusting your reasoning for the moment. Only truly worthy politicians do this. Otherwise, they're fairly useless for any long-term success.
Some individuals do not seem capable of this level of abstract reasoning, and therefore become easily frustrated when they don't see the manic grab for power that they think is needed. They don't understand this because they can't think ahead. Does this sound familiar? When the same people sit in awe of how poorly Teabaggers promote themselves, and how unreasonable their expectations are, you have to wonder about mental health.
There will always be the identity Liberals sniffing around the edges, while coveting their vote like a precious jewel. They are waiting for a bus that will never come. Like Libertarians, it's never good enough for them to stick their neck out for. Compulsive critiquing can be motivated just as much by an onerous personality type as it is by a well-nuanced intellectual strategy.
Also, it is important to be careful of some of the comments being made. From a heavy reading of many Conservative forums, their belief that Liberals are infiltrating their discussion forums to cause rifts in their base have given them the excuse to try and do the same.
Any Liberal who thought that Obama was going to walk into the White House, and get everything that they wanted, is truly a few fries short of a Happy Meal.
A perfect example is the small number of Liberals who were disgusted that Obama didn't wave the magic wand, and get DADT settled immediately. the fact that a military review was requested, and expected is still too offensive to them, when doing anything else was not remotely in Obama's power.
Even Obama's wishes are not the only wishes that House, and Senate Democrats care about. He can't will them to do the things that he wants, and ignore their own constituency. They have very different Liberal constituencies to concern themselves with.
Obama sold himself as a centrist, and the fact that he is pissing off Portland Liberal types, and Teabagging hicks simultaneously, suggests that he is doing just that.
Yes, Obama has failed, and vaccines cause Autism.
We get it.
Reply | Flag Abuse
Are you sure this comment violates TPM's Terms of Service?
Clarance Vine
July 25, 2010 9:00 AM in reply to itheuser
Snooty and self-important in the same post. Get over yourself.
"Any Liberal who thought that Obama was going to walk into the White House, and get everything that they wanted, is truly a few fries short of a Happy Meal."
This is the classic straw dog bullshit argument by the O-Bots: half a loaf is better ..., perfection is the enemy....
No one expected to "get everything they wanted". And please drop the Happy Meals lame attempt at comedy and stick with the snooty and exaggerated sense of self. It fits you perfectly.
Reply | Flag Abuse
Are you sure this comment violates TPM's Terms of Service?
Goober Peas
July 26, 2010 8:11 AM in reply to itheuser
You know, your self-aggrandizing BS might be more believable if we hadn’t watched the Bush administration gut the US Constitution and pass nearly every single piece of legislation they dreamed up in their sick, fevered imaginations with a majority of 49 + Cheney.
This is how politics works? No, this is how elite self-important centrists wish politics worked. The democratic party did next to nothing to stop the Bush junta, with the exception of Pelosi blocking Social Security privatization. And now that they have the White House and historically high majorities in both houses they can’t pass a single piece of legislation from the platform they ran on.
Childish? Unable to think abstractly? That’s laughable. It’s very clear reasoning and thought that leads any sane person to see that democrats are largely the same as republicans only weaker and unable to fight for anything remotely meaty for their base. The republicans at least were smart enough to throw a bone or two to their base every few months instead of insulting them and lying to their faces.
We understand politics far batter than you do. It’s all about money and who has the most and the voters be damned. You can spin it to mean opposition all you want but the truth is the truth.
Reply | Flag Abuse
Are you sure this comment violates TPM's Terms of Service?
itheuser
July 25, 2010 2:21 AM
"The truth is ungenerous then. I wish I were wrong, but the evidence is quite clear. The man says one thing and does another. Pretty straightforward by and large"
So, that's it? A "just so" story?
As a Liberal, this is the apex of your reasoning on the matter?
You protest too much.
Reply | Flag Abuse
Are you sure this comment violates TPM's Terms of Service?
itheuser
July 25, 2010 2:51 AM
Also, the Blanche Lincoln comment made me laugh. It's Arkansas sweetheart. Please read my comment regarding abstract reasoning.
These are the kind of people you would never want on your team. They believe in the old Cavalry method of running straight towards your enemy with your bayonets out, completely expecting to get mowed down.
Once again, the President himself, whether he is Bush Jr. or Obama, cannot solely pass legislation. It is dependent on various alliances, and the dimensions of their constituencies.
The idea, on both the Right, and the Left, that the President has more power than he actually does, is truly an indictment of how much the average American citizen understand civics.
More importantly, Liberals win when they vote. Conservative discipline when it comes to voting has been their greatest strength.
If Democrats expect to win upcoming elections, then they're going to have to keep the horse before the cart. This level if nit-picking is in no way productive.
Regardless of what you think such legislation will do, passing HC, Financial reform, and putting the wheels in motion for what appears to be an inevitable knock-down of DADT are huge base victories, and they are the ones that Obama campaigned, and won on.
Hillary is not going to get the nomination, so just in case this is another angle to this absurd bickering, then you might as well come to terms with that now.
