Skip to main content

Cross-posted at Eclectablog.com.

Historian and syndicated columnist P.M. Carpenter has a new op-ed piece out on CNN's website called Why right and left won't cheer Obama". In it, he attempts to explain the chasm between how President Obama is perceived by those on the left, the right & middle and reality.
 
Here's how describes how President Obama is seen by those he describes as the "pseudoconservatives" (using that term since he feels that genuine conservatives were long ago killed off by right-wing zealots):
 

The pseudoconservatives' perception is that Obama's success is a sprinting, despotic socialism enforced by jackbooted bureaucrats of anti-constitutional intensity.

 
Having spent some time on the Tea Party Nation's mailing list, I can confirm that this is quite accurate and may even be sugar coating it.

In his piece, Carpenter accurately describes the pseudoconservatives as having adopted a mindset free of nuance or shades of grey:
 

More and more these pseudoconservatives cloak themselves in the anti-intellectual rags of what the magnificent political historian Richard Hofstadter once so aptly called the "paranoid style." To the radical right, Hofstadter observed, "The enemy is clearly delineated: He is a perfect model of malice, a kind of amoral superman -- sinister, ubiquitous, powerful, cruel, sensual, luxury-loving." That is, Barack Obama.
 
At some vague point in our nation's history, pseudoconservatives adopted a blanket mindset against all not with them: the grays of the opposition vanished, "the enemy" plotted and schemed from some unholy abyss of wholly un-American motives, and the whites of their own hats began sparkling with a virtuous superiority.

 
He then talks about the left who he says "now meekly call themselves 'progressives'" due to the "pseudoconservatives' ruthless campaign of label intimidation".
 

On opposite ground, today's progressive activists (known in some unmentioned circles as the "professional left") perceive Obama's success as a tragic, alienating failure simply because that success has been less than 100 percent. Their ideological purity is a brutal taskmaster; it accepts no compromise with political realities.
 
It wants and demands a society approaching Utopia -- and that Utopia lies, it seems, only inches away from a snarling, presidential ideologue. They'll deny that, but their own snarling, in my mind, tends to outweigh their pleas of innocence.

 
The "traditional liberalism's rank and file", however, according to Carpenter, have few problems with the President. They understand, he says, that "American's utopian future still likely remains at least a few years down the road.
 
He describes those in the "nonideological middle" as "pinball victims of messaging wars" and believes that they may become far more supportive "given a vastly improved White House communications operation".
 
The reality about President Obama's first half-term in office he says is this:
 

[E]xtraordinary success within a mere half-term… -- a stimulus package that prevented the Great Depression II; health care reform that achieves the decades-long goal of near universality; financial reform that reimposes some grown-up supervision of Wall Street .

 
P.M. Carpenter has framed this perfectly, in my opinion.  Those on the right paint in broad strokes and cartoon characters. It brings to my mind the lyrics of one of my favorite Joe Jackson songs, "Right and Wrong", where he is talking about the presidency of Ronald Reagan:
 

Stop everything
I think I hear the President
The pied piper of the TV screen
Is gonna make it simple
 
And he's got it all mapped out
And illustrated with cartoons
Too hard for clever folks to understand
Yeah, they're more used to words like:
Ideology...
But they say it's not the issue
Ideology...

They're not talkin' 'bout right or left
They're talkin' 'bout...
Right and wrong - do you know the difference?

 
In a  recent screed from Judson Phillips titled Complete success or total Socialism (membership required), he says this:
 

If we are going to win this war on socialism, we must not only take the socialists out of government but also take apart their support structures that make it possible for them to push their agenda.
 
As a new budget is proposed this year, we must go through it and get the House to eliminate any funding for liberal groups.  In our personal lives, we need to work on eliminating support for liberal groups.  Does your church contribute to these liberal groups or advocate liberal positions, such as Amnesty?   Quit contributing and find one who does not.
 
This is a war.  It is socialism versus freedom.  In war, you win by denying your enemy the ability to make war.  The left’s ability to make war on freedom comes from their ability to get money.   We must turn off their money supply.  When we do that, we will take the government away from them, destroy the organs of liberalism and make certain liberals are never again in a position to control the government.

 
In Phillips' world, there is no middle ground. There is no possibility that liberals will ever have an idea with which he can agree. If churches support liberal causes, they should be destroyed. If social programs that help Americans are supported by liberals, they must be eliminated. Black and white. Cartoons.
 
Liberals also frequently fall into the trap of ideological purism. It's a rare display when someone on the left says, "I was wrong, the President did know what he was doing." Rather, even if his action ultimately results in the outcome we desire, we find ways to pick holes in it anyway. It didn't go far enough. It didn't come soon enough. Something else was more important. We too often hold tight to stances we've taken and cannot concede that another approach may also have been valid.
 
Both sides of the political divide seem to demand near-perfection from political leaders. One wrong vote, one wrong strategic move, one wrong agreement with "the enemy" and they are tossed aside to be primaried and replaced by someone who will agree them, point by point.
 
Meanwhile, to use an American football metaphor, the President keeps moving the ball down the field, one strategic play at a time. He may fumble the ball from time to time. He may lose a few yards on one play that need to be made up in subsequent plays. But, when the dust settles, he achieves things nobody thought possible. And that is why those Americans in the ideological middle are still supporting him. They aren't as immersed in the day-to-day details of governing. They don't get into the philosophical or strategic weeds as deep as many of us. They see the bigger picture of the outcomes. And, so far, there have been significant victories.
 
"Despotic socialism enforced by jackbooted bureaucrats of anti-constitutional intensity" or "tragic, alienating failure"? The truth is that President Obama is neither. He is simply a man with a long-term vision and the patience to let things play out.
 
I trust him.
 
I'm just sayin'…

Originally posted to Eclectablog - eclectic blogging for a better tomorrow on Tue Dec 21, 2010 at 09:10 AM PST.

EMAIL TO A FRIEND X
Your Email has been sent.
You must add at least one tag to this diary before publishing it.

Add keywords that describe this diary. Separate multiple keywords with commas.
Tagging tips - Search For Tags - Browse For Tags

?

More Tagging tips:

A tag is a way to search for this diary. If someone is searching for "Barack Obama," is this a diary they'd be trying to find?

Use a person's full name, without any title. Senator Obama may become President Obama, and Michelle Obama might run for office.

If your diary covers an election or elected official, use election tags, which are generally the state abbreviation followed by the office. CA-01 is the first district House seat. CA-Sen covers both senate races. NY-GOV covers the New York governor's race.

Tags do not compound: that is, "education reform" is a completely different tag from "education". A tag like "reform" alone is probably not meaningful.

Consider if one or more of these tags fits your diary: Civil Rights, Community, Congress, Culture, Economy, Education, Elections, Energy, Environment, Health Care, International, Labor, Law, Media, Meta, National Security, Science, Transportation, or White House. If your diary is specific to a state, consider adding the state (California, Texas, etc). Keep in mind, though, that there are many wonderful and important diaries that don't fit in any of these tags. Don't worry if yours doesn't.

You can add a private note to this diary when hotlisting it:
Are you sure you want to remove this diary from your hotlist?
Are you sure you want to remove your recommendation? You can only recommend a diary once, so you will not be able to re-recommend it afterwards.
Rescue this diary, and add a note:
Are you sure you want to remove this diary from Rescue?
Choose where to republish this diary. The diary will be added to the queue for that group. Publish it from the queue to make it appear.

You must be a member of a group to use this feature.

Add a quick update to your diary without changing the diary itself:
Are you sure you want to remove this diary?
(The diary will be removed from the site and returned to your drafts for further editing.)
(The diary will be removed.)
Are you sure you want to save these changes to the published diary?

Comment Preferences

  •  Tip Jar (154+ / 0-)
    Recommended by:
    justinb, Kitty, Mimikatz, Terri, fcvaguy, jmaier, Jeff Simpson, TrueBlueMajority, mem from somerville, Ed Drone, eeff, BillyZoom, DWKING, scribe, Shadan7, KMc, mkfarkus, Aquarius40, itskevin, Cedwyn, wader, psnyder, missliberties, pat bunny, casperr, elmo, Lawrence, westyny, JimWilson, Catte Nappe, lcrp, KayCeSF, Vicky, tomjones, snowbird42, Sybil Liberty, radarlady, DianeNYS, Unit Zero, blueyedace2, jiffypop, PBen, PsychoSavannah, Alice Venturi, ChemBob, boofdah, Ex Con, sunbro, Southside, begone, Whimsical, Jennifer Clare, Keone Michaels, cybersaur, ferallike, KenBee, abe57, Triscula, fou, Lefty Coaster, bleeding heart, el cid, ER Doc, soccergrandmom, MBNYC, agent, jkshaw, Eryk, Aaa T Tudeattack, Femlaw, Spron, Jimdotz, jayden, mcgee85, second gen, millwood, OIL GUY, Wreck Smurfy, dizzydean, chicago minx, Niniane, kafkananda, Fe Bongolan, moose67, MsWings, royalscam, glendaw271, HamdenRice, Hawkjt, Mayfly, briefer, maggiejean, in2mixin, Fogiv, DontTaseMeBro, seanwright, Michael James, bimshire68, pvlb, ceciliaanneck, kat68, shopkeeper, krllos, Prince Nekhlyudov, allep10, kevinpdx, IDrankWhat, XNeeOhCon, DreamyAJ, Kiku, louisev, citisven, nocynicism, Larsstephens, Borg Warner, smileycreek, henlesloop, Otherday, stegro, Observerinvancouver, amk for obama, voracious, Benintn, LiberalCanuck, cocinero, science nerd, wwjjd, Its a New Day, not4morewars, Onomastic, redlum jak, ban nock, Gracian, freesia, GrogInOhio, Lorikeet, Muskegon Critic, BarackStarObama, Imhotepsings, blue aardvark, SoCalSal, moonpal, DRo, Nashville fan, Prairie D, JTinDC, SouthernBelleNC49, Susan G in MN, tb92, Deep Texan, FiredUpInCA, TBug, hardart, MartyM

    To be clear, it's "EClectablog", not "Electablog".
    Visit me at Eclectablog. You could even click an ad!

    by Eclectablog on Tue Dec 21, 2010 at 09:10:09 AM PST

    •  Hey eclectablog - I've got my oven mitts on (11+ / 0-)

      top of the mornin to ya!

      Republicans are slumlording America!!

      by Fe Bongolan on Tue Dec 21, 2010 at 09:26:13 AM PST

      [ Parent ]

    •  Props for the courage to write this... (38+ / 0-)

      on DKos.

      The flames that follow will illuminate your bravery. ;)

      If you're walking down the right path and you're willing to keep walking, eventually you'll make progress. - Barack Obama

      by LiberalCanuck on Tue Dec 21, 2010 at 09:41:28 AM PST

      [ Parent ]

      •  I'm shocked the "Hofstadter is an elitist pig" .. (4+ / 0-)

        ...contingent hasn't disembowled Electablog yet.

        But the day is still young.

        "Those who can make you believe absurdities can make you commit atrocities." -- Voltaire

        by Apphouse50 on Tue Dec 21, 2010 at 12:10:24 PM PST

        [ Parent ]

      •  Yep, a real revolutionary, *pseudo-liberal* (0+ / 0-)

        treatise here, equating the Democratic left with the rabid right wing zealots.  Not.

        The sad thing is, that idiot Carpenter (a real Villager, if ever there were one) gets it exactly wrong with this:

        He then talks about the left who he says "now meekly call themselves 'progressives'" due to the "pseudoconservatives' ruthless campaign of label intimidation".

        "We" call ourselves progressives because, in large measure, we're too embarrassed by those who presently call themselves "liberals."  

        So you and your pseudo-liberals continue to whistle through the proverbial graveyard about whose agenda is being advanced (hint: it's not the liberals), and the progressives will go about the business of trying to save the country from both you AND the pseudo-conservatives.

        [Conservatives are] engaged in one of man's oldest exercises in moral philosophy; ...the search for a superior moral justification for selfishness. JK Galbrai

        by Vtdblue on Tue Dec 21, 2010 at 12:19:15 PM PST

        [ Parent ]

    •  for better policies (26+ / 0-)

      I guess I am one of those lefty progressive liberals. The kind that are actually for (or against) specific actual policies, based on whether I think they are what is best for America and the world.

      I do not trust Obama or any politician, beyond what they say and do.

      So I will kepp pressing for better policies, including narrative change, even if it is hard.

      I will continue to point out the 30 years of free market fundemetalism has been a disaster, even if upsets some Obama diehards or partisan Democrats who care more about short term party then long term policy (and even when it results in losing short term which it did in 2010).

      I will continue to reject vacuous, policy free, false equivalence and centrism for its own sake.

      I will support more and better Democrats as a means to an end... better policy, better America, better world.

      •  This has become increasingly difficult (7+ / 0-)

        do not trust Obama or any politician, beyond what they say and do

        Trusting what they say, that is.

        In my personal life, I am very much about believing what someone does vs believing what they say.  Actions speak louder than words and all that.

        This is where my disconnect with the administration has come into play, more than anything.  I knew that candidate Obama was making promises that would be very difficult to keep.  I want to believe that he would like to keep them all and refuse to believe he was playing a bait and switch act during the election.  But I have been sorely disappointed in his lack of passion and fight.  

        I'd rather die than give you control ~ Trent Reznor

        by JustJennifer on Tue Dec 21, 2010 at 10:16:34 AM PST

        [ Parent ]

        •  You may be disappointed by "his lack of (1+ / 0-)
          Recommended by:
          Larsstephens

          passion and fight" but what about that "git 'er done thingy"?  

          He has kept or is in the process of or has attempted to keep an awful lot of promises.  A hell of a lot more than any adult with a sense of politics might ever have imagined.  Definitely not perfect but knows where he wants to head the country and is trying his best to get there.  Even if that does mean having to pay blackmail to the Goopers.  

          Here's a link to Politifact's truth-o-meter.  They're keeping track of about 500 promises and they've rated only 25 of them as broken.  IMO, a lot of the broken promises should be blamed on the Goopers.

          http://www.politifact.com/...

          We must, indeed, all hang together, or assuredly we shall all hang separately. B. Franklin

          by Observerinvancouver on Tue Dec 21, 2010 at 12:27:40 PM PST

          [ Parent ]

      •  That's the point, isn't it (9+ / 0-)

        The final results are good or bad.

        I dearly wish Obama would try harder to move the Overton window. That, too, is a result, although a harder one to measure.

        In theory, there is no difference between theory and practice; but in practice, there always is a difference. - Yogi Berra

        by blue aardvark on Tue Dec 21, 2010 at 10:35:54 AM PST

        [ Parent ]

      •  Me Too (4+ / 0-)

        I don't agree with this articles take that Obama has ushered in significant Progressive policies and the left hates it because it isn't perfect. Obama's policies have amounted to system tweeks, rather the transformative changes we were promised. Reagan and Bush 2 both managed to move this nation sharpely to the right and oversaw ecomic policys that have in transfered the wealth of the nation into the hands of a small percentage of Americans. Obama by contrast has managed to walk us a few baby steps towards the center, while at the same time moving us further to the right in over-arching economic policy (the new tax bill will continue to concentrate wealth). It is no accident that the biggest change Obama has overseen, the repeal of DADT was possible precisely because it has no economic implications for the wealthy.

        •  Reagan angered his base by accepting (7+ / 0-)

          huge tax increases. But Reagan didn't have 24hr cable and talk radio railing against him. Instead, he had great PR. By the time FOX and talk radio went gung-ho Republican, they needed a hero and so they lionized Reagan and rewrote history.

          Bush 2 was the product of that media onslaught set strongly in motion by Newt Gingrich unifying the Right. Conservatives first rule is never diss fellow Republicans and stay on message. They systematically set about demonizing Liberals---and this article is right. People ran from the label calling themselves Progressives instead. That is part of the problem. They ran rather than fight and so the country followed their ideology, believing that it symbolized strength.
          What many here---and in the media--failed to grasp is that the country is changing. People are growing tired of the rancor, the name calling, the demonization. The remnants formed themselves into the Tea Party and are rapidly imploding. The numbers for FOX viewership have been steadily declining. People like Ann Coulter no longer sell as many books. But most telling: Obama is still popular---and his popularity is on the rise again.

          Obama is changing the Country. He is calming things down. He is a different leader than we are used to seeing---one without a thin skin and an enemies' list. He may not be even close to perfection but I've lived long enough to know that perfect only exists in short memories.
          .

          Hannity's America is just South of Sanity.

          by DWKING on Tue Dec 21, 2010 at 11:45:45 AM PST

          [ Parent ]

      •  I doubt you will find a single (6+ / 0-)

        person here, Obama diehards or partisan Democrats who would deny that

        30 years of free market fundemetalism has been a disaster

        What you will find are people who have a problem with statements like Even when Reagan compromised in fact, he kept to the narrative. as you claim in your diary. Reagan claimed he would not raise taxes but yet did so eleven times
        Even Bruce Bartlett from the conservative rag National review Online admitted this.

        The gist of Wallison's article is that Ronald Reagan successfully resisted efforts by his staff and many in Congress to raise taxes, thereby ensuring the victory of Reaganomics.

        The only problem with this analysis is that it is historically inaccurate. Reagan may have resisted calls for tax increases, but he ultimately supported them. In 1982 alone, he signed into law not one but two major tax increases.

        Reagan and the so called "narrative" that you claim he stuck to was nothing but Orwellian double speak crafted to hide his lying and double crossing to the middle class as he raised their taxes eleven times all the while claiming he was so against raising taxes. Reagan lied and you are condoning it.

        Your referencing of Reagan as a person Obama should strive to emulate by maintaining the narrative is disingenuous and makes one wonder if you were in fact a Reagan Democrat.

        And your reference in your diary

        It is just that I really do hope that more Democrats, including the President of Hopey Changey would at least try to offer an alternative narrative and policy.

        fullout show your willingness to align yourself with Sarah Palin as does your comment to Via Chicago
        where you support her mocking in full agreement.

        Obama promised to extend the Bush tax cuts for those making less than $250,000 and he did. And like all Presidents before him he had to make compromises to keep his promise. But somehow you find doing that makes Obama to be less trust worthy than anything Reagan compromised on. Are you sure you're really a Liberal Democrat as you claim?

        From Politifact

        In the debate over taxes during 2010, both parties agreed that the tax rates for the middle class should be continued. The tax rates, passed during President George W. Bush's administration, had an end-of-the-year expiration date and were set to go up in 2011.

        Yet getting the tax rates continued proved surprisingly contentious. President Barack Obama said Republicans were holding tax cuts for the middle-class "hostage" to get tax rates for higher earners continued. So Obama agreed to continue the current tax rates for everyone, regardless of income. Additionally, Obama won another year of unemployment benefits for workers who qualified, and he won a one-year reduction of Social Security taxes that would put 2 percent of pay back into workers' paychecks.

        Here, we're rating Obama's promise to continue the same tax rates for couples who make less than $250,000 and individuals who make less than $200,000. The legislation Obama signed on Dec. 17, 2010, continues the current rates for everyone for another two years. We'll check back on this promise in 2012, but for now we're rating this Promise Kept.

        The beatings will continue until morale improves. -8.50, -6.92

        by ferallike on Tue Dec 21, 2010 at 11:28:21 AM PST

        [ Parent ]

      •  Oh, brother! nt (1+ / 0-)
        Recommended by:
        Larsstephens

        We must, indeed, all hang together, or assuredly we shall all hang separately. B. Franklin

        by Observerinvancouver on Tue Dec 21, 2010 at 12:17:01 PM PST

        [ Parent ]

    •  Sometimes it seems as if (20+ / 0-)

      he has given away the store. But when you look at it as a whole he has accomplished amazing things in a short time in the face of an implacable, mindless opposition.

      He has done a good job of letting Congress be Congress and not trying to legislate from the Oval Office.  That's one of the reasons things seem very frustrating sometimes.  

      I don't like everything he has done, but I trust him.

      The Republicans will take away your Social Security and Medicare....skralyx

      by mkfarkus on Tue Dec 21, 2010 at 09:58:34 AM PST

      [ Parent ]

      •  The one time he took over legislation from (4+ / 0-)

        Congress - namely, he tax cut deal that just went through - was a disaster.  Good thing he hasn't done so before.

        The trouble with the world is that the stupid are cocksure and the intelligent are full of doubt. Bertrand Russell

        by accumbens on Tue Dec 21, 2010 at 10:26:02 AM PST

        [ Parent ]

        •  oh, but he did (11+ / 0-)

          Last summer the prez told congressional dems to pass a stand alone bill for permanent tax cuts for the working-class and then run on it. They didn't. They got a "compromise" bill instead.

          And so the poutrageous-"partisan"-grandstanding began...

          littletimmyryanboogiesdown@FUXnews

          "Show up. Pay attention. Tell the truth. And don't be attached to the results." -- Angeles Arrien

          by Sybil Liberty on Tue Dec 21, 2010 at 10:41:28 AM PST

          [ Parent ]

          •  Last summer? (2+ / 0-)
            Recommended by:
            expatjourno, madgranny

            I don't think so.  He signaled a cave in early on and then asked Congress to take it up.  He disadvantaged them and himself from the outset.

            The trouble with the world is that the stupid are cocksure and the intelligent are full of doubt. Bertrand Russell

            by accumbens on Tue Dec 21, 2010 at 11:04:04 AM PST

            [ Parent ]

            •  September 8, 2010 - Parma Ohio Rally (5+ / 0-)

              [...]The Bush tax cuts are set to expire at the end of the year. Mr. Obama said today that Democrats are ready "this week" to extend them for those making $250,000 or less. He advocates letting the cuts lapse for the 2 or 3 percent of Americans making more than that threshold, whose tax rates will increase either three percent or 4.6 percent.[...]

              [...]"So let me be clear to [House Republican Leader John] Boehner and everyone else: we should not hold middle class tax cuts hostage any longer," he said. "We are ready, this week, if they want, to give tax cuts to every American making $250,000 or less. That's 98, 97 percent of Americans."[...]

              http://www.cbsnews.com/...

              ....doesn't fit your narrative, huh?

              "Show up. Pay attention. Tell the truth. And don't be attached to the results." -- Angeles Arrien

              by Sybil Liberty on Tue Dec 21, 2010 at 11:54:11 AM PST

              [ Parent ]

              •  Actually it fits it perfectly ... (0+ / 0-)

                On Sept. 9, 2010:

                Obama Refuses To Say He'd Veto Extension Of Bush Tax Cuts For Wealthy

                STEPHANOPOULOS: How deep is your commitment to this fight? Are you saying that if Congress passes a short term extension of all the tax cuts, you're gonna veto it?

                OBAMA: George, here's what ... I'm saying is that we've got a fundamental choice about this economy. You can't have Republicans running on fiscal discipline that we're gonna reduce our deficit, that the debt's out of control, and then borrow tens, hundreds of billions of dollars to give tax cuts to people who don't need them.

                snip

                STEPHANOPOULOS: Does that mean you will veto an extension of tax cuts to the wealthy?

                OBAMA: What I am saying is that if we are going to add to our deficit by $35 billion, $95 billion, $100 billion, $700 billion, if that's the Republican agenda, then I've got a whole bunch of better ways to spend that money.

                STEPHANOPOULOS: But you're not saying you're gonna veto it.

                OBAMA: I, there are a whole bunch better ways to spend the money.

                STEPHANOPOULOS: How come you don't want to say veto?

                OBAMA: There are a whole bunch better ways to spend the money.

                By not saying he would veto an extension of the tax cuts to the rich, Obama signaled big time that he was willing to compromise.  The Republicans had him from the get go.

                Also, saying "let me clear" doesn't mean he will fight for it or that he won't compromise.  

                The trouble with the world is that the stupid are cocksure and the intelligent are full of doubt. Bertrand Russell

                by accumbens on Tue Dec 21, 2010 at 02:23:13 PM PST

                [ Parent ]

                •  If Obama had gotten the stand-alone bill (3+ / 0-)
                  Recommended by:
                  abrauer, Eclectablog, FiredUpInCA

                  for permanent tax cuts for the working-class that he had asked for last summer, there would have been nothing to veto/not veto. The cuts for the filthy-rich would have expired. But Dem congressionals ran from it exactly the same way they ran from Hillary's health care package under Clinton.

                  But no, they lost their butts in the mid-terms anyway and only provided him with a "trophy" stand-alone bill in the lame-duck. Way too little, way too late.

                  "Show up. Pay attention. Tell the truth. And don't be attached to the results." -- Angeles Arrien

                  by Sybil Liberty on Tue Dec 21, 2010 at 02:47:18 PM PST

                  [ Parent ]

                  •  I agree the Congressional Dems should have pushed (0+ / 0-)

                    this.  To say if he got a stand-alone bill he wouldn't have had to veto it misses the point.  He was asked directly whether he would veto an extension for the rich and he refused to answer the question.

                    All I'm saying is Obama disadvantaged the COngressional Dems and himself by not take a real stand, which a veto threat would have done.  He pre-compromised and gave the Repubs the advantage.  

                    The trouble with the world is that the stupid are cocksure and the intelligent are full of doubt. Bertrand Russell

                    by accumbens on Tue Dec 21, 2010 at 03:11:43 PM PST

                    [ Parent ]

                    •  I'm pretty sure it doesn't take (2+ / 0-)
                      Recommended by:
                      Eclectablog, FiredUpInCA

                      a rocket-scientist to know that if the president had told georgie on national teevee that he would veto any short term extension of all the cuts that those making less than $250,000 would have been thinking, "he's gonna veto my tax cuts"... and that's exactly what the president would have had to do. You don't wave a veto pen and then not follow through.

                      "Show up. Pay attention. Tell the truth. And don't be attached to the results." -- Angeles Arrien

                      by Sybil Liberty on Tue Dec 21, 2010 at 03:20:29 PM PST

                      [ Parent ]

          •  Prove it. n/t (2+ / 0-)
            Recommended by:
            accumbens, MixedContent

            Obama stands with war profiteers, torturers, Wall Street, health insurance companies, Big PhARMA, Big Oil and Social Security-haters. Good at photo ops, though.

            by expatjourno on Tue Dec 21, 2010 at 11:23:25 AM PST

            [ Parent ]

        •  Don't forget the Catfood Commission. (3+ / 0-)
          Recommended by:
          Jagger, accumbens, MixedContent

          When Congress would't create a panel that would recommend cuts to Social Security, he appointed his own.

          Obama stands with war profiteers, torturers, Wall Street, health insurance companies, Big PhARMA, Big Oil and Social Security-haters. Good at photo ops, though.

          by expatjourno on Tue Dec 21, 2010 at 11:23:02 AM PST

          [ Parent ]

      •  He accomplished the revival of the GOP. (3+ / 0-)
        Recommended by:
        madgranny, MixedContent, Funkygal

        He made sure that they paid no political price for their "implacable, mindless opposition." In fact, he managed to make the Democrats pay a price for the GOP's "implacable, mindless opposition."

        As for "letting Congress be Congress," why don't you tell us all why that is a good thing?

        Obama stands with war profiteers, torturers, Wall Street, health insurance companies, Big PhARMA, Big Oil and Social Security-haters. Good at photo ops, though.

        by expatjourno on Tue Dec 21, 2010 at 11:21:27 AM PST

        [ Parent ]

    •  I guess you knew how this would go, huh? (8+ / 0-)

      kudos anyway

      "Show up. Pay attention. Tell the truth. And don't be attached to the results." -- Angeles Arrien

      by Sybil Liberty on Tue Dec 21, 2010 at 10:42:13 AM PST

      [ Parent ]

    •  complicit with DC corruption are ya? (3+ / 0-)
      Recommended by:
      polecat, expatjourno, dark daze

      obviously you're ok with slandering those on the left outraged at the broken promises of obama who extended tax cuts for the ultra rich, to depraved multinationalists who have sent millions of jobs overseas, while preparing to cut social services...

      you should be proud of yourself.

      anyone who doesn't tow the corporate line gets a label from your type.

      dear leader is so proud of you.  i understand that the conflicts in Oceania, Eurasia and Eastasia necessitates your loyalty.

      Stop Prohibition, Start Harm Reduction - Yes on 19

      by gnostradamus on Tue Dec 21, 2010 at 11:00:13 AM PST

      [ Parent ]

      •  exactly (3+ / 0-)
        Recommended by:
        polecat, expatjourno, Jagger

        we raise our voices, and what do we get? a new label thrust upon us, we are now known as "purist".

        LOL,  laughable, we just wanted real HCR reform, real wall street reform, real transparency, real justice, real net neutrality, but shame on us for being educated and aware enough to know the shit dressed up as reform is/was nothing of the sort.

        Same shit different day.  If you dont fall in line, a lable for you.

        Bad is never good until worse happens

        by dark daze on Tue Dec 21, 2010 at 11:20:27 AM PST

        [ Parent ]

    •  I just love being told I'm stupid!! Yipee! (4+ / 0-)
      Recommended by:
      polecat, expatjourno, Jagger, dark daze

      boy, I'm just one of those dumb whiney liberals!

      I can't accept the political realities!  Because really, LOWERING taxes on fabulously wealth is just like RAISING taxes on them, it just isn't 100% so I'm not getting my ponies.  After all, advocating for civil rights abuses in court (which DOES NOT INVOLVE CONGRESS!) is JUST LIKE establishing an administration that is dedicated to transparency, the rule of law and humand rights!  It's just not 100%.  Renditions are just like judicial process, but just a little compromised.  How stupid of me not to see that!

      Oh, yeah, and going to Congress to REMOVE endangered species protections in the face of the science is just a centrist compromise that's like leaving existing protections in place, but just a little less than 100%.  Oh, yeah, and failing to EVEN DISCUSS single payer insurance and ditching the public option immediately really, secretly, is just like advocating for a public system for a public good and coming up short.  It's just not 100%

      and yeah, we're soooo stupid to see that being calling "sanctimonious" and "retarded" is just like having someone be your ally, except that it's not 100%.  

      This whole frame exists solely because centrists like Obama have worked to bury progressive ideas so much that people can't even tell when policies that are directly antithetical to progressive aims are anything other than a half a loaf.  

      boy, Be sure to write another one soon, because I tend to forget how stupid I am and need constant reminding!

      Thanks!

      Too far left to be part of the base anymore.

      by Guinho on Tue Dec 21, 2010 at 11:06:58 AM PST

      [ Parent ]

      •  Wrong! (1+ / 0-)
        Recommended by:
        MixedContent

        Obama isn't a centrist. He serves every plutocratic interest: Wall Street, Big PhARMA, health insurance companies, Big Oil, the military-industrial complex and the telecom companies.

        There isn't a single time in his whole career that he sided with ordinary Americans against a major corporate interest.

        Obama stands with war profiteers, torturers, Wall Street, health insurance companies, Big PhARMA, Big Oil and Social Security-haters. Good at photo ops, though.

        by expatjourno on Tue Dec 21, 2010 at 11:27:38 AM PST

        [ Parent ]

    •  so I am purist (4+ / 0-)
      Recommended by:
      polecat, expatjourno, Jagger, MixedContent

      and you're just an ignorant sheep. Gee this label thing is easy.

      Bad is never good until worse happens

      by dark daze on Tue Dec 21, 2010 at 11:21:20 AM PST

      [ Parent ]

    •  Thanks for this (7+ / 0-)

      It is an important discussion.

      Everything is changing and must change with the times. I glad to see folks are having this conversation.

      I am especially happy to see some push back against those who seem determined to defeat all things leaning democratic as never enough.

      ~a little change goes a long way~

      by missliberties on Tue Dec 21, 2010 at 11:37:05 AM PST

      [ Parent ]

    •  Eclectablog? (2+ / 0-)
      Recommended by:
      abrauer, Eclectablog

      You don't say.  All this time I seriously did think it was "Electablog"....sorry....anyway, agree, like, recommend and going to visit Eclectablog now that I know that it is called that and not Electablog which didn't really appeal  

  •  you triangulate so well. (28+ / 0-)

    geat talking poinbts.

    You forgot the only adult in the room.

    Trumka: "Absolutely Insane" to Extend Tax Cuts for Millionaires

    by TomP on Tue Dec 21, 2010 at 09:12:25 AM PST

    •  P.S. The campaign (31+ / 0-)

      against the left will be remembered next year when you are aksing for votes, money and free work.

      Trumka: "Absolutely Insane" to Extend Tax Cuts for Millionaires

      by TomP on Tue Dec 21, 2010 at 09:13:55 AM PST

      [ Parent ]

      •  we will remember but (26+ / 0-)

        our memory will be crowded out by images of right wing neo-troglodytes in brown shirts trampling on the helpless if we do not support the Democrats with votes, money, and free work.

        fact does not require fiction for balance (proudly a DFH)

        by mollyd on Tue Dec 21, 2010 at 09:20:29 AM PST

        [ Parent ]

      •  this comment only makes sense (32+ / 0-)

        if "the left" is only represented by the people who take offense to this diary.

        as I didn't, it's not an attack on "the left", period.

        "At least when Bush was pulling shit, he was only destroying the Republican party." ~typed, apparently seriously, by Uberbah, 12/20/10

        by mallyroyal on Tue Dec 21, 2010 at 09:30:16 AM PST

        [ Parent ]

      •  Tom, as someone who considers himself to be on (21+ / 0-)

        the left, I would prefer that you be more precise with your language.  Everyone you feel tempted to say something about how betrayed "the left" feels, try to remember to modify "left" with "anti-Obama" as in "the campaign against the anti-Obama left will be remembered."

        "Hope 2010 feels a lot different than Hope 2008. Tougher, deeper, more dearly bought." Femlaw, Hope 2010, September 8, 2010.

        by seanwright on Tue Dec 21, 2010 at 09:32:40 AM PST

        [ Parent ]

        •  It was precise enough (9+ / 0-)

          If you support this administrations efforts over the last two years you may call yourself a progressive but you are not of the left. The left understands that the most important function it can serve is to, as a block, provide a counterweight to the massive forces pushing this country to the right.

          Sanctimonious, Self Satisfied, Liberal and Proud.

          by stevej on Tue Dec 21, 2010 at 09:37:33 AM PST

          [ Parent ]

          •  I guess I'm a a LION (13+ / 0-)

            liberal in only name.

            "Hope 2010 feels a lot different than Hope 2008. Tougher, deeper, more dearly bought." Femlaw, Hope 2010, September 8, 2010.

            by seanwright on Tue Dec 21, 2010 at 09:39:30 AM PST

            [ Parent ]

              •  Eclectablog you kill me (10+ / 0-)

                Happy holidays.

                Turn your face to the sun and the shadows fall behind you.

                by chicago minx on Tue Dec 21, 2010 at 10:03:32 AM PST

                [ Parent ]

              •  Actually both of you (4+ / 7-)

                are more like LOINs (Liberal Only In Name)-- and you act quite similar to that area of the body --which is to say you are neither especially liberal and certainly not progressive and if I told you what an actual left postion on most of the caca that Obama has been shoveling you'd all have fainting spells.

                Tomp is right, btw. Calling your base 'fucking retard' (or supporting the fucktard who did) and shoveling up a diary whose analytic weight could be tossed off the Empire state building and float to Kentucky before it hit ground doesn't really inspire confidence that you either

                a) Understand why those on the left are miffed or

                b) even care

                That's your bad. These diaries only add to a poisonous atmosphere that Obama's Clintonian failures have helped to create.

                •  If this wasn't my diary... (9+ / 0-)

                  ...I would HR you for:

                  ...both of you are more like LOINs (Liberal Only In Name)-- and you act quite similar to that area of the body...

                  WTF is it with the goddam personal attacks in this site lately??? FFS...

                  To be clear, it's "EClectablog", not "Electablog".
                  Visit me at Eclectablog. You could even click an ad!

                  by Eclectablog on Tue Dec 21, 2010 at 10:58:17 AM PST

                  [ Parent ]

                  •  Would you care to address my point (2+ / 0-)
                    Recommended by:
                    Brahman Colorado, MixedContent

                    or do you prefer acting offended by a clever acronym which actually keys into one of the major failings of those who have decided to wage war against the left base of the Democratic party?

                    They act like spoiled children who have mastered the language of adults (but understand none of the import) when they neither acknowledge analytically nor emotionally the true harm being done to the base by Obama's horrific compromises? Prefering instead glib attacks and veiled mockery that sounds like the kind of titillating conversation you would expect to hear from knee jerk Republicans confabbing over their fifth Scotch or martini with a cocktail weenie or two hanging out of their mouths?

                    That's how you lose the left, but showing neither intelligence, discernment or respect. When you elect to mock Tomp and other representatives from the left of the party you only damage Obama's possibilities that much more. And you convince those of us on the left that we really don't want you as an ally.

                    I'm trying not to be insulting actually -- I'm just pointing out how acting as many on this thread have acted will only damage the party that much more.

                    •  Why? So you can issue another personal... (4+ / 0-)
                      Recommended by:
                      fcvaguy, OIL GUY, Onomastic, FiredUpInCA
                      ...insult? Fuck that. If you think it's okay to to do that then we have nothing to talk about.

                      To be clear, it's "EClectablog", not "Electablog".
                      Visit me at Eclectablog. You could even click an ad!

                      by Eclectablog on Tue Dec 21, 2010 at 11:46:27 AM PST

                      [ Parent ]

                      •  How can someone (1+ / 0-)
                        Recommended by:
                        MixedContent

                        in politics be so thin skinned?

                        I don't know you, but I swear I would have assumed saying that someone is acting like a .... is pretty standard fare for political discourse. In this diary alone I saw someone call out a person as a douchebag --and they got 5 uprates.

                        What's the deal with acting so offended? Can't you understand that it's what you are acting like which is causing the problem? I'm sorry if I didn't choose the perfect way to phrase that, but I don't see  how you can hope to have a political discussion if someone tweaks you a bit and you freak out.

                      •  What's with the faux outrage? (2+ / 0-)
                        Recommended by:
                        MixedContent, HiddenHistories

                        You uprate LIONS, you create NALATS and then flip-out over LOINS?

                        Jeesus. Blind as a partisan bat.  

                        After all is said and done, a lot more is said than done.

                        by Brahman Colorado on Tue Dec 21, 2010 at 12:03:14 PM PST

                        [ Parent ]

                        •  The outrage (4+ / 0-)

                          is seeing you uprate an abusive personal attack.

                          It wasn't just LOINS.

                          Let's be specific about the offending comment:

                          are more like LOINs (Liberal Only In Name)-- and you act quite similar to that area of the body --

                          I don't know about your loins, but the only anatomy in the vicinity of my loins is my ass and my dick. So take your pick what Mr UID 286037 was inferring and to which you were uprating.

                        •  No, I am simply not going to... (2+ / 0-)
                          Recommended by:
                          Onomastic, FiredUpInCA
                          ...engage in a dialog with someone who just told me I'm acting like either a dick or an ass (depending one what they meant by "you act quite similar to that area of the body".)

                          That's not flipping out. More like flipping off, actually.

                          To be clear, it's "EClectablog", not "Electablog".
                          Visit me at Eclectablog. You could even click an ad!

                          by Eclectablog on Tue Dec 21, 2010 at 12:31:00 PM PST

                          [ Parent ]

                          •  Well that's sad (0+ / 0-)

                            Of course, at some point you'll need folks like me who are pissed off at Obama's cheap compromises. Let me give you some free advice, don't act like a ..... when you want to get our support.

                          •  Right (3+ / 0-)
                            Recommended by:
                            abrauer, Onomastic, FiredUpInCA

                            You show up on dKos a week ago and you're instructing ME how to act? That's rich. I've been here for years. My original UID was in the 32,000s.

                            To be clear, it's "EClectablog", not "Electablog".
                            Visit me at Eclectablog. You could even click an ad!

                            by Eclectablog on Tue Dec 21, 2010 at 03:06:50 PM PST

                            [ Parent ]

                          •  That's swell (1+ / 0-)
                            Recommended by:
                            Brahman Colorado

                            Eclectablog. Being a newbie doesn't mean I can't sense it when someone is acting like a ...

                            Now, all 7 or 8 of the Obama loyalists who you seem to inspire can come out and say fine things about you, but that's doesn't really change how you act.
                            Nor how people will interpret how you act.

                            But hey, that's your problem not mine. I'm sure we'll be discussing other issues soon and I'll try not to offend your heightened sense of propriety, and maybe you'll amend your behavior appropriately as well.

                          •  How exactly is that I was acting like a dick? (1+ / 0-)
                            Recommended by:
                            FiredUpInCA

                            You've never actually said.

                            To be clear, it's "EClectablog", not "Electablog".
                            Visit me at Eclectablog. You could even click an ad!

                            by Eclectablog on Tue Dec 21, 2010 at 03:56:28 PM PST

                            [ Parent ]

                          •  There's a real pecking order here based (1+ / 0-)
                            Recommended by:
                            HiddenHistories

                            on when one has arrived here at the Daily Kos. More enlightened and courageous individuals took the plunge 6,7 years ago. (or so that is my interprtation of the mythological caste system here) Those of us who have arrived much later couldn't possibly know anything or contribute effectively until one is vetted, so to speak.

                            These are the same type of personalities that make your first week of employment, school, business, etc. miserable for all the reasons that we despise as liberals. No they are not very egalitarian upon first impressions.

                            Obviously! Personality before Issues are their collective mantras and Karmas. Heaven forbid we address the issues. It is fascinating from a sociological perspective also.

                            So welcome to your first week on DKOS and remember that you have only run the gauntlet on the front line of META assholes. There are many others and many protocols and genuflects that are required from a newbie such as you.

                            Good Luck. You seem articulate and feisty enough to fit write in here Mr. UID # 286037 !!!!

                            After all is said and done, a lot more is said than done.

                            by Brahman Colorado on Tue Dec 21, 2010 at 07:03:37 PM PST

                            [ Parent ]

                          •  Thanks (1+ / 0-)
                            Recommended by:
                            Brahman Colorado

                            Brahman Colorado. I guess I'm feeling the love already :-)

                            Anyhow, I do appreciate you sticking up for the new guy who found himself inadvertantly in the trenches as it were . Cheers!

                          •  You overstate your necessity (2+ / 0-)
                            Recommended by:
                            Onomastic, Eclectablog

                            Well that's sad. Of course, at some point you'll need folks like me who are pissed off at Obama's cheap compromises. Let me give you some free advice, don't act like a ..... when you want to get our support.

                            The latest polling shows that it is not liberals that the President needs to win over, it's conservatives and independents. Non-Daily Kos liberals overwhelmingly support the President.

                            Daily Kos dead ender progressives are overwhelmingly lauded, recced, applauded and adored on Daily Kos. But the electorate in the real world is quite a different place from here and does not hold Daily Kos dead ender progressives in nearly as high regard. Your tribe does not speak for or shape the vast majority of the Democratic electorate.

                          •  You're just trying to win me over (0+ / 0-)

                            with flattery, aren't you?

                            You see, the problem with the Democratic party can be summed up in your post--referring to your base, the folks that get out, canvas, pollwatch, campaign  and donate (all of which I have done for Obama--probably more than you, frankly) as 'dead ender progressives' and 'your tribe' isn't really a very effective way of winning over hearts or minds. What you are really trying to do is intimate and silence.