If it's not about disgruntled Internet pundits trying to create mischief, or about sour grapes regarding Hillary's position within the party, then I truly cannot understand the reasoning for this type of disenchantment. It's entirely unreasonable, considering the circumstances.
Reply | Flag Abuse
Are you sure this comment violates TPM's Terms of Service?
itheuser
July 25, 2010 2:57 AM
Nevermind, oleeb. I just read your other comments, and blog posts.
Wow. Some mothers do have 'em.
Next time, split the Prozac in two.
I was "snookered."
Reply | Flag Abuse
Are you sure this comment violates TPM's Terms of Service?
bibimimi
July 25, 2010 3:05 PM
Why do we have to hold him accountable? Shouldn't he know what to and what not to do?
Reply | Flag Abuse
Are you sure this comment violates TPM's Terms of Service?
Jay of the ozarks
July 25, 2010 3:21 PM
Progressives need to be as ruthlessly supportive of their candidates as the Tea Partyites are. If we abandon the leaders we agree the most with we will forever have the mindless rightwing nuts in power and on the Supreme Court. As Obama said we need to continue to push from the right but we must line up behind our candidates when they face Republican opposition. Not just line up behind them but actively support them. We can't be so &^$$&^ picky that we abandon those who are fighting the rightwing extremists.
Reply | Flag Abuse
Are you sure this comment violates TPM's Terms of Service?
Jay of the ozarks
July 25, 2010 3:23 PM
I meant "push from the left".
Reply | Flag Abuse
Are you sure this comment violates TPM's Terms of Service?
Mary2002
July 25, 2010 4:27 PM
Things that came too quickly, rather than too slowly:
*Threats to the UK to stop sharing intel info that protects Americans overseas if they shared the Binyam Mohamed torture info
*Decisions to bury the torture, USA atty firings, and torture memos drafting investigations
*Covertly axing the public option and drug reimportation while adopting the part of Hilarycare that you ridiculed, universality.
*Pakistani bombings of civilians - interesting how quickly you can change things when killing civilians in other countries is all that's wanted or needed
*adoption of the meme that only terrorists were ever held at GITMO and digging in on refusal to admit to any mistakes
*dropping Dawn Johnsen and impeding her nomination as it became inconvenient
*grabbing the power to assassinate Americans and making sure you had a compliant OLC for that topic
*continued cover ups of the illegal TSP and ACCELERATION of the legal fights to cover up criminal activity in the WH under the "state secrets" rubric
* the legal attacks on Maher Arar
* the legal "win" for your guys in Ghailiani, pressing the courts to look the other way in the face of blatant torture
* military commissions sponsored by you, of you, and for you
* nomination of an outright political pawn, Kagan, who has been directly involved in your adminsitration's torture and killing policies, to the Sup Ct for a lifetime appointment
Gee - somehow it's not the things that have gone slowly that bothered me the most. At least McCain would have been forced to nominate someone other than a political fundraiser directly involved in Exec Branch torture cover ups to the court. And for that matter, he probably would have worked with Dana Rohrbacher on the Uighurs instead of positioning himself to the right of Rohrbacher.
After years of work and donations, I don't give a rats ass if the Republicans win anymore and it's not because of the things that Democrats went "too slowly" on.
Thanks much, Mr. President. You've helped me with fear - I no longer live in fear of a McCain or Palin or Romney presidency or a Boehner Congress. You moved really quickly to make that happen.
Reply | Flag Abuse
Are you sure this comment violates TPM's Terms of Service?
theoryofmind
July 25, 2010 8:02 PM
Party of Obama!
Reply | Flag Abuse
Are you sure this comment violates TPM's Terms of Service?
Bussta Brown
July 25, 2010 10:30 PM
Considering that the Republicans have fought every initiative the President has tried to accomplished, I think the President has done quite well. His weak link has been Democratic members of Congress who think they have to act like Republicans in order to stay in office. And of course there are his advisors like Emmanuel who it appears have given too much bad advice. His movement has lost some steam because he is not leading it as forcefully as he could. The President is right when he says he can't do it by himself, but we need to see him out front leaving the change which will keep his followers engaged. I still display my bumper sticker showing that despite efforts to thwart his efforts, I still support him.
Reply | Flag Abuse
Are you sure this comment violates TPM's Terms of Service?
Thinking-Independent
July 26, 2010 10:56 PM
Like I sarcastically stated above "The American electorate is like a child that must be forced on occasion by a loving parent to do what they don’t want to." About 76% didn't want TARP. Bush said we have to do it. Nearly the same didn't want the following "bail out" but Obama said we have to do it. Americans later said we don't want the health reform act as it was being voted on. Guess what. Like a child that doesn't know better but still doesn't want to stick their hand into the pretty flame our hand was forced to so we know what happens after we do it (e.g. “We have to pass the bill so you can find out what is in it.”) Does anyone feel the burn? I think there may be a homeopathic remedy for severe burns; pour tea on it not Kool-Aid!
Reply | Flag Abuse
Are you sure this comment violates TPM's Terms of Service?