                            That make me even less inclined to vote for your 'candidate', but, you know, it's a really good way to win a primary challenge. Imagine a canvassing operation in which  you begin by pointing out to the person who answers the door that all their concerns are foolish, that they have nothing to worry about because Obama is the best candidate imaginable despite the fact that the person has pointed out numerous problems with his actions and his policies and when that person continues to object, you tell him that he is a member of a tribe of dead ender 'ideologues' and you really don't care what he thinks because his help is not needed anyhow.

                            Yeah, that's going to win my vote for sure.

                          •  If you can't be won over (2+ / 0-)
                            Recommended by:
                            Onomastic, Eclectablog

                            why should anyone try? Democratic politics isn't for people who think they are doing the world's work by pushing a President to figuratively die on a hill clutching a veto pen and never compromise for a greater good. Others may be afraid to say it but I frankly am glad to lose the vote of some the horrible strategists on this site.

                          •  die on a hill (0+ / 0-)

                            clutching a veto pen?

                            Yeesh. That's one overwrought word salad. The only people dying on hills are soldiers in Afghanistan for a war that should have ended yesterday.

                            But I do think you hit on something when you write 'never compromises for the greater good'

                            That absolutely defines Obama. He has compromised his principles and his party's platform for the good of Wall Street, blue dogs and billionaires. He has never and apparently will never compromise for the 'greater good'....I couldn't have phrased it better myself.

                            Keep digging, mate. You'll get a primary challenge, yet.

                          •  Nobody is primarying this President (1+ / 0-)
                            Recommended by:
                            Eclectablog

                            You waste valuable energy even thinking someone would be that politically suicidal. This President's numbers have gone up since the midterms. Let me repeat that: his numbers have gone up. In this horrible economy, in the midst of two wars, with the party of no on one side and the faction of not enough on the other, his numbers have gone up.

                            You keep digging. You keep dreaming. Liberals have stuck by this President. His actual base has stayed steady. The African American portion of his base is not going to suddenly leap over to an Alan Grayson, Russ Feingold or whomever else you want to fantasize about.

                            The primarying conversation is completely debased as a plausible strategy going forward, but by all means, keep pushing for it because it gives you something much more gratifying than ending discrimination for pre-existing illness, the end to Don't Ask, Don't Tell, a Consumer Protection agency shaped by Elizabeth Warren.

                            You get Daily Kos cred.

                            Yay.

                  •  Gotcher back on this one, Baby!!! (6+ / 0-)

                    Cuz it ain't my diary and I have no compunction over HRing a personal attack which is against the DailyKos rules.

                    The beatings will continue until morale improves. -8.50, -6.92

                    by ferallike on Tue Dec 21, 2010 at 11:33:56 AM PST

                    [ Parent ]

                    •  Thank you (4+ / 0-)
                      Recommended by:
                      fcvaguy, ferallike, Onomastic, FiredUpInCA
                      This place can grind ya down lately.

                      To be clear, it's "EClectablog", not "Electablog".
                      Visit me at Eclectablog. You could even click an ad!

                      by Eclectablog on Tue Dec 21, 2010 at 12:16:58 PM PST

                      [ Parent ]

                      •  I know how you feel, honey (3+ / 0-)
                        Recommended by:
                        Onomastic, Eclectablog, FiredUpInCA

                        but don't let it get to you. As I pointed out to othersexpressing the same feelings in Kyril's diary last night

                        We have a choice to stay and fight
                        this nonsense or go. As I mentioned in an email to another poster about this issue: The crazies are overtaking the asylum here and we need all the help we can get to restore order.

                        My explanation for this was also posted there

                        Dont even engage them.
                        It's time we all realize that some people need need need to feel like the underdog and they will fight even with the people they are most dependent on. I am a psychologist and this is basic hostile dependency behavior that's why I don't engage them. The only way to stop their behavior is to not give them the reaction they need to fuel this negative behavior pattern.

                        Which was supported by another estimable psychologist:

                        I am also a psychologist fera and I agree with your assessment.

                        by wishingwell on Tue Dec 21, 2010 at 05:01:26 AM EST

                        Your diaries help a great deal to restore sensibilities here to counter those who claim those that claim Obama is an evil, lying, weak kneed Blue Dog/ Republican owned by Wall Street/ AHIP/Corporations who hates his base. And this one is definitely one of the best toward debasing that psychotic based rationale floating around here.  

                        The beatings will continue until morale improves. -8.50, -6.92

                        by ferallike on Tue Dec 21, 2010 at 12:38:14 PM PST

                        [ Parent ]

                  •  When the attacks get personal it signals all (5+ / 0-)

                    legitimate response has dried up. Take it as a concession.

                    Hannity's America is just South of Sanity.

                    by DWKING on Tue Dec 21, 2010 at 12:07:31 PM PST

                    [ Parent ]

                  •  Please allow me. n/t (4+ / 0-)

                    The liberals always get discouraged when they do not see the measures they are interested in go through immediately. - Eleanor Roosevelt

                    by OIL GUY on Tue Dec 21, 2010 at 12:11:39 PM PST

                    [ Parent ]

                •  Uprated. No more insulting than the diary. n/t (2+ / 0-)
                  Recommended by:
                  Jagger, HiddenHistories

                  Obama stands with war profiteers, torturers, Wall Street, health insurance companies, Big PhARMA, Big Oil and Social Security-haters. Good at photo ops, though.

                  by expatjourno on Tue Dec 21, 2010 at 11:35:56 AM PST

                  [ Parent ]

                •  What a hoot. (7+ / 0-)

                  Diaries that don't rant against a  Democratic president on this blog creates a "poisonous atmosphere".  And down is up.  Merry Christmas.

                   

                  "Armageddon was yesterday. Today we have a serious problem."

                  by Lying eyes on Tue Dec 21, 2010 at 11:41:00 AM PST

                  [ Parent ]

                  •  What I wrote was (0+ / 0-)

                    These diaries only add to a poisonous atmosphere that Obama's Clintonian failures have helped to create

                    You seem to have misunderstood what I wrote. Let's take a look at the words in the comment...very slowly....

                    Obama's Clintonian failures created the poisonous atmosphere. Diaries that defend him without acknowledging the harm that was caused add to that poisonous atmosphere.

                    Let me know if that's not clear enough for you.

                •  I don't get it. (0+ / 0-)

                  Acting like loins?  Isn't that the sexy parts?  Thanks, I guess.

                  "Hope 2010 feels a lot different than Hope 2008. Tougher, deeper, more dearly bought." Femlaw, Hope 2010, September 8, 2010.

                  by seanwright on Tue Dec 21, 2010 at 05:35:11 PM PST

                  [ Parent ]

              •  That means we can't wear white, right? (2+ / 0-)
                Recommended by:
                Onomastic, Eclectablog

                Hannity's America is just South of Sanity.

                by DWKING on Tue Dec 21, 2010 at 12:04:45 PM PST

                [ Parent ]

          •  Well that's about 80% of the left (19+ / 0-)

            that you've just wished away. According to most polls.

            LOOK IT! I WROTE A COMMENT ON BIG ORANGE SEXY TIME!!!!

            by Mark Warner is God on Tue Dec 21, 2010 at 09:42:56 AM PST

            [ Parent ]

          •  you do your sig proud every time you post. (8+ / 0-)

            "At least when Bush was pulling shit, he was only destroying the Republican party." ~typed, apparently seriously, by Uberbah, 12/20/10

            by mallyroyal on Tue Dec 21, 2010 at 09:43:24 AM PST

            [ Parent ]

          •  Frankly, your efforts to claim sole ownership (20+ / 0-)

            of any term is disturbing and your argument illogical.

            How is a liberal, NOT on the left of the spectrum.

            It's comments like yours that give credence to  Carpenter's analysis.

            "I get up, I walk, I fall down. Meanwhile, I keep dancing." Daniel Hillel

            by Onomastic on Tue Dec 21, 2010 at 10:19:44 AM PST

            [ Parent ]

          •  There's left, and there's left (18+ / 0-)

            If you are going to tell me I'm not a true liberal if I still like Obama, I am going to tell you to go to blazes. Self-righteousness sucks regardless of your politics.

            In theory, there is no difference between theory and practice; but in practice, there always is a difference. - Yogi Berra

            by blue aardvark on Tue Dec 21, 2010 at 10:38:56 AM PST

            [ Parent ]

            •  After supporting every one of Bush's abuses of... (3+ / 0-)
              Recommended by:
              Jagger, MixedContent, HiddenHistories

              ...power in court, plus Bush's disastrous wars, plus his tax policy, Obama is quite obviously very far right of center, however much he pretends to be otherwise.

              You could still be a liberal, but only of you are what is known in the trade as a low-information voter.

              Obama stands with war profiteers, torturers, Wall Street, health insurance companies, Big PhARMA, Big Oil and Social Security-haters. Good at photo ops, though.

              by expatjourno on Tue Dec 21, 2010 at 11:39:43 AM PST

              [ Parent ]

              •  Go to blazes, then (8+ / 0-)

                I know who I am. You have no idea.

                In theory, there is no difference between theory and practice; but in practice, there always is a difference. - Yogi Berra

                by blue aardvark on Tue Dec 21, 2010 at 12:22:53 PM PST

                [ Parent ]

                •  Maybe you do. But you don't know what... (1+ / 0-)
                  Recommended by:
                  HiddenHistories

                  ...a liberal is.

                  Obama stands with war profiteers, torturers, Wall Street, health insurance companies, Big PhARMA, Big Oil and Social Security-haters. Good at photo ops, though.

                  by expatjourno on Tue Dec 21, 2010 at 12:31:17 PM PST

                  [ Parent ]

                  •  Maybe. (6+ / 0-)

                    Last time I checked, though, liberals were open minded.

                    In theory, there is no difference between theory and practice; but in practice, there always is a difference. - Yogi Berra

                    by blue aardvark on Tue Dec 21, 2010 at 12:40:01 PM PST

                    [ Parent ]

                    •  checkmate. (5+ / 0-)

                      "At least when Bush was pulling shit, he was only destroying the Republican party." ~typed, apparently seriously, by Uberbah, 12/20/10

                      by mallyroyal on Tue Dec 21, 2010 at 01:33:42 PM PST

                      [ Parent ]

                    •  And last time I checked, they didn't support... (2+ / 0-)
                      Recommended by:
                      MixedContent, HiddenHistories

                      ...endless war, trampling on the Constitution, caving to every big business group, bowing to the Chamber of Commerce, dissing unions, tax cuts for the rich or eviscerating Social Security -- or presidents who do.

                      But you, with your issue-free support of Obama, you go right ahead and keep calling yourself a liberal if it makes you feel better.

                      Obama stands with war profiteers, torturers, Wall Street, health insurance companies, Big PhARMA, Big Oil and Social Security-haters. Good at photo ops, though.

                      by expatjourno on Tue Dec 21, 2010 at 01:34:31 PM PST

                      [ Parent ]

                      •  Keep listing your issues (4+ / 0-)
                        Recommended by:
                        kat68, Onomastic, Eclectablog, FiredUpInCA

                        Your extreme rhetoric doesn't persuade, it just illuminates your lack of knowledge.

                        In theory, there is no difference between theory and practice; but in practice, there always is a difference. - Yogi Berra

                        by blue aardvark on Tue Dec 21, 2010 at 01:36:10 PM PST

                        [ Parent ]

                        •  Those are facts. Extremely difficult for you... (1+ / 0-)
                          Recommended by:
                          MixedContent

                          ...to refute, but that's the only extreme thing about them.

                          Obama stands with war profiteers, torturers, Wall Street, health insurance companies, Big PhARMA, Big Oil and Social Security-haters. Good at photo ops, though.

                          by expatjourno on Tue Dec 21, 2010 at 01:38:23 PM PST

                          [ Parent ]

                          •  You don't even have the capacity to understand (4+ / 0-)

                            your lack of understanding.

                            In theory, there is no difference between theory and practice; but in practice, there always is a difference. - Yogi Berra

                            by blue aardvark on Tue Dec 21, 2010 at 01:44:04 PM PST

                            [ Parent ]

                          •  The facts are not on your side. (1+ / 0-)
                            Recommended by:
                            MixedContent

                            Not on Afghanistan escalation, not on expanding war into Pakistan, not on state secrets, not on habeas corpus, not on presidentially ordered assassinations, not on imprisonment without trial, not on reimportation of prescription drugs, not on health insurance "reform," not on offshore drilling permits (notably BP's), not on dispersants, not on defense procurement, not on income tax cuts for the rich, not on payroll tax cuts, not on raising taxes on people earning under 20,000 a year, not on anything.

                            But then, it is unsurprising that someone as ignorant as you are is so steadfast in his opinions. It's usually that way.

                            Get back to me when you know the facts.

                            Obama stands with war profiteers, torturers, Wall Street, health insurance companies, Big PhARMA, Big Oil and Social Security-haters. Good at photo ops, though.

                            by expatjourno on Tue Dec 21, 2010 at 02:03:33 PM PST

                            [ Parent ]

                      •  And last time I check, Obama didn't support (2+ / 0-)
                        Recommended by:
                        Onomastic, Eclectablog

                        endless war, trampling on the Constitution, caving to every big business group, bowing to the Chamber of Commerce, dissing unions, tax cust for the rich or eviscerating Social Security.

                        But you, with your substance free opposition to Obama, you go right ahead and keep making lists of what "real liberals" think Obama has done, if it makes you feel better.

                        "Hope 2010 feels a lot different than Hope 2008. Tougher, deeper, more dearly bought." Femlaw, Hope 2010, September 8, 2010.

                        by seanwright on Tue Dec 21, 2010 at 06:04:59 PM PST

                        [ Parent ]

                        •  Then you didn't check very carefully. (0+ / 0-)

                          Which certainly is no surprise. Check again. And get back to me when you have the facts.

                          You can start here.

                          Obama stands with war profiteers, torturers, Wall Street, health insurance companies, Big PhARMA, Big Oil and Social Security-haters. Good at photo ops, though.

                          by expatjourno on Tue Dec 21, 2010 at 10:22:17 PM PST

                          [ Parent ]

                          •  It's amusing the way you keep using the word (0+ / 0-)

                            "facts" to describe your lists of unsupported assertions.  It's even more amusing is that your link to the supposed beginning of my education is just another of those vacuous lists.

                            If you really want to educate yourself on those topics, here are some links to some substantive comments and diaries that I've written:

                            Healthcare reform: diaries here, here, here, and here.

                            And if you want to understand the "assassination" issue better, read this thread here, the entire thing, and I think you'll learn quite a bit.

                            In this thread I give a pretty good explanation of the "state secrets" issue.

                            Okay, I know you had more stuff on your list, but I think this is enough reading for you for now.  Read these and let me know if you have any questions.

                            "Hope 2010 feels a lot different than Hope 2008. Tougher, deeper, more dearly bought." Femlaw, Hope 2010, September 8, 2010.

                            by seanwright on Tue Dec 21, 2010 at 11:16:47 PM PST

                            [ Parent ]

                          •  I read your cheerleading for health insurance... (1+ / 0-)
                            Recommended by:
                            MixedContent

                            ...reform. Argued like a health insurance company lobbyist. Ignoring all of the giveaways like prohibiting drug reimportation from Canada. To say nothing of making sure that the U.S. health care system remains the most profitable, expensive and inefficient health care system on the planet.

                            When it comes to assassinations, I read your circular, Rush Limbaugh-esque arguments in favor of trampling on Constitutional rights. You really belong on Red State with that one. In fact, you would have been at home in the Pinochet Government. State assassins and torturers always claim they are doing it for national security.

                            In the case of state secrets, you seem blissfully unaware that the Obama Administration has argued that they don't even need to let a judge review the evidence. Newsflash: A right is not a right if it cannot be enforced. And the Obama Administration argues that it can prevent any evidence it chooses from being introduced on its say-so alone. That means that Constitutional protections exist only at the pleasure of the president.

                            Obama stands with war profiteers, torturers, Wall Street, health insurance companies, Big PhARMA, Big Oil and Social Security-haters. Good at photo ops, though.

                            by expatjourno on Tue Dec 21, 2010 at 11:44:16 PM PST

                            [ Parent ]

                          •  Amazing. Massive expansion of Medicaid, 10s of (0+ / 0-)

                            billions in subsidies to low and middle income families and comprehensive regulation of health insurance for the first time means nothing because we didn't get drug re-importation.  It seems like you are constitutionally incapable of seeing anything but the ways that reform falls short of your utopian ideals. I think "progressives" like you who can't appreciate the progress that is made by a progressive president are at least as big an obstacle to progress as people who are actively opposed to progress.

                            As far as your "arguments" respecting assassination comparing me to Limbaugh and Obama to Pinochet pretty much says it all. You don't understand the issues and aren't interested in learning. I only argue with you for the benefit of other people who might read this and find the information useful.

                            "Hope 2010 feels a lot different than Hope 2008. Tougher, deeper, more dearly bought." Femlaw, Hope 2010, September 8, 2010.

                            by seanwright on Wed Dec 22, 2010 at 05:08:09 AM PST

                            [ Parent ]

                          •  A massive giveaway to cement the world's... (1+ / 0-)
                            Recommended by:
                            MixedContent

                            ...most expensive, most inefficient health care system in place. A massive taxpayer subsidy to corporations (health insurance companies) that add no economic value and that guarantees their profits in perpetuity. Tax-subsidized premiums mean that health insurance company profits are created by tax money.

                            It's not "utopian" to demand something better than that. Even the Swiss and the Dutch systems, which base their health insurance on private health insurance companies, are the most expensive in Europe. And that's with non-profit health insurance companies that are much more tightly regulated than U.S. companies ever will be.

                            And did it ever fucking occur to you that many of the regulations will be administered by agencies that will as soon as 2013 be enforced (or not) by a Republican Administration? No it did not. And did it occur to you that a half-Republican Congress is going to have to fund this taxpayer subsidy? Let's see how that works out.

                            Every other developed country in the world had a better system than the U.S. system before the health insurance "reform" passed. And guess what, genius, they still do. And quite a few Third World countries do as well. Obama's strategy was a failure, and his result is a failure at doing anything but funneling taxpayer dollars into executive bonuses.

                            Do you know what the word "Utopia" comes from? What it's derivation is? It means no-place. Well, genius, more effective, less expensive health care systems aren't "utopian" when they exist not in the imagination but all over the world.

                            Progressive president, my hairy ass. No corporations were even inconvenienced by this Potemkin "reform." Profits guaranteed by taxpayer dollars.

                            And what you, genius, also miss about Obama's claims of assassination powers is that his same arguments allow him to order the assassination of Julian Assange. Or Kos. Or you.  You already have the vice president calling Assange a "high-tech terrorist." Think Obama disagrees? So no, genius, you don't understand the first thing about the issue. Pinochet and Limbaugh would love you.

                            As for state secrets, you have no fucking answer for that, do you, my fact-challenged friend? No judicial review means you have no way to enforce any of your rights unless Obama permits you to. That's despotism, not a "progressive president."

                            So save your OFA talking points for someone who's stupid enough to believe them

                            Obama stands with war profiteers, torturers, Wall Street, health insurance companies, Big PhARMA, Big Oil and Social Security-haters. Good at photo ops, though.

                            by expatjourno on Wed Dec 22, 2010 at 07:20:36 AM PST

                            [ Parent ]

                          •  I actually used the word Utopian advisedly. (1+ / 0-)
                            Recommended by:
                            MixedContent

                            I was a literary studies major and studied Thomas More's Utopia in school (Thomas More coined the word.)

                            The utopian aspect of your healtcare wishes is the speed with which you think this country can change.  If you suddenly changed us from our present system to Medicare for all do you have any idea of the economic displacement that would cause?  None of the European systems you refer to were the product of such a sudden radical shift.  President Obama wrang all of the change out of our healthcare system that our political system will bear and the framework created by reform is something that can be built upon.

                            A nation this big and diverse that can remake itself with the speed you desire does not exist and never has, therefore utopian.

                            And with every word you say about assassination and state secrets it becomes more clear to me you don't understand either issue.  

                            The whole assassination kerfuffle grew out of the inclusion of anwar al wake, a member of al Qaeda fighting the US on the Arabian Peninsula, on a capture or kill list.  The legal basis for pursuing him, the AUMF, does not place me, or kos or even Mr. Assange in jeopardy.

                            With respect to state secrets, it is an urban myth that all the president has to do is say "state secrets" and all judicial process is extinguished.  When state secrets are invoked, the court conducts an in camera review of the classified material for which the privilege is invoked.

                            Ascot happens, I have concerns about both the targeted killing and state secrets policies.  However, the attacks from the left on the administration regarding these issues are so hyperbolic and factually challenged that I frequently feel the need to defend the policies.

                            "Hope 2010 feels a lot different than Hope 2008. Tougher, deeper, more dearly bought." Femlaw, Hope 2010, September 8, 2010.

                            by seanwright on Wed Dec 22, 2010 at 08:00:46 AM PST

                            [ Parent ]

                          •  In case to think I have some bizarre form of (1+ / 0-)
                            Recommended by:
                            expatjourno

                            dyslexia "ascot" was supposed to be "as it". I'm writing on my iPhone and get some weird autocorrects.

                            "Hope 2010 feels a lot different than Hope 2008. Tougher, deeper, more dearly bought." Femlaw, Hope 2010, September 8, 2010.

                            by seanwright on Wed Dec 22, 2010 at 08:14:12 AM PST

                            [ Parent ]

                          •  This is false: (1+ / 0-)
                            Recommended by:
                            MixedContent

                            I was a literary studies major and studied Thomas More's Utopia in school (Thomas More coined the word.)

                            Well, then maybe you're not such a bad person. I was an English major.

                            If you suddenly changed us from our present system to Medicare for all do you have any idea of the economic displacement that would cause?

                            Strawman. Many of the most important aspects of health insurance "reform" don't go into effect until 2014. Nothing would prevent a gradual transition to a better system, starting with, for example, Medicare for kids or gradually lowering the eligibility age. This is not a transition to a better system. This is a cementing and expansion of the existing, bad system, now with taxpayer subsidies. Not everything is bad. There are some positives. But overall, no. A step in the wrong direction.

                            President Obama wrang all of the change out of our healthcare system that our political system will bear...

                            That's just bullshit. Obama cut his back room deals from the beginning, as has been well documented. He continued to praise people like Chuck Grassley who said there would be death panels. Obama is quite persuasive when he wants to be. He got the bill he wanted. I didn't realize that Mitt Romney and Bob Dole were progressives and that the Heritage Foundation is a progressive think tank.

                            ...and the framework created by reform is something that can be built upon.

                            And this is the biggest misconception about the whole thing. The history of the past 40 years has been more of de-regulation, regulatory capture and larceny -- savings and loans, derivatives, commodities, Glass-Steagall, etc -- than it has been of strengthening reforms. Under a Republican administration, you can be sure that the definition of what constitutes "medical loss" will be interpreted and reinterpreted to include anything the health insurance companies want.

                            Moreover, it further cements into place the world's most inefficient health care delivery system by centering it on private health insurance companies, which add no value for the 30% they rake off.

                            This remains the world's least progressive, most corporate-friendly health care delivery system. It is a triumph for Bob-Dole-type Republicans.

                            With respect to state secrets, it is an urban myth that all the president has to do is say "state secrets" and all judicial process is extinguished.  When state secrets are invoked, the court conducts an in camera review of the classified material for which the privilege is invoked.

                            That is not at all what the administration has argued in the wiretapping case. The more relevant term may be "sovereign immunity," though. I'd have to go deeper into the filings. In any case, no in camera review. No nothing. You are just misinformed. The government's filing is here.

                            AUMF would certainly cover Julian Assange for releasing documents relating to military action that is ostensibly against Al Qaeda in Iraq and Afghanistan. So you don't seem to understand that issue very well, either.

                            The trouble with you is that you are simply swallowing the WH spin whole and not looking three steps ahead.

                            You're doing great for someone writing on a phone, though!

                            All the best to you and yours for the holidays. I'm going to try to step away from the keyboard (a little bit, anyway)  see if I can get this stuff off my mind for the holidays. I don't think we are going to change each other's minds. It's been fun, though.

                            Obama stands with war profiteers, torturers, Wall Street, health insurance companies, Big PhARMA, Big Oil and Social Security-haters. Good at photo ops, though.

                            by expatjourno on Wed Dec 22, 2010 at 10:42:28 AM PST

                            [ Parent ]

                          •  I added a paragraph at the top, so my subject... (1+ / 0-)
                            Recommended by:
                            seanwright

                            ...line no longer makes sense. I believe you were a literary studies major. I hate it when I don't preview carefully enough.

                            Obama stands with war profiteers, torturers, Wall Street, health insurance companies, Big PhARMA, Big Oil and Social Security-haters. Good at photo ops, though.

                            by expatjourno on Wed Dec 22, 2010 at 10:44:48 AM PST

                            [ Parent ]

                          •  I know that it is completely ridiculous for me to (1+ / 0-)
                            Recommended by:
                            expatjourno

                            be replying to you yet again so long after your last response to me, but I couldn't provide the link and quotes I wanted to on my iphone.

                            The case I was thinking of regarding state secrets was Jeppesen which you'll find here.  In it, the en banc panel of the 9th Cir. said the following about the standards it uses to evaluate claims of state secret privilege and its application to that case:

                            When the privilege has been properly invoked, "we must make an independent determination whether the information is privileged." Al-Haramain, 507 F.3d at 1202. The court must sustain a claim of privilege when it is satisfied, "from all the circumstances of the case, that there is a reasonable danger that compulsion of the evidence will expose ... matters which, in the interest of national security, should not be divulged." Reynolds, 345 U.S. at 10, 73 S.Ct. 528. If this standard is met, the evidence is absolutely privileged, irrespective of the plaintiffs' countervailing need for it. See id. at 11, 73 S.Ct. 528 ("[E]ven the most compelling necessity cannot overcome the claim of privilege if the court is ultimately satisfied that [state] secrets are at stake."); Halkin, 690 F.2d at 990.

                            This step in the Reynolds analysis "places on the court a special burden to assure itself that an appropriate balance is struck between protecting national security matters and preserving an open court system." Al-Haramain, 507 F.3d at 1203. In evaluating the need for secrecy, "we acknowledge the need to defer to the Executive on matters of foreign policy and 1082*1082 national security and surely cannot legitimately find ourselves second guessing the Executive in this arena." Id. But "the state secrets doctrine does not represent a surrender of judicial control over access to the courts." El-Masri, 479 F.3d at 312. Rather, "to ensure that the state secrets privilege is asserted no more frequently and sweepingly than necessary, it is essential that the courts continue critically to examine instances of its invocation." Ellsberg, 709 F.2d at 58. "We take very seriously our obligation to review the[government's claims] with a very careful, indeed a skeptical, eye, and not to accept at face value the government's claim or justification of privilege," Al-Haramain, 507 F.3d at 1203, though we must "do so without forcing a disclosure of the very thing the privilege is designed to protect.... Too much judicial inquiry into the claim of privilege would force disclosure of the thing the privilege was meant to protect, while a complete abandonment of judicial control would lead to intolerable abuses." Reynolds, 345 U.S. at 8, 73 S.Ct. 528.

                            We do not offer a detailed definition of what constitutes a state secret. The Supreme Court in Reynolds found it sufficient to say that the privilege covers "matters which, in the interest of national security, should not be divulged." Id. at 10, 73 S.Ct. 528. We do note, however, that an executive decision to classify information is insufficient to establish that the information is privileged. See Ellsberg, 709 F.2d at 57 ("[T]he privilege may not be used to shield any material not strictly necessary to prevent injury to national security."). Although classification may be an indication of the need for secrecy, treating it as conclusive would trivialize the court's role, which the Supreme Court has clearly admonished "cannot be abdicated to the caprice of executive officers." Reynolds, 345 U.S. at 9-10, 73 S.Ct. 528.

                            [snip]

                            We have thoroughly and critically reviewed the government's public and classified declarations and are convinced that at least some of the matters it seeks to protect from disclosure in this litigation are valid state secrets, "which, in the interest of national security, should not be divulged." Reynolds, 345 U.S. at 10, 73 S.Ct. 528. The government's classified disclosures to the court are persuasive that compelled or inadvertent disclosure of such information in the course of litigation would seriously harm legitimate national security interests. In fact, every judge who has reviewed the government's formal, classified claim of privilege in this case agrees that in this sense the claim of privilege is proper, although we have different views as to the scope of the privilege and its impact on plaintiffs' case. The plaintiffs themselves "do not dispute that, during the course of litigation, there may well be relevant evidence that may be properly withheld pursuant to the privilege." Br. of Plaintiffs-Appellants 26. See El-Masri, 479 F.3d at 308-13 (affirming the dismissal of a case involving essentially the same types of claims on the basis of the states secrets doctrine).

                            We are precluded from explaining precisely which matters the privilege covers lest we jeopardize the secrets we are bound to protect. See Black, 62 F.3d at 1119 ("Care in protecting state secrets is necessary not only during a court's review of the evidence, but in its subsequent treatment of the question in any holding; a properly phrased opinion should not strip the veil from state secrets even if ambiguity results in a loss of focus and clarity."). We can say, however, that the secrets fall within one or more of the four categories identified by the government and that we have independently and critically confirmed that their disclosure could be expected to cause significant harm to national security.

                            [snip]

                            Although we are necessarily precluded from explaining precisely why this case cannot be litigated without risking disclosure of state secrets, or the nature of the harm to national security that we are convinced would result from further litigation, we are able to offer a few observations.

                            First, we recognize that plaintiffs have proffered hundreds of pages of publicly available documents, many catalogued in the dissent's Appendix, that they say corroborate some of their allegations concerning 1090*1090 Jeppesen's alleged participation in aspects of the extraordinary rendition program. As the government has acknowledged, its claim of privilege does not extend to public documents. Accordingly, we do not hold that any of the documents plaintiffs have submitted are subject to the privilege; rather, we conclude that even assuming plaintiffs could establish their entire case solely through nonprivileged evidence—unlikely as that may be— any effort by Jeppesen to defend would unjustifiably risk disclosure of state secrets. Cf. El-Masri, 479 F.3d at 309 (concluding that "virtually any conceivable response [by government defendants to claims based on factual allegations materially identical to this case's] ... would disclose privileged information").

                            Second, we do not hold that the existence of the extraordinary rendition program is itself a state secret. The program has been publicly acknowledged by numerous government officials including the President of the United States. Even if its mere existence may once have been a "matter[] which, in the interest of national security, should not be divulged," it is not a state secret now. Reynolds, 345 U.S. at 10, 73 S.Ct. 528; cf. Al-Haramain, 507 F.3d at 1193 (concluding "[i]n light of extensive government disclosures" that a warrantless wiretapping program was not a matter of state secret). Nonetheless, partial disclosure of the existence and even some aspects of the extraordinary rendition program does not preclude other details from remaining state secrets if their disclosure would risk grave harm to national security. See Al-Haramain, 507 F.3d at 1203 (concluding that some undisclosed details of the wiretapping program were entitled to protection under the state secrets privilege); Halkin, 690 F.2d at 994 ("We reject, as we have previously, the theory that `because some information about the project ostensibly is now in the public domain, nothing about the project in which the appellants have expressed an interest can properly remain classified' or otherwise privileged from disclosure." (quoting Military Audit Project v. Casey, 656 F.2d 724, 752(D.C.Cir.1981))); see also Bareford, 973 F.2d at 1144 (explaining that in some circumstances, "disclosure of information by government officials can be prejudicial to government interests, even if the information has already been divulged from non-government sources").

                            Third, we acknowledge the government's certification at oral argument that its assertion of the state secrets privilege comports with the revised standards set forth in the current administration's September 23, 2009 memorandum, adopted several years after the government first invoked the privilege in this case. Those standards require the responsible agency to show that "assertion of the privilege is necessary to protect information the unauthorized disclosure of which reasonably could be expected to cause significant harm to the national defense or foreign relations." Holder Memo, supra, at 1. They also mandate that the Department of Justice "will not defend an invocation of the privilege in order to: (i) conceal violations of the law, inefficiency, or administrative error; (ii) prevent embarrassment to a person, organization, or agency of the United States government; (iii) restrain competition; or (iv) prevent or delay the release of information the release of which would not reasonably be expected to cause significant harm to national security." Id. at 2. That certification here is consistent with our independent conclusion, having reviewed the government's public and classified declarations, that the government is not invoking the privilege to avoid embarrassment or to escape scrutiny of its recent controversial transfer and interrogation policies, rather than to protect legitimate national security concerns.

                            "Hope 2010 feels a lot different than Hope 2008. Tougher, deeper, more dearly bought." Femlaw, Hope 2010, September 8, 2010.

                            by seanwright on Thu Dec 23, 2010 at 12:09:16 AM PST

                            [ Parent ]

              •  Obama obviously hasn't supported Bush's abuses of (1+ / 0-)
                Recommended by:
                Onomastic

                ... power in court, nor Bush's disastrous wars, nor his tax policy, Obama is quite obviously left of center, however much you pretend otherwise.

                You may consider yourself a libera, but only what is known in the trade as the knee-jerk variety.

                "Hope 2010 feels a lot different than Hope 2008. Tougher, deeper, more dearly bought." Femlaw, Hope 2010, September 8, 2010.

                by seanwright on Tue Dec 21, 2010 at 06:01:02 PM PST

                [ Parent ]

                •  You are sadly misinformed. (1+ / 0-)
                  Recommended by:
                  MixedContent

                  He has supported Bush positions on, among other things, warrantless wiretapping, state secrets and habeas corpus in court. That's a fact.

                  He has escalated Bush's war in Vietnam Afghanistan and expanded it into Cambodia Pakistan, with plans to expand it further. That, too, is a fact.

                  And he not only renewed the Bush tax cuts just now, he expanded them for the wealthy with an even lower estate tax, undermined Social Security by lowering the payroll tax, and raised taxes on people earning less than 20,000 dollars a year. That, too, is a fact.

                  You are the one who is pretending Obama is something that he's not. Must be comforting to love in your fantasy world.

                  Obama stands with war profiteers, torturers, Wall Street, health insurance companies, Big PhARMA, Big Oil and Social Security-haters. Good at photo ops, though.

                  by expatjourno on Tue Dec 21, 2010 at 10:43:29 PM PST

                  [ Parent ]

                  •  I address state secrets in my other response (0+ / 0-)

                    Obama has actually done a lot to strengthen habeus corpus rights as President.  Warrantless wiretapping?  I haven't heard a whole lot about that being an issue.

                    Afghanistan?  A temporary increase in troops as part of a broader strategy for withdrawal with a new timetable for withdrawal, coupled with ending the war in Iraq, which you conveniently leave out.

                    The notion that a slight temporary reduction in payroll tax undermines social security is hysterical hyperventilation with no basis in reality. Taxes aren't being raised on people making less than 20,000, they are being cut. However, people making less than 20,000 are losing some of the more generous tax credits that Obama gave them as part of the stimulous.  You could just as easily say Obama is raising taxes on the wealthy because the estate tax is being reintroduced next year.  It's a bs talking point.  And cutting taxes for the wealthy is an unfortunate but necessary compromise given the Republicans new power.

                    The bottom line is that your so-called facts are flimsy talking points.

                    "Hope 2010 feels a lot different than Hope 2008. Tougher, deeper, more dearly bought." Femlaw, Hope 2010, September 8, 2010.

                    by seanwright on Tue Dec 21, 2010 at 11:29:10 PM PST

                    [ Parent ]

                    •  It's hard to justify cutting a program... (0+ / 0-)

                      ...that has its own balance sheet, and its own board of trustees bound by law to insure that, at any moment in time, its financial solvency is credibly assured for the next 75 years.  And whose funding has always been kept very explicitly separate from the general fund.

                      If you start mucking about with Social Security's self-funded status, you make it much easier to tell lies about how necessary it is to cut its benefits, and to obscure the fact that this amounts to stealing the extra taxes that working people have been paying to insure its actuarial soundness for all these years.

                      And don't for a second let yourself believe that there aren't ravenous wolves, in sharp suits and ties, drooling at the prospect of cutting the throat of Social Security.  As Ben Bernanke said a few months ago, quoting the bank robber Willie Sutton, "That's where the money is."

          •  The language of arrogance (16+ / 0-)
            If you support this administrations efforts over the last two years you may call yourself a progressive but you are not of the left.

            You get to define the terms and then you get to decide who "may" use them? I, for one, will not give you that power over me or others.

            •  A - Freakin'- men Neighbor!!!! (5+ / 0-)

              No one gets to tell me or anyone else how to define themselves politically, socially or otherwise.

              I am a proud Liberal Progressive. I revel in labeling myself with the term "Liberal" while placing it out in front of "Progressive." And because I won't allow the Republicans to besmirch Liberalism anymore, I certainly wont allow stevej to decide if I belong to his little version of who should join his cliquish, elitist crowd by what he defines to be Progressive.

              Why is this starting to feel like I'm at McLean High School all over again?

              The beatings will continue until morale improves. -8.50, -6.92

              by ferallike on Tue Dec 21, 2010 at 11:49:26 AM PST

              [ Parent ]

        •  Criticism of Obama (1+ / 0-)
          Recommended by:
          Southside

          should not be confused with an organized opposition effort. Spin such as which you are propounding here should also not be confused with "political analysis."

      •  it the end it is the lesser of two weevils (2+ / 0-)
        Recommended by:
        expatjourno, Borg Warner

        fact does not require fiction for balance (proudly a DFH)

        by mollyd on Tue Dec 21, 2010 at 09:34:53 AM PST

        [ Parent ]

      •  Against the left? (16+ / 0-)

        Wow.  Talk about delusions of persecution.

        Seek help.

        Stop clapping. Stop screaming. Open your mind. Listen.

        by Benintn on Tue Dec 21, 2010 at 09:35:47 AM PST

        [ Parent ]

      •  Wow TomP, everybody is out to get you, huh? nt (7+ / 0-)
      •  In the meantime the RWNM will (6+ / 0-)

        as always be in perfect harmony.

        Where's the baby, TomP? Out there with the bath water? Well, at least you got rid of that tepid bath water.

        In theory, there is no difference between theory and practice; but in practice, there always is a difference. - Yogi Berra

        by blue aardvark on Tue Dec 21, 2010 at 10:37:18 AM PST

        [ Parent ]

      •  Tom, there is no campaign against 'the left'. (6+ / 0-)

        There is a campaign against the 'Professional Left', at most. And that is also, maybe mostly, waged by parts of the left.

        He who can make you believe absurdities, can make you commit atrocities.

        by Sophie Amrain on Tue Dec 21, 2010 at 10:39:21 AM PST

        [ Parent ]

        •  the hell you say (1+ / 0-)
          Recommended by:
          expatjourno

          I'm hardly professional left, but my policy positions have been mocked, derided and undercut repeatedly.

          but I get the picture, you guys don't need me, so I'll be on my way.

          Too far left to be part of the base anymore.

          by Guinho on Tue Dec 21, 2010 at 11:10:34 AM PST

          [ Parent ]

    •  you may as well start saying "first" (13+ / 0-)

      it amounts to the same.

      "At least when Bush was pulling shit, he was only destroying the Republican party." ~typed, apparently seriously, by Uberbah, 12/20/10

      by mallyroyal on Tue Dec 21, 2010 at 09:19:52 AM PST

      [ Parent ]

    •  Exactly, here's to cheering a D (9+ / 0-)

      as a passing grade.

      ...his...appointments showed that he had no intention of honoring the promises he made... He's a liar and a cheat. -Dallasdoc

      by Words In Action on Tue Dec 21, 2010 at 09:27:29 AM PST

      [ Parent ]

    •  I loved the both sides are exactly the same part (9+ / 0-)

      We wanted "100%."

      Sure, every single diary that is negative about health care reform said "nothing short of Medicare for all will be accepted, we won't settle for some "public option, which is too much of a compromise, and we are purists."

      Apparently asking for someone to keep his promises is asking for too much.

      But Obama promises to fight for everything, you know, sometime in the future. He promises.

      If one morning I walked on top of the water across the Potomac River, the headline that afternoon would read: "President Can't Swim." - LBJ

      by bay of arizona on Tue Dec 21, 2010 at 09:34:59 AM PST

      [ Parent ]

      •  Obama kept his promises. (8+ / 0-)

        He fought for a Public Option.  But he also kept his Election Night pledge to "always listen, especially when we disagree."

        This is still a Democratic republic with elected legislators who enact laws.  It is not a dictatorship and I do not support a unitary executive.

        Obama swore to protect and defend the Constitution of the United States.  And until there's a little more "we the people" and a lot less "feed the monster", we're not going to get the change we need in Washington DC.

        The 2010 elections could have been the story of progressives rising up with one voice against the Senate obstruction and the Republican haters and those who want Obama to fail.

        We lost.

        Badly.

        Time to move on.

        Pick yourself up and fight again.

        Ironically, this "sellout" deal on tax cuts provides $900 billion of economic stimulus that wouldn't have been there and it would have been a lot worse had we waited for Speaker Boehner and Sen. Paul to do something for the middle class.

        So yes - Obama 2012.  Better than the alternative.

        Stop fighting and focus on the down-ticket races, where the real change still needs to happen.

        (FWIW, I'm glad that 3 Blue Dogs in my state either retired or got beat in 2010.  Those deficit peacocks won't get any political cover from me any longer.)

        Stop clapping. Stop screaming. Open your mind. Listen.

        by Benintn on Tue Dec 21, 2010 at 10:32:18 AM PST

        [ Parent ]

        •  Down ticket, you say? This is a census year. (3+ / 0-)
          Recommended by:
          expatjourno, Jagger, HiddenHistories

          For the first time since RECONSTRUCTION both houses in the North Carolina state house are Republican.

          150 years.

          Thank you Barack "The Great Pre-compromiser" Obama.

          ("The Great Compromiser" being Henry Clay.)

          This election has BIG consequences.  Can you say 10 years of Gerrymandering?  Gee, I knew you could.

          Smooth move Tom Kaine.  You're a waste of space.

          Obama is the titular head of the party.  This debacle lands on his feet.  After his campaign of 2008, seeing THIS as a followup is disenchanting, to say the least.

          Happy little moron, Lucky little man.
          I wish I was a moron, MY GOD, Perhaps I am!
          -Spike Milligan

          by polecat on Tue Dec 21, 2010 at 10:43:40 AM PST

          [ Parent ]

        •  Obama supports the unitary executive theory... (2+ / 0-)
          Recommended by:
          Jagger, HiddenHistories

          ...in court. Along with all other Bush Administration abuses of power.

          Sorry to burst your bubble.

          Obama stands with war profiteers, torturers, Wall Street, health insurance companies, Big PhARMA, Big Oil and Social Security-haters. Good at photo ops, though.

          by expatjourno on Tue Dec 21, 2010 at 11:48:18 AM PST

          [ Parent ]

    •  Ha! (6+ / 0-)

      Please.

      As if you don't believe that "progressives" should establish their own, third base of power which is neither Republican nor Democrat.

      Oba-MA bumaye! Oba-MA bumaye!

      by fou on Tue Dec 21, 2010 at 09:47:22 AM PST

      [ Parent ]

    •  "Only adult in the room" is a reg. trademark (1+ / 0-)
      Recommended by:
      OIL GUY

      of JimWilson LLC.  JimWilson LLC's lawyers will be in touch with you to arrange appropriate licensing fees for continued use of "only adult in the room" for the purpose of blog posts.

      Good day, Sir.

      ----- GOP found drowned in Grover Norquist's bathtub.

      by JimWilson on Tue Dec 21, 2010 at 11:52:53 AM PST

      [ Parent ]

  •  Cool. (16+ / 0-)

    despotic socialism enforced by jackbooted bureaucrats

    Where do I sign up?

    'Compulsively masturbating hobbit witch' - Gawker on Christine O'Donnell

    by MBNYC on Tue Dec 21, 2010 at 09:19:34 AM PST

  •  This is a can of worms. (25+ / 0-)

    The anti-Obama left is absolutely convinced that they are very reasonable and open to compromise but only when core principles are not at stake.  Then lo and behold core principles turn out to be at stake in every single debate and Obama's proposed compromise is always somewhere outside of the core principle foul line.  

    "Hope 2010 feels a lot different than Hope 2008. Tougher, deeper, more dearly bought." Femlaw, Hope 2010, September 8, 2010.

    by seanwright on Tue Dec 21, 2010 at 09:21:30 AM PST

    •  And meanwhile no one ever seems to explain (17+ / 0-)

      how you get the Republican votes needed to overcome a filibuster. I expect we'll be seeing a similar logic disconnect next year when Republicans control the House.

      •  I think we're supposed to... (15+ / 0-)
        ...punch them more. Or something...

        To be clear, it's "EClectablog", not "Electablog".
        Visit me at Eclectablog. You could even click an ad!

        by Eclectablog on Tue Dec 21, 2010 at 09:54:43 AM PST

        [ Parent ]

      •  How many times must one read that they need (8+ / 0-)

        to be called out and publicly embarrassed before y'all get it? The only group being demonized in our demonically warped economic system are those who are trying to make it better for the majority of people subject to it.

        President Obama is actually proud of his ability to make Republican policy look like it has some degree of merit in a country that has been starved by it for over a generation, and y'all seem to spend all of your time enabling this self destructive behavior.

        You'll get the votes when Republicans have to pay a price for their vicious ideology.

        •  You can call them out (9+ / 0-)

          until you're blue in the face. They don't care, because their constituents (the ones who elected them) don't care.

          Please explain to me how the fine voters of Oklahoma who send people like Inhofe and Coburn to the Senate are going to listen to what Obama has to say about any of this. I'm very interested to hear how that works.

          •  Oklahoma was the epicenter of (1+ / 0-)
            Recommended by:
            TBug

            the dust bowl. Maybe pointing out that Inhofe is paid by BP and Exxon to recreate it might have some effect? If all politics is local, maybe it might be an idea to go local and point out how such as Inhofe are actively making their lives worse?

            I just haven't even seen an attempt by anyone in Party leadership to take on a task like that yet in this age of the overwhelming need for a bi-partisanship not reflected in the body politic. A few speeches is not going to change anyone's paradigm. Obama is the leader of the Party but he is not the only one that can make this message. It is a little difficult to propagate a message, however, when those who try to do so are routinely put down as unrepresentative of what leadership wants. Right?

            •  problem is ... (5+ / 0-)

              right now they won't believe it.  They believe that a bunch of pointy-headed, grant-greedy scientists with a political agenda to send us to some sort of post-carbon fuel Dark Age say that global warming exists and will hurt Oklahomans.

              By the way, I fall in that category, at least in a broad sense.  That's why you won't see me moving to OK or any other southern state.

              •  I don't blame you! (1+ / 0-)
                Recommended by:
                TBug

                However, I do live in the South. I do not think that the case will be all that hard to make given my experience here. Virtually everyone recognizes that the climate bears little reflection to the one that we all grew up in. Droughts, heatwaves and weird weather in general are the primary component of my Republican neighbors' conversation these days.

                The case has largely been made for those interested in the topic, the question is who will actually do something about it? At this point concensus is that no one will as everyone is bought off by the oil and coal companies anyway.

                The perception of corruption has more to do with it than I think a lot of us realize.

            •  BP and Exxon are not boogie men (4+ / 0-)
              Recommended by:
              OIL GUY, seanwright, Imhotepsings, TBug

              in Oklahoma, so your theory wouldn't fly.

              The problem is that getting legislation through Congress is very much a patchwork process, because what flies in Oklahoma sinks in California, and vice versa. Likening the legislative process to sausage making is actually a very good metaphor, both in terms of how everything is ground up and mixed together as well as how those unsavory bits get in there, too.

              •  So find something that is and show them where (0+ / 0-)

                they are not voting their interests! Problem is, it is pretty difficult to point out how, say, Wall Street has screwed them when the Democratic Party has been running interference for them as well.

                •  Doesn't matter (1+ / 0-)
                  Recommended by:
                  seanwright

                  They're far more repulsed by the lefties who populate this forum than they are by anything Republicans do or don't do with respect to their interests. The Democratic Left is a big anchor weighing down the Democratic Party's ability to woo people in rural America. That's just a fact we have to deal with.

          •  Ohio is what counts (0+ / 0-)

            not Oklahoma.

            Too far left to be part of the base anymore.

            by Guinho on Tue Dec 21, 2010 at 11:21:57 AM PST

            [ Parent ]

        •  A couple problems with that... (8+ / 0-)

          You'll get the votes when Republicans have to pay a price for their vicious ideology.

          Until the voters in their very safe conservative Districts start to see them for what they are and get up the gumption to vote for a "librul," and until a couple liberal-leaning billionaires buy up a couple of mainstream media outlets, Republicans will never have to pay any price for what they believe.

          President Obama is actually proud of his ability to make Republican policy look like it has some degree of merit in a country that has been starved by it for over a generation, and y'all seem to spend all of your time enabling this self destructive behavior.

          I want some of the mind-reading drug you're taking; you seem to have discerned President Obama's intentions directly from his brain, despite the things he's publicly said and done.

          I would have thought by now that the purists understood the difference between hewing to a purely progressive ideology no matter what and actual governance via compromise, as evidenced by our progressive champions Sherrod Brown and Al Franken and the difficult but necessary votes they had to make in the name of "the bigger picture."  And it really bothered me that "progressives" never questioned Franken's or Brown's progressive bona fides, but the President got no such deference.

          Anyway, until the purists can lay out a reasonable strategy for governance (beyond FIGHTFIGHTFIGHT!), the progessive agenda will never hold any sway, and we'll be relegated to the wilderness to lick our wounds and plan for the next windmill we'll attack.

          •  I concur... n/t (3+ / 0-)
            Recommended by:
            Terri, OIL GUY, seanwright

            To be clear, it's "EClectablog", not "Electablog".
            Visit me at Eclectablog. You could even click an ad!

            by Eclectablog on Tue Dec 21, 2010 at 10:35:36 AM PST

            [ Parent ]

          •  Lemme ask you something, (0+ / 0-)

            I want some of the mind-reading drug you're taking; you seem to have discerned President Obama's intentions directly from his brain, despite the things he's publicly said and done.

            The search for bi-partisanship features in virtually every one of his speeches; has done since the Primaries! Just look at this tax bill, his focus was on getting Republican votes over whether or not they should let their own plan die! Where was the speech on that? Why has he elected to be their sin eater?

            This is not mind reading, this is an objective view of what he has been doing the past two years. I have questioned Franken's bona fides on any number of occasions. Why these people can't stick to a script has been the focus of the "rotating villain" theory of governance for the past two years!

            •  Exactly... (2+ / 0-)
              Recommended by:
              OIL GUY, seanwright

              The search for bi-partisanship features in virtually every one of his speeches; has done since the Primaries! Just look at this tax bill, his focus was on getting Republican votes over whether or not they should let their own plan die! Where was the speech on that? Why has he elected to be their sin eater?

              As any politician would do, the President appealed to the majority of the electorate - who by the way, rewarded him by putting him into office by a pretty big margin.  Part of what allowed him such broad-based support was his call for bi-partisanship and his vow to work with the people "across the aisle" to get things done.

              Like it or not, the tax deal enjoys wide public (conditional of course) support.  And a lot of things happened before the President reached this compromise with the Republicans, going back to Obama pushing for the Congressional Democrats to fight this fight before the mid-term elections - which they failed to do, because they were all running for the hills.  After the elections, the Dems were up against the clock, with DADT, the DREAM Act, the START Treaty and the tax bill all waiting to be addressed in what - six weeks?  When the Senate Democrats couldn't get the House tax bill through Republican filibusters, what do you think the options were at that point?  Either let the tax bill die in the Senate and raise taxes on the very people who couldn't afford it or reach a compromise.  Option 1 meant dealing a death blow to the recovery and widespread suffering in the middle class; Option 2 would mean giving the rich something so that the poor and middle class could get some relief.  Would you have advocated for letting the UI extensions expire and for taxes to go up for the middle class?  If my guess is correct, you would have chosen "principle," whether others suffered or not.  Al Franken, Sherrod Brown, the majority of Congressional Democrats and President Obama could not afford to be so "principled."

              •  So I was just over at (0+ / 0-)

                FDL and Jane Hamsher has a post up on how Shep Smith at Fox News is actively embarrassing Republicans over their obstruction of the 9/11 first responders bill. When bloody FOX News is in the forefront of criticism of Republicans, all the rhetoric in the world will not save you from looking ridiclous defending the indefensible.

                •  first of all is it fox news? or shep smith? (3+ / 0-)
                  Recommended by:
                  OIL GUY, seanwright, Imhotepsings

                  'cause shep's shown a conscience before.  the rest, not so much.

                  and what does him taking them to task on the 9/11 bill have to do with the discussion, anyway?  

                  "At least when Bush was pulling shit, he was only destroying the Republican party." ~typed, apparently seriously, by Uberbah, 12/20/10

                  by mallyroyal on Tue Dec 21, 2010 at 12:20:58 PM PST

                  [ Parent ]

                •  Whatever... (3+ / 0-)
                  Recommended by:
                  OIL GUY, seanwright, mallyroyal

                  I've always liked Shep Smith; he's hardly representative of Fox News' handling of Republicans.  I wouldn't get all happy about Shep Smith representing a sudden change of heart in Fox News and how they report on Republicans.  Call me when George Soros or Oprah Winfrey buys NewsCorp.

                  And whether you think the tax deal was "indefensible" or not, you still haven't owned up to the fact that you'd be willing to let millions of middle-class and poor Americans suffer increased tax rates and allow unemployed Americans to lose their financial support, all in the name of "principle."  I assumed one of the reasons anyone saw him/herself as "progressive" is because they cared about the less fortunate.  I'm glad to see you're not letting that stand in the way of your "principles."  

                  •  Have you not been keeping up? (0+ / 0-)

                    Poor Americans are going to have their taxes raised anyway. The midle classes are going to have to eat an additional 800 billion dollars to make the MOTU happy and all so that Republicans don't have to feel any pain over their handling of the finances which have worked out so well that they can now hold the unemployed hostage.

                    I do care about the less fortunate, but I also have a clue as to how they got into that position. Something that y'all appear to lack. Keep treating the symptoms, it has worked out so wonderfully well thus far.

                •  I'm glad to see Jane directing her readers to (2+ / 0-)
                  Recommended by:
                  Eclectablog, FiredUpInCA

                  Fox News. They should fit in well.

                  The liberals always get discouraged when they do not see the measures they are interested in go through immediately. - Eleanor Roosevelt

                  by OIL GUY on Tue Dec 21, 2010 at 12:37:57 PM PST

                  [ Parent ]

            •  "The search for bi-partisanship" IS the goal. (1+ / 0-)
              Recommended by:
              Eclectablog

              Yes, it's what Obama campaigned on. And it's what he's working on.  He said from the beginning that he would work to bring people together, and to represent all Americans, not just the liberals. The only surprising part is that he was actually telling the truth.

              "We live now in hard times, not end times." Jon Stewart

              by tb92 on Tue Dec 21, 2010 at 12:31:10 PM PST

              [ Parent ]

      •  Clinton-era tax rates. (1+ / 0-)
        Recommended by:
        polecat

        Could President Obama have returned us to Clinton-era tax rates without the help of Congress?

        Yes.

        During times of universal deceit, telling the truth becomes a revolutionary act.
        - George Orwell

        by HairyTrueMan on Tue Dec 21, 2010 at 10:13:51 AM PST

        [ Parent ]

        •  Well, sure (9+ / 0-)

          The wealthy wouldn't have felt it. But the working poor and many in the middle class who were just scraping by would have been the ones tightening their belts...not to mention the long term unemployed whose benefits were running out.

          I must admit I'm pretty amazed at how little empathy those who call themselves progressives here showed for these working class folks.

          •  Nice use of emotional language. (1+ / 0-)
            Recommended by:
            Jagger

            And a stern lecture to boot. Bravo on the critical thinking skills.

            Let me tell you something sport... There is nothing progressive about the Bush Tax code. It's creating more poor people in this country than any temporary extension of UE benefits will ever save.

            During times of universal deceit, telling the truth becomes a revolutionary act.
            - George Orwell

            by HairyTrueMan on Tue Dec 21, 2010 at 10:40:17 AM PST

            [ Parent ]

            •  Your post is good example of the lack of empathy, (4+ / 0-)

              the commenter above you claimed.

              He who can make you believe absurdities, can make you commit atrocities.

              by Sophie Amrain on Tue Dec 21, 2010 at 10:55:42 AM PST

              [ Parent ]

              •  Which part lacks empathy? (2+ / 0-)
                Recommended by:
                Jagger, Free Jazz at High Noon

                WTF are you talking about?

                I wrote that Bush tax rates are creating a lot of poor people. And I'll elaborate... I think that the richest Americans take the extra money and invest it in overseas factories and automation that ultimately hurts American workers. I think that the problem is the number of unemployed people, not the fact that UE benefits are being temporarily extended.

                But I'm probably wasting my time responding to you because you bought into the emotional language.

                During times of universal deceit, telling the truth becomes a revolutionary act.
                - George Orwell

                by HairyTrueMan on Tue Dec 21, 2010 at 11:08:54 AM PST

                [ Parent ]

            •  Your comment makes no sense. (0+ / 0-)

              How does the Bush tax cuts extension create more poor people?

              The liberals always get discouraged when they do not see the measures they are interested in go through immediately. - Eleanor Roosevelt

              by OIL GUY on Tue Dec 21, 2010 at 12:33:34 PM PST

              [ Parent ]

      •  Compromise for compromise's sake is empty (0+ / 0-)

        Essentially the argument is: we need to do stuff that the Republicans will vote for.  Well, that's by and large only Republican policies.  So, that's what we get.  I am sure we could be "effective" and pass a law eliminating social security tomorrow, too, but just because that would be "bipartisan" does not mean it would be worthwhile.

        No one seems to be able to explain why not even bothering to make the case for change or shining a spotlight on the Republicans for their obstructionism cannot be done.

        Frankly, I'd be a lot happier with the same results if Obama had started off using the pulpit to make the case for liberal ideas.  

        For example:

        1. start with the house tax cuts, bring these up for a cloture vote in October when you can get attention.
        1. make the Republicans filibuster

        (o.k., these are roughly what happened)

        THEN state publicly:
        We are NOT cutting taxes for millionaires.  No bonus cuts for the banksters.  Period!  We will filibuster anything that includes them.  Offer the Republicans two choices:  
        a) pass the middle class tax cuts
        b) get hammered before the election for raising middle class taxes.

        Instead, we get very fast backroom deals in which the case for liberal policies is essentially never made and the loudest pronouncements out of the white house are about how stupid liberals are.  That's fabulous politics for the White House I suppose, and that's the path to reelection he sees.  For my part, I see a president who is cynically banking on a short term recovery to secure reelection at the expense of creating long term problems for the deficit and social security AND who seems to feel that beating up on the left is good political strategy.

        By accepting this strategy, the left is sealing its own irrelevance.  Every politician forever will know that they can kick the left and ignore it with impunity because we refuse to demand change.

        Contrast this with the refusal to sit down and shut up of the LGBT community.  Result:  DADT is repealed, but the public option is dead.

        You do the math.  

        Too far left to be part of the base anymore.

        by Guinho on Tue Dec 21, 2010 at 11:21:03 AM PST

        [ Parent ]

      •  And none of you lot ever explain... (0+ / 0-)

        ...Obama's policies in areas in which Congress isn't involved and there is no need for Republican votes.

        Obama stands with war profiteers, torturers, Wall Street, health insurance companies, Big PhARMA, Big Oil and Social Security-haters. Good at photo ops, though.

        by expatjourno on Tue Dec 21, 2010 at 11:52:05 AM PST

        [ Parent ]

    •  Why bother having planks in the party platform? (0+ / 0-)

      The President will precompromise them away in backroom deals.

      Happy little moron, Lucky little man.
      I wish I was a moron, MY GOD, Perhaps I am!
      -Spike Milligan

      by polecat on Tue Dec 21, 2010 at 10:45:01 AM PST

      [ Parent ]

  •  WTF? Vastly improved WH communications? (13+ / 0-)

    He describes those in the "nonideological middle" as "pinball victims of messaging wars" and believes that they may become far more supportive "given a vastly improved White House communications operation".

    Is the premise this has already happened? That WH communications is awesome?

    Or is improved WH communications to be had at some future date? Cause it aint happening now...

    unless you characterize bitching at the left and parroting rw talking points as improved WH communications.

    It smells of beans around here...

    by A Runner on Tue Dec 21, 2010 at 09:22:06 AM PST

  •  Less than 100% would be okay, (16+ / 0-)

    if it weren't less than 20%.

    ...his...appointments showed that he had no intention of honoring the promises he made... He's a liar and a cheat. -Dallasdoc

    by Words In Action on Tue Dec 21, 2010 at 09:25:42 AM PST

  •  The right have lost their minds (21+ / 0-)

    I think that's the simple explanation.

    Redstate is tough to read, but Freerepublic reads like the psycho ward where they keep Hannibal Lecter.

    I haven't heard anyone on the left go off on Obama like that. But I haven't heard anything like "tragic alienating failure", so I don't know where that comes from.

    And it has hardly been "purist" to note that many of our hot button items weren't "compromised" on, they were given away wholesale. It isn't difficult to point out that there are still people in Guantanamo bay, a year past the supposed closure date, or that there is no public option.

    That said, I'm inclined to be charitable to President Obama this week because of START and DADT.

    If apes evolved from humans, why are there still humans?

    by Bobs Telecaster on Tue Dec 21, 2010 at 09:26:09 AM PST

  •  Another episode of (11+ / 0-)

    "At least he's our self-promoting plutocrat!"

    Unless you're earning more than $400k, you are losing ground. If you are losing ground and not fighting mad over it, you're a rube. Moderates, by definition, are not fighting mad. Moderates are rubes. - me

    ...his...appointments showed that he had no intention of honoring the promises he made... He's a liar and a cheat. -Dallasdoc

    by Words In Action on Tue Dec 21, 2010 at 09:32:12 AM PST

  •  except conservatives act on their extremism (8+ / 0-)

    and tend to get their way, especially when it's handed to them as a token of respect by Blue Dogs and Broderists in the name of strategy and bipartisan comity.  For all the ink spilled about us wild-eyed utopians on the Far Left, we're politically irrelevant!  People love to talk about us (usually to bash us), and often try to build us up into some hegemonic leviathan of the Left, but no-one listens to us, not even fellow Democrats.  The wild-eyed utopians on the Far Right however are anything but irrelevant.  They consistently receive lip service if nothing else, and their ability to pull the narrative to the right and extract their pound of flesh is undeniable.  I dare say that they even have a stronger grassroots than we do: in the end, we on the Left are creatures of the system - the power of government is an essential tool for achieving our goals - while half the Right would love nothing more than to smash the system to pieces and have their tiny backwoods churches and the town posse be the largest and most powerful institutions (convieniently forgetting Big Business as they always do).

    Soak the rich! Everything is their fault: done on their orders and for their benefit.

    by rf80412 on Tue Dec 21, 2010 at 09:32:57 AM PST

    •  You're so right on forgetting big business (2+ / 0-)
      Recommended by:
      nippersdad, RenMin

      I thought it was just  me.  I was just commenting on this on HP, how is this possible?  How is it possible that they can dig in on their big government ideology while ignoring the tremendous impact corporations are having on our government and the tearing apart of democracy right before our eyes?  How can this be?  I mean, it feels like I'm having 2 different conversations with people.

      •  and reporters working for big corporations (2+ / 0-)
        Recommended by:
        PsychoSavannah, Imhotepsings

        has no impact on that narrative LOL

        fact does not require fiction for balance (proudly a DFH)

        by mollyd on Tue Dec 21, 2010 at 09:51:24 AM PST

        [ Parent ]

      •  they think gov't creates Big Business (1+ / 0-)
        Recommended by:
        cama2008

        Aside from the "prosperity gospel" nonsense that Fundie Jesus rewards good Christians with wealth and power, the libertarian crowd argue that Big Business wouldn't exist without government support.  Take down one megacorp run amok, and government money and power will eventually raise up another in its place; take down government, and all the megacorps will fall and be replaced by yeoman farmers and tradesmen.  It's like they see what we see, but their religious faith that all good things are "the market" while all bad things come from government forces them to twist it all around to turn government into the bad guy.  

        Adam Smith wrote in a time when "corporations" were legal monopolies - created by the state for the state's own purposes - and the archetype was the British East India Company, created to outsource mercantilist exploitation and which ruled British India for almost 100 years.  Those libertarians who don't support Big Business as the biggest therefore the best basically believe that the nature of capitalism hasn't changed since then.

        Soak the rich! Everything is their fault: done on their orders and for their benefit.

        by rf80412 on Tue Dec 21, 2010 at 12:25:57 PM PST

        [ Parent ]

        •  I have to digest this. (0+ / 0-)

          It's like they see what we see, but their religious faith that all good things are "the market" while all bad things come from government forces them to twist it all around to turn government into the bad guy.

           

          Is that what this is all about?  Is that why we're having 2 different conversations?

  •  I won't credit them ... (5+ / 0-)

    ... with a gram sincerity about this:

    The pseudoconservatives' perception is that Obama's success is a sprinting, despotic socialism enforced by jackbooted bureaucrats of anti-constitutional intensity.

    I belive they hate him simply because he's The Other.

    The rest is just blather.

  •  My comments in 2008 (18+ / 0-)

    My comments in 2008 to friends and relatives were that I did not think Mr. Obama was a liberal.  Therefore, I was sure there would be times that I would disagree with him, and likely vehemently from time to time.  But I still felt that he was the most electable during the primary season and certainly most reasonable during the general election campaign.

    I'm sure that in the near future, I may yet again vehemently disagree with him, but I'm still giving him a favorable job approval.

    "On Fox News they address her as Governor Palin. Which is like calling me a Dairy Queen employee. I was once. But I quit." - Tina Fey, Nov 2010

    by GrogInOhio on Tue Dec 21, 2010 at 09:36:12 AM PST

  •  I sort of feel it is my job as a citizen (1+ / 0-)
    Recommended by:
    CanyonWren

    to demand perfection.
    I'm always going to push them to do more and better.

    Education is too big to fail. Truth is too big to fail. Justice is too big to fail. Peace is too big to fail.

    by Burned on Tue Dec 21, 2010 at 09:37:10 AM PST

  •  What is Obama's long-term vision? (10+ / 0-)

    Continuation of Republican tax policy?

    Destroying Social Security?

    During times of universal deceit, telling the truth becomes a revolutionary act.
    - George Orwell

    by HairyTrueMan on Tue Dec 21, 2010 at 09:37:25 AM PST

  •  My problem with Obama is pretty... (8+ / 0-)

    straight forward:  Our country, and our world, is suffering on many levels primarily because of abuses by large multi-national corporations and financial entities.  The abuse icludes a whole array of issues incl. corrupting governments, severely damaging the environment, incl. climate change, encouraging crisis, incl. armed conflict, in order to increase profits and power, and manipulating financial markets to increase profits while creating large scale joblessnes and homelessness.  That is just some of the problems.  

    The only way to address these abuses is to be able to regulate and hold to account those entities.  Hence if you are incapable of exerting any control over these entities you cannot create solutions to the problems created by those entities.

    That is the main point; if you are, for whatever reason, incapable of restricting or constraining the behavior of large multi-national corporations than you essentially have handed the act of governance over to them.

    Obama, and the Democratic Party leadership, has proven itself, repeatably, to be incapable of exerting that kind of regulatory control.  In other words they have failed to make the government capable of governing.

    The right/left thing is irrelevant.  It is the inability to produce actual, real, solutions that will result in great misery, death, and the deterioration of our environment and our society.

    "There is no JUSTICE, there's JUST US." Terry Pratchett

    by rubine on Tue Dec 21, 2010 at 09:38:18 AM PST

    •  Regulate here, they'll go somewhere else. (2+ / 0-)
      Recommended by:
      OIL GUY, Eclectablog

      The idea that you can squeeze the watersnake of multinational crime syndicates corporations hard enough to "govern" them is half the problem.

      Human nature being what it is, you will never be able to have a free society where corporate entities are regulated.  People will always look for loopholes, corruption, wiggle room.  It's the nature of things.

      You cannot regulate your way into goodness and you cannot legislate morality.  The sooner you lose your illusion that "If only we exerted more control, things would be better," the sooner you'll see things for what they are.

      Respectfully,
      Benintn

      Stop clapping. Stop screaming. Open your mind. Listen.

      by Benintn on Tue Dec 21, 2010 at 11:15:16 AM PST

      [ Parent ]

      •  I am not suggesting regulating morality or... (1+ / 0-)
        Recommended by:
        Jagger

        goodness, that was your spin.  Regulation is an essential aspect of government.  We must have regulation or the system will collapse.  

        If you can't arrest the gunfighter cuz you are scared of him or he's paid you off, then the town will have gunfighters wandering around, taking what they wish, and generally bullying everybody.

        It would be pointless to have a Sheriff that was afraid, or paid off by, gunfighters.

        Currently Obama is the Sheriff, the corporations are the gunfighters, and the Sheriff appears to be afraid or bought off.

        "There is no JUSTICE, there's JUST US." Terry Pratchett

        by rubine on Tue Dec 21, 2010 at 11:23:29 AM PST

        [ Parent ]

      •  If they violate the regulations (0+ / 0-)

        yank their charter.  If they won't play by the rules, don't let them play at all.

        You may think that. I couldn't possibly comment.-- Francis Urqhart

        by Johnny Q on Tue Dec 21, 2010 at 02:14:36 PM PST

        [ Parent ]

  •  A historian who doesn't (8+ / 0-)

    understand how terms like "Left" and "Right" have been perverted over decades?

    Being anti-torture is a Leftist position today. How can you measure one's fealty to an ideological position if the ideology that the position purports to represent have been continually morphing?

    Neitehr Democrats nor Republicans from 30 years ago would recognise their respective parties today.

    The cave, the Matrix, America.

    by Grassee on Tue Dec 21, 2010 at 09:38:32 AM PST

  •  The emotional requirement for an enemy (3+ / 0-)
    Recommended by:
    Jagger, nippersdad, Eclectablog

    and the dog-eat-dog capitalist ethos makes Republicans a lotta fun to have around (if you're a professional satirist). Oh I forgot moral hypocrisy. And racism and junk science and corporatist propaganda and apocalyptic hissy fits over every damn thing. Hard to keep up with all the pathologies.

  •  i don't recognize myself (12+ / 0-)

    in the cast of cartoon characters listed in the article you cite.

    i guess old school liberals who know when to stop compromising are a dying breed.

    well, according to that article, anyway.

    i'm getting a meta headache. :P

    "which side are you on, boys?"

    by produceus on Tue Dec 21, 2010 at 09:39:51 AM PST

  •  life is high school (6+ / 0-)

    We are the smart kids, the nerds and the hippies. They are the fun kids who know how to make fartlike noises under their armpits.

    Guess who wins the popularity contest. We get no extra points for being right.

    fact does not require fiction for balance (proudly a DFH)

    by mollyd on Tue Dec 21, 2010 at 09:41:10 AM PST

  •  I love u dude or dudette, so consistent! (3+ / 0-)
    Recommended by:
    cslewis, science nerd, Deep Texan

    I wish just one of my ex wives had as much loyalty and defended me as reasonably as you do the president.  

    And I agree with you that it is a cartoon play upon the stage of politics.  

    Where we differ is that I feel the cartoon character the President is playing has not shown his true colors and in the end may turn out to be the villain not the hero?

    Just sayin.

  •  What constructive purpose (3+ / 0-)

    does this diary serve? I ask in all seriousness. I honestly cannot see what you are trying to achieve other than to boost your own name recognition

    Sanctimonious, Self Satisfied, Liberal and Proud.

    by stevej on Tue Dec 21, 2010 at 09:43:16 AM PST

  •  I believe (10+ / 0-)

    that P.M. Carpenter has no clue about progressive activists, or the "professional Left", and neither does the WH.  Carpenter thinks that we progressives want Utopia, and that we are just going to take our marbles and go home if we don't get 100 percent of what we want.  The folks at the WH think that they can tarry to the middle and believe that in doing so and ignoring the concerns of the liberal base, they can escape any consequences.  If this is their calculus, they are sadly mistaken.  

    As a progressive, I want what I want and I have reached the conclusion that I need to work in a movement outside the purview of any politician and possibly outside the political party structure to advance the causes that I believe are most important for our country.  I reached this conclusion based upon the first two years of the Obama administration, where the President seems determined to follow a centrist path.  And that's fine, I am not gonna piss and moan about how my pet issue wasn't handled in exactly the way that I wanted.  I am also not going to put inordinate trust in the President when it seems apparent that he is not living up to the values and principles that he espoused when he ran for election.  

    "Do I have any regrets about the hard votes I took?" No. Not at all...and I never will. --Mary Jo Kilroy

    by Kurt from CMH on Tue Dec 21, 2010 at 09:44:32 AM PST

  •  We have met the enemy and they are us (3+ / 0-)
    Recommended by:
    Whimsical, alba, science nerd

    A Republic - if you can keep it

    We are in such turmoil, with so much infighting.  We've lost sight of our goals as a nation.  Enemies to the right of us, enemies to the left of us and the majority of us in the middle stand in bewildered inaction.  We have a President who is trying to pull together two completely opposing views of how this Republic should run.
    Where are the wise, compassionate leaders to help with this difficult task?  There are a few Democrats in the House and Senate trying to do what is best for our country, while the majority of the Republicans and some Democrats are only out to support their pet projects and their "investors."  We must see the reality of the situation and work in an intelligent, rational way to make this country get back on track and heal this nation.  Get out there and work for more and better (not bitter) Democrats.

    "Two things are infinite: the universe and human stupidity; and I'm not sure about the the universe." A. Einstein

    by moose67 on Tue Dec 21, 2010 at 09:44:52 AM PST

    •  I disagree... (1+ / 0-)
      Recommended by:
      Jagger

      The only healing that needs to happen is for the unemployed, overworked, homeless, and those without healthcare.

      And this is just wrong:

      We have a President who is trying to pull together two completely opposing views of how this Republic should run.

      He is not trying to pull together the nation.  He's trying to pull together everybody against the left.  He's doing the classic Clinton triangulation of cutting the left out and creating a coalition of pro-corporate demos, independents, and moderate repubs.

      He pretends to be a liberal to keep everybody confused.  He's really, if you examine his legislative proposals, kind of a moderate republican.

      "There is no JUSTICE, there's JUST US." Terry Pratchett

      by rubine on Tue Dec 21, 2010 at 10:16:15 AM PST

      [ Parent ]

      •  I respectfully disagree (3+ / 0-)
        Recommended by:
        scribe, Whimsical, SouthernBelleNC49

        He's seeking middle ground, and there some things I'm not happy with but I see the plan - and it is working.  Look at all that has been accomplished. It is very close to what he promised when he ran for office.  Those things not achieved have been blocked by Republicans and Blue Dogs.  When the votes aren't there, they have wisely worked to get a compromise rather than nothing.  I guess I'm older and more patient with this President because I see a greatness in him that was sorely lacking in most of the last dozen or so presidents (except JFK).

        "Two things are infinite: the universe and human stupidity; and I'm not sure about the the universe." A. Einstein

        by moose67 on Tue Dec 21, 2010 at 10:36:22 AM PST

        [ Parent ]

  •  Right... progressives won't accept anything less (12+ / 0-)

    than Utopia, because apparently a weak public option is our idea of Utopia.

    •  Yeah (2+ / 0-)
      Recommended by:
      teknofyl, Michael91

      A weak public option being, of course, a vast compromise over the progressive position on health care. But we fought for it and were derided as being purists in search of perfection, when all we wanted was the last semblance of compromise with our position reflected in the bill.

      "The pie shall be cut in half and each man shall receive...death. I'll eat the pie." Homer as Solomon

      by Lost Left Coaster on Tue Dec 21, 2010 at 10:23:38 AM PST

      [ Parent ]

  •  more troll bait from you (5+ / 3-)

    you like the attention

  •  "This is a war." (1+ / 0-)
    Recommended by:
    boofdah
    Phillips is right.

    Whether Obama administration can contain it is the question ultimately.
      Winning is another thing entirely.

    Does this rec make my head look fat?

    by KenBee on Tue Dec 21, 2010 at 09:46:04 AM PST

  •  Some of this is a bit unfair (21+ / 0-)

    I've actually seen a lot of good and nuanced conversation about the DADT repeal fight - -which clearly required both an inside and outside game to be successful.

    To me the key is that we stop accusing each other of bad faith.  Some of us are better at an inside game, some at an outside and both are necessary to win.  But the energy that goes into demonizing and tearing down helps no one.  Fight for what you believe in but neither I nor the President is your enemy.

    However, all the parts about the tea party, um, totally fair.  

    •  I think the football analogy is a good one. (12+ / 0-)

      I think Eclectablog pretty well nailed it in his close.

      Meanwhile, to use an American football metaphor, the President keeps moving the ball down the field, one strategic play at a time. He may fumble the ball from time to time. He may lose a few yards on one play that need to be made up in subsequent plays. But, when the dust settles, he achieves things nobody thought possible. And that is why those Americans in the ideological middle are still supporting him. They aren't as immersed in the day-to-day details of governing. They don't get into the philosophical or strategic weeds as deep as many of us. They see the bigger picture of the outcomes. And, so far, there have been significant victories.

      I have the pleasure of watching Chris Johnson play every week for the Tennessee Titans.  He frequently loses yardage or runs for 2-3 yards.  And then, several times a week, he has the kind of run that makes you hold your breath - the kind of play that seems humanly impossible.  Johnson doesn't get a lot of credit for the 2-3 yard gains.  But often, those are the toughest yards - the ones at the line of scrimmage, where the entire defense is keying in on you and you have to push with all your might just to move across the line into enemy territory.

      I think Barack Obama has proven that he's a baller - he's willing to take the hits and face the opposition head on.  I just wish that he'd stop getting tackled by his own teammates.

      Stop clapping. Stop screaming. Open your mind. Listen.

      by Benintn on Tue Dec 21, 2010 at 09:51:24 AM PST

      [ Parent ]

      •  Depends on the issue (1+ / 0-)
        Recommended by:
        nippersdad

        He may be advancing the ball in ways we didn't think before, such as on DADT, which is a great victory and which many people (including me) were skeptical that Obama would be able to do.

        But the football metaphor wears down on other issues, because I am not at all convinced that Obama is even on the team that I want to be on for some things -- I'm specifically talking about the expansion of the surveillance state, the impunity for torture, the attempt to legitimize assassinations, the expansion of secret wars in Yemen and Pakistan, the expansion of the not-so-secret war in Afghanistan, etc. In that case, I have to run opposition.

        "The pie shall be cut in half and each man shall receive...death. I'll eat the pie." Homer as Solomon

        by Lost Left Coaster on Tue Dec 21, 2010 at 10:12:36 AM PST

        [ Parent ]

        •  What you seem to be concerned about is (3+ / 0-)
          Recommended by:
          OIL GUY, Eclectablog, Imhotepsings

          Rule of Law.  Perhaps you're not so much "running interference" as either 1) standing on the sidelines booing a dirty play or 2) wanting to be a referee who throws a flag.

          I'm also very concerned about Rule of Law, and realize that AG Holder is limited by precedent, SCOTUS, and the current staff in the Justice Dept.  I mean, you and I can agree with Glenn Greenwald that waterboarding is torture, but the fact is that Yoo and Bybee did CYA memos citing judicial rationale why limited use of torture in specific situations would be acceptable in the interests of national security.  I happen to find their arguments fallacious and dubious and morally wrong and all that.  But still, the memos are there.  Hard to "change the rules in the middle of the game".  Punishing the CIA for "following orders" from Bush is a bit unfair.

          It seems to me that maybe part of the frustration is that you both want Obama to be a player on the field AND a referee.  It's pretty hard to do both - and I do continue to support an independent Justice Department rather than the kind of politicized DOJ that we had under Bushco.

          All very tough stuff.  No easy answers - which is why what Bush did was so corrosive to our national security and our Constitution.

          Stop clapping. Stop screaming. Open your mind. Listen.

          by Benintn on Tue Dec 21, 2010 at 11:05:45 AM PST

          [ Parent ]

      •  The football metaphor is puerile... (1+ / 0-)
        Recommended by:
        teknofyl

        and simplistic.  This is about people's lives, not winning or losing.

        Obama so far has shown a real willingness to sacrifice others well being and lives, to defend the wealthy.

        "There is no JUSTICE, there's JUST US." Terry Pratchett

        by rubine on Tue Dec 21, 2010 at 10:20:51 AM PST

        [ Parent ]

    •  I agree, except that the President... (0+ / 0-)

      is clearly not an ally of progressives, and would willingly stab us in the back, again.

      "There is no JUSTICE, there's JUST US." Terry Pratchett

      by rubine on Tue Dec 21, 2010 at 10:18:32 AM PST

      [ Parent ]

  •  Um... (12+ / 0-)

    [E]xtraordinary success within a mere half-term... -- a stimulus package that prevented the Great Depression II; health care reform that achieves the decades-long goal of near universality; financial reform that reimposes some grown-up supervision of Wall Street .

    Letsee - Agreed, but it hasn't really expanded the economy and it may slip back because it wasn't big enough; 'near universality'? Are you kidding me?; Financial reform made of Swiss Cheese.  Nothing to really prevent the crisis we just had.

    It's not that Obama hasn't fulfilled 100% of his promises; anybody would be a fool to believe that.  It is that he hasn't changed the trajectory of where the country is headed.  Why is that so hard to understand?

    "I disagree that we didn't get anything," Rep. Gary Ackerman (D-N.Y.) deadpanned to his colleagues. "We got screwed."

    by RichM on Tue Dec 21, 2010 at 09:50:57 AM PST

    •  It would be hard for me... (7+ / 0-)
      ...to disagree with you more.

      To be clear, it's "EClectablog", not "Electablog".
      Visit me at Eclectablog. You could even click an ad!

      by Eclectablog on Tue Dec 21, 2010 at 09:52:01 AM PST

      [ Parent ]

      •  How does... (3+ / 0-)

        The HCR achieve near universal coverage.  How does the Wall Street reforms passed prevent another melt-down in the unregulated derivative market?  I'm all ears.

        "I disagree that we didn't get anything," Rep. Gary Ackerman (D-N.Y.) deadpanned to his colleagues. "We got screwed."

        by RichM on Tue Dec 21, 2010 at 09:59:43 AM PST

        [ Parent ]

        •  Oh and... (4+ / 0-)

          How has Obama set this nation on a trajectory different than the one established by Bush/Reagan?

          "I disagree that we didn't get anything," Rep. Gary Ackerman (D-N.Y.) deadpanned to his colleagues. "We got screwed."

          by RichM on Tue Dec 21, 2010 at 10:00:28 AM PST

          [ Parent ]

          •  You very obviously have not been paying (6+ / 0-)

            attention to what has been going on with renewable energy in the last 2 years in comparison to how renewables were being either downright halted or constantly obstructed during the Reagan and Bush Years...

            "The perfect is the enemy of the good." - Voltaire

            by Lawrence on Tue Dec 21, 2010 at 10:16:11 AM PST

            [ Parent ]

            •  Sigh... (2+ / 0-)
              Recommended by:
              cevad, Colorado is the Shiznit

              OK, even if I grant that renewable energy is in a MUCH better position that it was 3 years ago - it still doesn't answer my above questions - how does the HCR bill achieve near universal coverage and how does wall street reform prevent what happened two years ago?  And I would like to point out that China is investing 3/4 of $1 trillion on renewable energy.  We haven't allocated 1/10 of that.

              "I disagree that we didn't get anything," Rep. Gary Ackerman (D-N.Y.) deadpanned to his colleagues. "We got screwed."

              by RichM on Tue Dec 21, 2010 at 10:20:22 AM PST

              [ Parent ]

              •  I just answered your question in regards to a (4+ / 0-)

                field that falls squarely within my field of expertise.

                China is indeed far outstripping all other nations in renewables investment in terms of sheer dollar numbers... this does also have tons to do with the fact that they are poor in natural resources and could never meet their energy needs even in the short to mid-term without renewables.  Plus there's that "little" difference of there being no opposition party in China that can constantly obstruct and obfuscate.

                "The perfect is the enemy of the good." - Voltaire

                by Lawrence on Tue Dec 21, 2010 at 10:41:15 AM PST

                [ Parent ]

                •  I agreed... (0+ / 0-)

                  The stimulus has a positive effect on the economy.  And renewable energy is definitely the crown jewel.  I'm talking about HCR and Financial reform.

                  "I disagree that we didn't get anything," Rep. Gary Ackerman (D-N.Y.) deadpanned to his colleagues. "We got screwed."

                  by RichM on Tue Dec 21, 2010 at 12:31:09 PM PST

                  [ Parent ]

                  •  Rnewables are basically a field of expertise of (2+ / 0-)
                    Recommended by:
                    Eclectablog, FiredUpInCA

                    mine, so I concentrated on that... especially since it absolutely highlights how the trajectory has changed from Reagan and Bush.

                    Regarding HCR and Financial Reform, it seems like the trajectory has also changed.  Just not enough imo.

                    Steps in the right direction have been taken, but I feel that more needs to be done... and we better work our asses off to get more and better Dems back into Congress and into state legislatures in order for that to happen.

                    "The perfect is the enemy of the good." - Voltaire

                    by Lawrence on Tue Dec 21, 2010 at 05:02:51 PM PST

                    [ Parent ]

            •  Renewables? (0+ / 0-)

              The one plant making blades for wind turbines in MN has closed its doors and the rate of installations in this state has slowed to a crawl. I'm not seeing that as a positive.

    •  It's no use, RichM (6+ / 0-)

      It doesn't matter what the President does. There are those who support the man over Party principles. There is nothing he can do wrong. If he cuts social security and Medicare, I guarantee you these supporters will be here insisting it was all he could do. Nothing to see here.

      "Whenever a fellow tells me he's bipartisan, I know he's going to vote against me."-- Harry S. Truman

      by irmaly on Tue Dec 21, 2010 at 10:01:10 AM PST

      [ Parent ]

      •  It's been two years of disappointment... (6+ / 0-)

        I put my hope in Obama that he would change the trajectory of this nation.  Yes, he has added some speed-bumps, but we are still headed in the same direction.  I blame myself for that faith.

        But the astonishing thing is the number of folks who have absolute blind faith in Obama.  Didn't we make fun of the people who supported Bush no matter what?  No matter the contradictions?  Yet we have the same folks here that can't see anything wrong with Obama.  That's depressing.

        "I disagree that we didn't get anything," Rep. Gary Ackerman (D-N.Y.) deadpanned to his colleagues. "We got screwed."

        by RichM on Tue Dec 21, 2010 at 10:08:53 AM PST

        [ Parent ]

        •  It depresses me too, but (3+ / 0-)

          I have been working in the trenches for the Democratic Party for longer than Obama has been eligible to vote. I am not willing to give up so easily the Party principles I've fought for all these years. I have resigned myself to the fact that that means a fight against the President is inevitable, and I am ready for it. Nonetheless, it depresses me no end that this man is on his way to destroying what we have taken so many years to build.

          "Whenever a fellow tells me he's bipartisan, I know he's going to vote against me."-- Harry S. Truman

          by irmaly on Tue Dec 21, 2010 at 10:14:37 AM PST

          [ Parent ]

      •  Would it be possible... (8+ / 0-)
        ...for us to wait until he actually DOES cut Soc. Sec. before we slam him for doing so?

        Probably not...

        To be clear, it's "EClectablog", not "Electablog".
        Visit me at Eclectablog. You could even click an ad!

        by Eclectablog on Tue Dec 21, 2010 at 10:21:32 AM PST

        [ Parent ]

        •  His catfood commission... (3+ / 0-)

          The recommendations from that commission are to cut SS.  I'm tired of this argument - "Would it be possible to wait for the final HCR bill before screaming about the Public Option"  "Would it be possible to see what Obama offers the GOP in tax reform before criticizing it"  "Would it be possible to see what is in the commission report before analyzing the members on the panel"  I could go on, but you get the point.

          "I disagree that we didn't get anything," Rep. Gary Ackerman (D-N.Y.) deadpanned to his colleagues. "We got screwed."

          by RichM on Tue Dec 21, 2010 at 10:29:48 AM PST

          [ Parent ]

          •  That's not what I said (5+ / 0-)
            I said we should wait to slam him for doing something until he actually DOES it. I am all for making a fuss that he shouldn't do it in advance and I personally never criticized those who pushed strongly for the public option up until it was clear it was no longer an option. It's this slamming him for doing something he hasn't yet done that pisses me off. Just because the commission made that recommendation doesn't mean it will come to pass.

            To be clear, it's "EClectablog", not "Electablog".
            Visit me at Eclectablog. You could even click an ad!

            by Eclectablog on Tue Dec 21, 2010 at 10:33:34 AM PST

            [ Parent ]

            •  Not to nitpick, but do you recall his response... (4+ / 0-)
              Recommended by:
              Meteor Blades, RichM, irmaly, Jagger

              to those recommendations?  Did he reject them?  No... IIRC he pretty much embraced them, although he did it with the same plausibly deniable, cautiously vague wording that he used to "strongly support" the public option with one hand as he knifed it in the back with the other hand.

              This just comes down to how you evaluate his intentions based on the last 2 years or so of watching the man... you know, what happens when he talks like this, what happens when he says that.  I've heard his intention to be the man that makes that tough choice (Oh! The Brodergasm that will cause! Yippy).  

              Honestly, looking at him over the past 2 years, I think he's itching to "be the grown up" by taking the hatchet to SS; I think he thinks it's the right and necessary thing to do, and I think he also believes it's the politically smart thing to do.  Your mileage may vary, but that's what I see.  I don't think it will be a year before we all know for sure, but of course by then it will be too late if I'm right.

              And I'll tell you something else... I think he will STILL have the support of tons of Democrats, and after he announces it we will all have the pleasure of hearing leading Democratic voices explain how very necessary and noble it was of him to make those tough choices.

              Obama - getting rolled like a chump by mouth-breathers since 2008.

              by teknofyl on Tue Dec 21, 2010 at 10:59:07 AM PST

              [ Parent ]

              •  A lot fewer Democrats will support him (2+ / 0-)
                Recommended by:
                Jagger, teknofyl

                after an axe to ss and Medicare. It will put the final nail in his re-election chances for 2012.

                "Whenever a fellow tells me he's bipartisan, I know he's going to vote against me."-- Harry S. Truman

                by irmaly on Tue Dec 21, 2010 at 11:13:33 AM PST

                [ Parent ]

                •  I don't know. (2+ / 0-)
                  Recommended by:
                  irmaly, Jagger

                  I have a hard time separating out my own personal take from the political take-home for Obama.

                  I don't know whether his political calculations will turn out well for him.  I don't intend to support him at this point, but whether I'm part of a significant bloc or not I can't say.  My instincts say that I'm not, but I think if he does what his instincts tell him on SS (cut it) then he'll get burned, but how badly is anyone's guess.

                  Two years is a long time.

                  Obama - getting rolled like a chump by mouth-breathers since 2008.

                  by teknofyl on Tue Dec 21, 2010 at 11:33:42 AM PST

                  [ Parent ]

                  •  It ain't called the "third rail" for nothing. (1+ / 0-)
                    Recommended by:
                    teknofyl

                    "Whenever a fellow tells me he's bipartisan, I know he's going to vote against me."-- Harry S. Truman

                    by irmaly on Tue Dec 21, 2010 at 11:44:34 AM PST

                    [ Parent ]

                    •  That is true. (0+ / 0-)

                      We live in crazy times, though.

                      Obama - getting rolled like a chump by mouth-breathers since 2008.

                      by teknofyl on Tue Dec 21, 2010 at 11:54:01 AM PST

                      [ Parent ]

                    •  Third Rail Issues (0+ / 0-)

                      The phrase third rail is a metaphor in politics to denote an idea or topic that is so "charged" and "untouchable" that any politician or public official who dares to broach the subject would invariably suffer politically.

                      The third rail in a railway is the exposed electrical conductor that carries high voltage power. Stepping on the high-voltage third rail usually results in electrocution. The use of the term in politics serves to emphasize the "shock" that results from raising the controversial idea, and the "political death" (or political suicide) that the unaware or provocative politician would encounter as a result.

                      ...the following examples are often "third rail" issues in the United States:

                         * Raising taxes
                         * Enacting gun control legislation
                         * Modifying major social programs, like Social Security, welfare, or the health care system
                         * Cutting funding for law enforcement and the Department of Defense
                         * Views on abortion
                         * Creating a National Identity Card
                         * Ending support for certain allied countries
                         * Legalization of controlled substances
                         * Criticism of population growth and support of population control in the U.S.
                         * Criticism of the State of Israel
                         * Supporting open borders or amnesty for illegal immigrants in the U.S.

                      "Whenever a fellow tells me he's bipartisan, I know he's going to vote against me."-- Harry S. Truman

                      by irmaly on Tue Dec 21, 2010 at 11:54:42 AM PST

                      [ Parent ]

            •  By the time he DOES it... (3+ / 0-)
              Recommended by:
              Meteor Blades, irmaly, Jagger

              It will be too late.  Let's work on logic.  I can point to dozens of signs that he WILL curtail SS in some way to sacrifice at the alter of 'deficits'.  Gibbs telegraphed as much just recently.  What evidence to you have that absolutely puts him in the camp of SS is out of bounds?

              "I disagree that we didn't get anything," Rep. Gary Ackerman (D-N.Y.) deadpanned to his colleagues. "We got screwed."

              by RichM on Tue Dec 21, 2010 at 11:30:08 AM PST

              [ Parent ]

        •  Thank you! (3+ / 0-)

          I am so sick of the constant negativity, and multiply that by 1000X when its about things that havent and may not happen.

          "The future of man is not one billion of us fighting over limited resources on a soon-to-be dead planet. . .I won't go back into the cave for anyone."

          by Whimsical on Tue Dec 21, 2010 at 10:37:32 AM PST

          [ Parent ]

          •  I admit when I am wrong... (0+ / 0-)

            I was wrong about DADT.  I admit it.  Everything else?  I've pretty much called it.  Including the HCR bill 1 year before it was signed.

            "I disagree that we didn't get anything," Rep. Gary Ackerman (D-N.Y.) deadpanned to his colleagues. "We got screwed."

            by RichM on Tue Dec 21, 2010 at 11:32:04 AM PST

            [ Parent ]

            •  Irrelevant (1+ / 0-)
              Recommended by:
              Imhotepsings

              If you bitch about something before it happens, you're still part of the problem- even if you apologize afterwards.

              "The future of man is not one billion of us fighting over limited resources on a soon-to-be dead planet. . .I won't go back into the cave for anyone."

              by Whimsical on Tue Dec 21, 2010 at 11:34:34 AM PST

              [ Parent ]

              •  O.M.G. (1+ / 0-)
                Recommended by:
                RichM

                "Whenever a fellow tells me he's bipartisan, I know he's going to vote against me."-- Harry S. Truman

                by irmaly on Tue Dec 21, 2010 at 11:48:16 AM PST

                [ Parent ]

              •  Wow... (0+ / 0-)

                Really?  Nevermind the fact that I batting about 95% and I base my analysis on the data I have at hand.  I can't say anything until it actually happens.  There is a word for that: ignorance.

                "I disagree that we didn't get anything," Rep. Gary Ackerman (D-N.Y.) deadpanned to his colleagues. "We got screwed."

                by RichM on Tue Dec 21, 2010 at 11:54:44 AM PST

                [ Parent ]

                •  Let me be clearer (3+ / 0-)
                  Recommended by:
                  RichM, blueyedace2, Onomastic

                  You can say that what you predict Obama and the Dems will do- or what you think Obama and the Dems will do; I don't have a problem with that.

                  But to treat (and comment on) something as a fact when it hasn't happened yet? (Something that is routinely done here, though to be fair I don't know if YOU do it, I havent bothered to check your comment history). THAT'S ignorace for you ,right there.

                  And if you do that, you are part of the problem, even if you apologize afterwards.

                  "The future of man is not one billion of us fighting over limited resources on a soon-to-be dead planet. . .I won't go back into the cave for anyone."

                  by Whimsical on Tue Dec 21, 2010 at 12:26:00 PM PST

                  [ Parent ]

              •  Really? So all of us - including the founder... (3+ / 0-)
                Recommended by:
                RichM, Eclectablog, PhilJD

                ...of this blog and most of its original participants - who bellyached about Cheney-Bush's lie-stoked invasion of Iraq nine months before it occurred were part of the problem?

                Those of us who said President Obama was going to add another 30,000 troops to the 34,000 he had already sent to Afghanistan were told by some folks here that he would not do that and we should wait until he gave his speech on the subject before speaking against such a policy. I don't apologize for opposing Cheney-Bush or Obama on this.

                Don't tell me what you believe. Tell me what you do and I'll tell you what you believe.

                by Meteor Blades on Tue Dec 21, 2010 at 01:41:26 PM PST

                [ Parent ]

                •  I made it clearer above. (0+ / 0-)

                  You can say what you THINK or what you PREDICT Obama and the Democrats will do; I may think you're wrong, but I don't have a problem with you saying it.

                  But if you make a comment treating something you THINK or PREDICT as a FACT (something that happens here often) I have a severe problem with it. I consider it ignorant, and you part of the problem for treating hypotheticals as fact.  Even if you apologize afterwards.

                  And for the record I'd have just as much of a problem with someone arguing against "Bush's invansion of Iraq" before it happened as I do with someone arguing against "Obama's cuts to Social security" before (and if) they do happen.

                  You can (and should) say why cutting Social Security would be a bad idea if it happens. You can (and should) detail why you believe theres a good chance it will happen.  You just cant treat it as an already happened given- not and maintain crediblity as a supposedly reality based community.

                  "The future of man is not one billion of us fighting over limited resources on a soon-to-be dead planet. . .I won't go back into the cave for anyone."

                  by Whimsical on Tue Dec 21, 2010 at 02:04:25 PM PST

                  [ Parent ]

                  •  Your comment I remarked on was... (1+ / 0-)
                    Recommended by:
                    Eclectablog

                    ...in support of a blast of a Kossack who said "If he cuts social security and Medicare..."

                    If. S/he didn't say it was going to happen. S/he  made a prediction of what the consequences would be if it did happen.

                    Yep. One can disagree with that prediction. But you can't say s/he's treating it as if it already happened.

                    That's not to say some people don't do so. They do. Just as some commenters wrongly attribute those views to Kossacks who don't express them.

                    Don't tell me what you believe. Tell me what you do and I'll tell you what you believe.

                    by Meteor Blades on Tue Dec 21, 2010 at 02:25:37 PM PST

                    [ Parent ]

                    •  Fair enough. (0+ / 0-)

                      The original comment I responded to I took to be the common defense for that sort of thing- "I apologize when I was wrong so that makes it ok Ive spent the past 6 months referring to Obama's cave as if it already happened".

                      Thats kind of a hot button of mine, because it really doesn't make it ok. And in a later reply to that same author, I made it very clear that I didn't know whether he did it or not, but if he didn't do it then the post wasn't directed at him.

                      That I slipped up on comment attrubition doesn't erase the validity of my point.

                      "The future of man is not one billion of us fighting over limited resources on a soon-to-be dead planet. . .I won't go back into the cave for anyone."

                      by Whimsical on Tue Dec 21, 2010 at 03:07:57 PM PST

                      [ Parent ]

                      •  I'm a big believer in trying to respond... (0+ / 0-)

                        ....solely to individuals based on what they themselves say. In not assuming someone I disagree with on something disagrees with me on everything - or that their disagreement with me means they're wrong, stupid, venal or whatever. Or that they're a member of a group of like-minded venal people. Obviously, over time, one CAN make such assumptions about specific individuals.

                        Don't tell me what you believe. Tell me what you do and I'll tell you what you believe.

                        by Meteor Blades on Tue Dec 21, 2010 at 03:21:16 PM PST

                        [ Parent ]

                  •  You can only influence the course of events... (0+ / 0-)

                    before they actually happen. Seems sort of obvious to me, but of course, YMMV.

                    In your world I guess, we should always wait patiently until events have run their course and decisions are set in stone, at which point we can earnestly bemoan, like a good liberal should, compromises and accommodations we can no longer change.

                    Doesn't work for me.

                    When you triangulate everything, you can't even roll downhill...

                    by PhilJD on Tue Dec 21, 2010 at 03:34:12 PM PST

                    [ Parent ]

                    •  Missed the point compeltely. (0+ / 0-)

                      Treating something that might or might not happen as if it did happen (when at the time you are commenting, it has not happened) actually makes the thing MORE likely to happen, not less.

                      It's called a self-fufilling prophecy.

                      "The future of man is not one billion of us fighting over limited resources on a soon-to-be dead planet. . .I won't go back into the cave for anyone."

                      by Whimsical on Tue Dec 21, 2010 at 04:24:49 PM PST

                      [ Parent ]

            •  Well, I'm actually batting 100 so far (1+ / 0-)
              Recommended by:
              RichM

              I figured DADT would make it through for the same reason Taibbi stated last night: the corporations didn't give a shit about DADT.

              "Whenever a fellow tells me he's bipartisan, I know he's going to vote against me."-- Harry S. Truman

              by irmaly on Tue Dec 21, 2010 at 11:49:47 AM PST

              [ Parent ]

    •  Moreover, due to his inept political operation (4+ / 0-)
      Recommended by:
      RichM, Jagger, teknofyl, nippersdad

      he has enabled a moribund Republican party to rise from the dead, to the point where the accomplisments you point out -- which are real -- are likely to be rolled back.  That is, whatever benefit the stimulus provided, could be undone by insane moves to cut spending and reduce the deficit while the economy is still hurting big time.  Whatever benefit could result from healthcare and financial reform is likely to be undone by inability to fund their implementation, even if they are not outright repealed.

      This points out Obama's biggest failure.  He has ceded the conversation to Republican topics.  What will the big issues be next year?  It won't be energy or EFCA or extending unemployment to the 99ers or jobs, jobs, jobs.  It will be cutting the deficit, cutting social security, and tax "reform" (meaning further tax cuts for the wealthy).

      Unlike Clinton, I think Obama is unlikely to stand up to the Republicans on threats to shut down the government or not raise the debt ceiling.  (I sure hope I'm wrong on this but his history is certainly not encouraging.)  So he'll cave to their demands and the country will end up further to the right than under Bush.

      "[W]e shall see the reign of witches pass over . . . and the people, recovering their true spirit, restore their government to its true principles." Jefferson

      by RenMin on Tue Dec 21, 2010 at 10:11:31 AM PST

      [ Parent ]

  •  The major difference is (18+ / 0-)

    whereas conservatives spend much of their time attacking Democrats and Obama, many progressives spend THEIR time attacking DEMOCRATS and OBAMA.

  •  Eclectablog, I have a quick question for you (11+ / 0-)

    Please answer honestly:

    Will you still support the President if he cuts benefits for Social Security and/or Medicare?

    "Whenever a fellow tells me he's bipartisan, I know he's going to vote against me."-- Harry S. Truman

    by irmaly on Tue Dec 21, 2010 at 09:58:31 AM PST

    •  not supporting him is worse (0+ / 0-)

      it's always been the lesser of two evils.

    •  "Cuts benefits" = ? (4+ / 0-)

      Define that.

      And at what cost?  And for whom?

      Am I, as a 35 year old man, willing to wait an extra year to begin taking Social Security so that, in the long term, I'll be able to keep my Social Security?

      Yes.

      But I'd much rather fight - alongside the President, who believes what I do - for raising payroll tax ceilings so that the wealthiest Americans don't stop paying into the system.

      In fact, I'd be willing to wait an extra year to get my benefits AND see that payroll tax ceiling raised if it means that my 2 y/o daughter will be able to get Social Security.

      SS has always been a "pay it forward" "according to his ability" "to the least of these" program.  I'm more than happy to keep Social Security strong, long into the future.

      What I refuse to do is squander a historic opportunity to create long-term economic security for millions of Americans.  I refuse to allow that sacred trust to be ended by my own selfishness or the selfishness of others.  We are all in this together.  No big shots no little shots.

      Stop clapping. Stop screaming. Open your mind. Listen.

      by Benintn on Tue Dec 21, 2010 at 10:04:42 AM PST

      [ Parent ]

      •  Thank you for answering honestly. (5+ / 0-)

        I'll take that as a Yes.

        "Whenever a fellow tells me he's bipartisan, I know he's going to vote against me."-- Harry S. Truman

        by irmaly on Tue Dec 21, 2010 at 10:09:08 AM PST

        [ Parent ]

      •  Why not champion a Natl Wealth Tax? (4+ / 0-)
        Recommended by:
        Meteor Blades, MacJimi, Benintn, PhilJD

        If you're a bondholder, and the issuer unilaterally lengthens the maturity, even at the same coupon rate, the rating agencies will immediately judge that to be a default.

        Same with SS.  Extending the retirement age is tantamount to a default.

        Problem with President Obama is that he fails to propose creative solutions to our fiscal "problems".

        Why not rally around a national wealth tax, impacting HHs with net worth above 50M?   Buffet and Ellison would donate 8% of their net capital every year.

        For a party that laments the unequal distribution of wealth, our Party does remarkably so little to address this problem.

        Learn about Centrist Economics, learn about Robert Rubin's Hamilton Project. http://www1.hamiltonproject.org/es/hamilton/hamilton_hp.htm

        by PatriciaVa on Tue Dec 21, 2010 at 10:17:07 AM PST

        [ Parent ]

        •  I do. I am. I will. (5+ / 0-)

          We prevented Great Depression II.  Unemployment would have been at 13-15% without the Recovery Act.  

          I'm sick of blaming the Democrats for the 420+ bills blocked by Senate Republicans.

          Stop clapping. Stop screaming. Open your mind. Listen.

          by Benintn on Tue Dec 21, 2010 at 10:26:22 AM PST

          [ Parent ]

        •  I don't think there's constitutional support (1+ / 0-)
          Recommended by:
          Onomastic

          for doing it the way you suggest.  

          But in essence the estate tax is a wealth tax.

          •  Was there support for Income Tax years ago? (1+ / 0-)
            Recommended by:
            irmaly

            Didn't we need an amendment to facilitate the taxation of income?

            Same with the Wealth Tax.  If President Obama champions it, people will support it.

            Given a choice, cutting entitlements or taxing wealth, people will overwhelmingly favor taxing wealth (and by taxing wealth.

            Those of you who believe that there is an appetite for entitlement reform against the backdrop of stagnant median wages are very mistaken.

            As mistaken as George Walker Bush was to believe that he could raise taxes, thereby breaking a campaign pledge, and still be reelected.

            Learn about Centrist Economics, learn about Robert Rubin's Hamilton Project. http://www1.hamiltonproject.org/es/hamilton/hamilton_hp.htm

            by PatriciaVa on Tue Dec 21, 2010 at 10:36:34 AM PST

            [ Parent ]

        •  yes - "lack of creative solutions" (2+ / 0-)
          Recommended by:
          TracieLynn, PatriciaVa

          Problem with President Obama is that he fails to propose creative solutions to our fiscal "problems".

          Nice phrasing to crystallize an impression in my brain struggling to grow.

          Has any WH position/proposal been anything but conventional and as unimaginative as expectations allow?

          Wondering how much is the WH advisors investment in protecting established structure, Pres. Obama's lack of ability to synthesize/inspire, or the overall unwillingness to rock the power/wealth boat.

          Anyway - I needed that comment. Thanks.

          Now, where did I leave my torches and villagers..

          by FrankSpoke on Tue Dec 21, 2010 at 11:32:20 AM PST

          [ Parent ]

        •  Once again (that's twice)... (1+ / 0-)
          Recommended by:
          PatriciaVa

          ...we agree.

          Don't tell me what you believe. Tell me what you do and I'll tell you what you believe.

          by Meteor Blades on Tue Dec 21, 2010 at 01:35:21 PM PST

          [ Parent ]

    •  It's another line in the sand (5+ / 0-)

      Heck, I can see some Kossacks fervently supporting him even if he proposes a 10% national sales tax.

      Learn about Centrist Economics, learn about Robert Rubin's Hamilton Project. http://www1.hamiltonproject.org/es/hamilton/hamilton_hp.htm

      by PatriciaVa on Tue Dec 21, 2010 at 10:06:15 AM PST

      [ Parent ]

    •  Depends (5+ / 0-)
      In general I would not support him doing that, no. But it depends on the details.

      Also, that doesn't mean I would walk away from him entirely.

      Frankly, I don't believe he will do that. Based on everything that I know about him, I can't see him doing that. I think he's much more likely to recommend means testing and/or raising the salary cap on which SS is taxed.

      We shall see. Unlike many here, I make my judgements on things he has done, not on what some people think he might do.

      To be clear, it's "EClectablog", not "Electablog".
      Visit me at Eclectablog. You could even click an ad!

      by Eclectablog on Tue Dec 21, 2010 at 10:21:34 AM PST

      [ Parent ]

  •  So I am (9+ / 0-)

    an extreme liberal purist incapable of compromise because I support universal healthcare, a progressive income tax, raising taxes on people who make more than $250K per year, and opposed payroll tax cuts in the name of preserving social security?  

    Gimme a fucking break...The only extremists are on the right and until this country faces that reality we'll end up flushing down the toilet any chances of remaining a relevant nation in the 21st century.    

    I take political action every day. I teach.

    by jbfunk on Tue Dec 21, 2010 at 10:01:36 AM PST

  •  What a bunch of crap (11+ / 0-)

    I quit reading when I got to the part about the left demanding 100 percent. That is crap, you know its crap and using it is crap.  100 percent crap.

    "Play it LOUD Robbie, Play it fucking loud" Dylan

    by NearlyNormal on Tue Dec 21, 2010 at 10:02:03 AM PST

  •  Syndicated Columist P.J. Carpenter (8+ / 0-)

    saying it makes it no less a gigantic pile of bullshit.

  •  "It is a rare display ..." ??? I don't think so! (9+ / 0-)

    It's a rare display when someone on the left says, "I was wrong, the President did know what he was doing."

    Right here on Daily Kos, on the rec list, as recently as yesterday:

    I apologize Mr. President

    ... I apologize Mr. President.

    Mr. President, I have to admit that I had less faith in you with regards to DADT ... To President Obama, Speaker Pelosi and Majority Leader Reid, thank you.  You made the United States a little better, and helped restore s little bit of hope when I needed it.

    I don't think it's rare at all. On the left we tend to be openminded, thoughtful, considerate, tolerant, etc. We pay attention to data and when something doesn't work, we ditch it. Yes, we have our principles and we work for them. If the opposition were genuinely interested in compromise, we'd surely do it.

    But they're not. They are the party of scorched earth, take-no-prisoners tactics. I challenge you to find a quote from a left-wing writer with anything like the weight of the Phillips quote in your diary. Where is it?

    You are painting the left as being as ideologically inflexible as the right. That is simply not the case. It is a false equivalence.

    The invasion of Iraq was a war crime, a crime against humanity, and a crime against civilization. Prosecute the crime.

    by Positronicus on Tue Dec 21, 2010 at 10:06:05 AM PST

    •  On a blog with literally hundreds... (5+ / 0-)
      ...of people who slammed the President for his actions (or perceived lack thereof) on DADT we get one -- ONE! -- "I was wrong" diary and you say it's not uncommon?

      Hoookay...

      You are painting the left as being as ideologically inflexible as the right.

      No. I'm painting some of the left that way. And some are. I see them here everyday. I see some of them in the comments in this diary.

      To be clear, it's "EClectablog", not "Electablog".
      Visit me at Eclectablog. You could even click an ad!

      by Eclectablog on Tue Dec 21, 2010 at 10:21:23 AM PST

      [ Parent ]

      •  I'm still not seeing the quote. Put up, or ... (0+ / 0-)

        I challenge you to find a quote from a left-wing writer with anything like the weight of the Phillips quote in your diary.

        Not some anonymous commenter on a blog. A recognized writer with a name and a reputation and an audience and a circulation comparable to that of Phillips.

        Show me.

        Where is it?

        The invasion of Iraq was a war crime, a crime against humanity, and a crime against civilization. Prosecute the crime.

        by Positronicus on Tue Dec 21, 2010 at 11:24:09 AM PST

        [ Parent ]

        •  I haven't suggested they are equivalent (0+ / 0-)
          In fact, any honest reading of my diary would note that I give far more negative treatment to Phillips and his ilk. But I will stand by my contention that there are those on the left that are unhappy with Barack Obama. There's simply no question about that and that's what Carpenter's essay is all about.

          To be clear, it's "EClectablog", not "Electablog".
          Visit me at Eclectablog. You could even click an ad!

          by Eclectablog on Tue Dec 21, 2010 at 12:17:02 PM PST

          [ Parent ]

    •  Such acknowledgements are much rarer than (0+ / 0-)

      calls for him to be impeached.

      "[R]ather high-minded, if not a bit self-referential"--The Washington Post.

      by Geekesque on Tue Dec 21, 2010 at 02:31:07 PM PST

      [ Parent ]

  •  I know that I am a far left extremist (10+ / 0-)

    for sure, because I'm from the ACLU wing of the Democratic party -- I'm opposed to torture, I'm opposed to prosecuting people for exercising their First Amendment rights, I'm opposed to building an even bigger and more expansive surveillance state, I'm opposed to having Janet Napolitano on video screens at Wal Mart telling you to watch out for terrorists, I'm opposed to authorizing the assassination of U.S. citizens abroad, I'm opposed to waging secret wars in Yemen and Pakistan, I'm opposed to doubling down on the war in Afghanistan, etc., etc.

    I guess I am really far out and there is no place for these views in the Democratic party now? I'm just a whiner who didn't get 100% of what I wanted, right? Although actually as far as civil liberties go and matters of war and peace, the left has gotten very little to none of what it wants. And I didn't mention anything on the list above that Congress has very much control over (didn't mention Guantanamo, for example), because these are all things that the Obama administration has shown plenty of initiative on -- in the wrong direction.

    "The pie shall be cut in half and each man shall receive...death. I'll eat the pie." Homer as Solomon

    by Lost Left Coaster on Tue Dec 21, 2010 at 10:06:58 AM PST

    •  Add in nationalizing natural resources... (2+ / 0-)
      Recommended by:
      Lost Left Coaster, Eclectablog

      ...setting up a state-owned bank (a la North Dakota) in every state, cutting the defense budget in half and investing the savings in green energy manufacturing protected by the kind of industrial policy China and Germany have, setting up a permanent system government-funded jobs and job training plus unemployment compensation for EVERYONE out of work for as long as they are out of work (plus a few dozen other things) and you'll get close to my extremist far-leftism.

      Don't tell me what you believe. Tell me what you do and I'll tell you what you believe.

      by Meteor Blades on Tue Dec 21, 2010 at 01:32:42 PM PST

      [ Parent ]

      •  Hey, don't get me wrong (0+ / 0-)

        I loves me some left-wing extremism. There are plenty of people on this site that would be shocked by how much I agree with their far-left ideology. They would probably laugh in my face if they read this comment.

        I am just convinced that it's tilting at windmills given the political climate in this country and particularly in Congress and especially particularly in the Senate right now. And being politically irrelevant ensures that your opponents win nearly everything and that's not good for the country or for dragging the country to the left where we want it.

        To be clear, it's "EClectablog", not "Electablog".
        Visit me at Eclectablog. You could even click an ad!

        by Eclectablog on Tue Dec 21, 2010 at 03:17:33 PM PST

        [ Parent ]

        •  We have to fight regardless of the ... (2+ / 0-)
          Recommended by:
          Lost Left Coaster, Eclectablog

          ...political climate. We not going to win many battles in the next two years. We're going to lose ground, in fact. How much ground will be determined by how persuasive we can be with elected Democrats and with Americans who might otherwise vote for Republicans unless we can show them that their interests like elsewhere. Frankly, very much will be up to the Senate and that veto stamp in the President's desk.

          Don't tell me what you believe. Tell me what you do and I'll tell you what you believe.

          by Meteor Blades on Tue Dec 21, 2010 at 04:14:46 PM PST

          [ Parent ]

  •  Bullshit. (13+ / 0-)

    This is just false:

    On opposite ground, today's progressive activists (known in some unmentioned circles as the "professional left") perceive Obama's success as a tragic, alienating failure simply because that success has been less than 100 percent. Their ideological purity is a brutal taskmaster; it accepts no compromise with political realities.

    The complaint from the "professional left" has never been that success has been less than 100%.  It's that the compromises made and particularly the way those compromises were made are counterproductive - ultimately damaging to liberal goals.

    You can agree or disagree with that argument, but it's dishonest to make the claim quoted in the diary.

    •  That is a classic strawman. Note that it never (0+ / 0-)

      comes equipped with examples of anyone at all who's unhappy at winning less than 100%. At this point, I'd be satisfied with treading water instead of actively regressing. Winning 10% would be fucking terrific.

      Expecting our Democratic President not to capitulate on tax cuts for the wealthy, the signature issue of the right, seems little enough to ask. That's what's truly tragic.

      The fact that that "compromise" is soon to be followed by the systematic undermining, again by our Democratic President, of Social Security, the crowning achievement of the Democratic Party, is unfathomable.

      Words fail in the face of that impending betrayal, they really do.

      When you triangulate everything, you can't even roll downhill...

      by PhilJD on Tue Dec 21, 2010 at 11:52:56 AM PST

      [ Parent ]

  •  We are quickly becoming a nation (6+ / 0-)

    where our major dividing line is not one of party but rather of class.

    Democrat/Republican...doesn't matter.  It's all about the money.  If you don't have it, you aren't getting equal representation or protection.  

    I'd rather die than give you control ~ Trent Reznor

    by JustJennifer on Tue Dec 21, 2010 at 10:11:02 AM PST

  •  Robert Gibbs CREATED (7+ / 0-)

    the anti-Obama sentiment with REPEATED attacks IN PUBLIC forums, by going out of his way to sling mud when none was necessary.

    Its the oldest trick in the book. Have someone on YOUR side which you can ignore as the Crazy Uncle in the Attic, and then you can ignore the Real Crazy on the Far Right Side.

    We have been set up to pose as the President's demonstration of How Reasonable He Is. Fair enough. Now, if we can get him to enact policies and tell a story which actually works for the Republic, I will continue to pose as the Crazy Uncle. Frederick Douglass was considered to be mad as a hatter by most "reasonable" (quaking in their boots) Americans North AND South until Lincoln invited him to the White House.  

    I have time to wait, but not much time. I will be busy while I wait.

    Figures don't lie, but liars do figure-Mark Twain

    by OregonOak on Tue Dec 21, 2010 at 10:11:26 AM PST

  •  The problem with Obama was that he (4+ / 0-)
    Recommended by:
    polecat, cevad, SoonerG, PhilJD

    pre-emptively surrenders on the very issues that galvanized his supporters in the campaign.

    http://my.barackobama.com/...

    It feels like bait and switch in the name of bipartisanship. Thus the bruised feelings on the left.

    •  We projected a lot on him that was unrealistic (0+ / 0-)

      The vast right wing conspiracy has skewed things so far off reality that we end up with a Democrat ruling to the right of Richard Nixon and they call it nazi-socialism.  Of course the vrwc base their political thought of two terrible novels written by that terrible guy, Ayn Rand (joke).  Thus their lack of reality.

      Thinkers, dreamers any mystics build castles in the air.  Baggers, paranoids and the GnoP build castles in the air and live in then paying rent to Beck and Limbaugh.

      Tea Parties are for little girls with imaginary friends.

      by J Edward on Tue Dec 21, 2010 at 10:25:42 AM PST

      [ Parent ]

  •  I have to agree with your trust. (3+ / 0-)
    Recommended by:
    Vicky, Eclectablog, SouthernBelleNC49

    It must be difficult for Obama to be the only adult in the room when dealing with almost any group of Senators or Representatives.  His vision is clearly long range and far beyond primitive GnoP mid brain, paranoid based reasoning.

    Tea Parties are for little girls with imaginary friends.

    by J Edward on Tue Dec 21, 2010 at 10:19:31 AM PST

  •  Is that you, David Broder? n/t (5+ / 0-)

    "If you can't lower heaven, raise hell!" - Mother Jones

    by al ajnabee on Tue Dec 21, 2010 at 10:21:13 AM PST

  •  Both Carpenter and you missed a few critical (4+ / 0-)
    Recommended by:
    Meteor Blades, cevad, filby, PhilJD

    points:

    Although there are probably a very few progressives who are purists/utopians, most are not.  More importantly, the complaints about Obama are not just about what he has done and not done, but that he does not really take a strong stand and, especially, does not fight for what he supposedly wants or says he wants.  Progressives would be far, far more accepting of what he has failed to accomplish if, in fact, he tried and failed to get a more progressive agenda fulfilled.  To have failed without trying is the problem.

    The trouble with the world is that the stupid are cocksure and the intelligent are full of doubt. Bertrand Russell

    by accumbens on Tue Dec 21, 2010 at 10:23:59 AM PST

  •  I think this is an important diary because (2+ / 0-)
    Recommended by:
    billlaurelMD, Eclectablog

    for example, there are trolls on hp asking "what is it that Progressives want"  It's clear to us, but they see us as despots.  They see us as floundering, bumbling, equivocating bleeding hearts who only want to give money away to undeserving drug addicts.

    When people ask "what is it that Progressives want" I answer "For democracy to work for everyone."  Once I got a reply that I couldn't quite decipher and what I think the person was saying is something about hate crimes, in other words, why are certain people given certain protections and political correctness is destroying this country. At least, that's how I saw it.

    Political correctness seems to be a huge bugaboo with conservatives.  It's how they see us, as trying to take away something from them to give to someone else.  Some "lazy, undeserving minority".  This is a worldview and a language that I don't speak, don't understand, can't relate to.  I think that's why, when I read the commenter's question on hate crimes, I did not understand at all what he was driving at.  I still don't.  And I think there's such an enormous disconnect with the way we see and understand each other.  We live in the same country, but we might as well be from different galaxies.

  •  I don't think so - He has his labels reversed. (3+ / 0-)
    Recommended by:
    Meteor Blades, cevad, PhilJD

    On opposite ground, today's progressive activists (known in some unmentioned circles as the "professional left") perceive Obama's success as a tragic, alienating failure simply because that success has been less than 100 percent. Their ideological purity is a brutal taskmaster; it accepts no compromise with political realities.

    I and those whom I know consider themselves progressive would take issue with this characterization. In this case I consider the labels to get in the way of understanding and confusing the conversation in terms of what problems we are trying to solve.

    He plays right into Glenn Beck's hands when he takes this tack. "liberal" has been made a dirty word and now he joins the chorus doing the same with "progressive".

    Unapologetically pro-citizen. Not anti-corporation just very pro-citizen.

    by CanYouBeAngryAndStillDream on Tue Dec 21, 2010 at 10:25:09 AM PST

  •  Thanks Eb. (4+ / 0-)

    Those who are too smart to engage in politics are punished by being governed by those who are dumber. Boy, did that greek geek nail it.

    by amk for obama on Tue Dec 21, 2010 at 10:25:41 AM PST

  •  This diary is awash in ideology (5+ / 0-)

    Let's get down to brass tacks. The rich are sucking more money out of the federal gov't than ever before while the middle class is going backward. They just defrauded America through a finance scandal in which their losses were sopped up by the tax paying public.

    In return, the President allowed them to keep more of their ill gotten gains with lower taxes AND he allowed them to pass on more of the stolen loot to their children by lowering the estate tax.

    Let's stop talking in ideological generalities as Carpenter does and let's get down to specifics.

    There are two kinds of people in this world. The kind who divide the world into two kinds of people, and the kind who don't.

    by upstate NY on Tue Dec 21, 2010 at 10:27:22 AM PST

  •  i'm so sick of (5+ / 0-)

    the myth of the 'middle'.

    doesn't help anyone.

    Taxes are Patriotic

    by zezc on Tue Dec 21, 2010 at 10:27:28 AM PST

  •  this analysis is cartoonish and i'll tell you why (10+ / 0-)

    the left wants purity?  bullshit.  that's crap.  the outrage against obama is legitimate because the "old democrats," the DC beltway fucks are utterly corrupted by moneyed interests.  

    once it became clear that politics as usual was on tap, most liberals with a brain said "fuck you" to DC democrats.

    if people don't like that i criticize those corrupt policiticians, you can call me all the names you want but just know:  you are complicit in the corruption.

    soon democrats will start taking apart social security to pay for the tax cuts for the rich and if i complain, i'm a "purist" according to their corrupted logic... fuck that crock of shit.

    Stop Prohibition, Start Harm Reduction - Yes on 19

    by gnostradamus on Tue Dec 21, 2010 at 10:30:13 AM PST

    •  For example: Ken Salazar as Interior Secy- (2+ / 0-)
      Recommended by:
      teknofyl, gnostradamus

      fox in charge of the henhouse. It's not "ideological purity" to ask that he at least not appoint Mr. Coal to that position. It's a bottom line position, and practically every bottom-line has been sold out or given away by this administration.

  •  This helps to remind us (3+ / 0-)
    Recommended by:
    polecat, LongTom, PhilJD

    just how ruthless and uncompromising the other side has become.

    Which to my mind illustrates the futility of attempting to be "bipartisan" with the modern GOP. Now, I don't mind BHO being polite. As Churchill said, if you must kill a man, it costs you nothing to do it politely.

    But Obama needs to realize he is the head of a partisan political party, and act accordingly. A little rhetorical thunder would do wonders for morale.

    In theory, there is no difference between theory and practice; but in practice, there always is a difference. - Yogi Berra

    by blue aardvark on Tue Dec 21, 2010 at 10:34:27 AM PST

  •  Less than 100%? (4+ / 0-)

    I would have been gratified with less than 33%. Less than 15%. I and many like me are feeling ripped off, not because the President doesn't have a yoga instructor and hasn't given up yoga yet. It's because he has made many many baffling decisions that time and again have thrown leftist populism under the bus. I didn't expect him to get single-payer Medicare for all. I didn't expect him to have Bush jailed. I didn't expect him to hurl invective, abuse and taunts at the right wing.

    But I did expect more, and I have to say I find the dismissive tone toward those of us who are lamenting the many lost opportunities unnecessarily provocative, to say nothing of complacent, arrogant, and smug. Hope that all works out for you in 2011.

  •  more false equivalency? (10+ / 0-)

    Come on how many times does this have to be debunked? Just because the right is nuts doesn't mean we have to support a center right president.

  •  Tipped and recced for being right (4+ / 0-)

    as well as devastatingly accurate

    the anti-Obama lefts constnat refusal to give the man credit and their 24/7/365 negativity is a big problem for us.

    The sooner they can be persuaded to either turn of their guns, or at the very least point them at the proper targets, the better.

    "The future of man is not one billion of us fighting over limited resources on a soon-to-be dead planet. . .I won't go back into the cave for anyone."

    by Whimsical on Tue Dec 21, 2010 at 10:46:46 AM PST

    •  Do you give him credit for blowing the election? (0+ / 0-)

      For losing the greatest political advantage one party has had over the other since 1964? For putting the party that created the worst economic crisis since the Great Depression back in power?

      If I knew it was comin', I could pull a jet plane.--Reggie Jackson

      by LongTom on Tue Dec 21, 2010 at 11:06:07 AM PST

      [ Parent ]

      •  Tell you what (3+ / 0-)

        You acknowledge that the far lefts constant refusal to give Obama and the Democrats any credit and their constant 24/7/365 negativity focused on Democrats instead of the actual enemies of progress played a LARGE role in generating the so-called "enthusiasm gap" which cost us so much in the midterms, and then I'll tell you.

        "The future of man is not one billion of us fighting over limited resources on a soon-to-be dead planet. . .I won't go back into the cave for anyone."

        by Whimsical on Tue Dec 21, 2010 at 11:11:17 AM PST

        [ Parent ]

        •  Obama, not the Left, created the "entusiasm gap." (0+ / 0-)

          The Left LOVED Obama in 2008. I sure did. Am I fickle? No. I don't like losers.

          If I knew it was comin', I could pull a jet plane.--Reggie Jackson

          by LongTom on Tue Dec 21, 2010 at 02:09:06 PM PST

          [ Parent ]

          •  Obama may have created the gap (0+ / 0-)

            the 24/7/365 negativity at the wrong targets by the left made it a hell of a lot larger than it needed to be/would've been otherwise.

            "The future of man is not one billion of us fighting over limited resources on a soon-to-be dead planet. . .I won't go back into the cave for anyone."

            by Whimsical on Tue Dec 21, 2010 at 03:00:33 PM PST

            [ Parent ]

            •  You have this catch phrase about "24/7/365 (0+ / 0-)

              negativity from the left." It does not exist. Your catch phrase is a substitute for thought. Sure there are a few people who've thought Obama was too "conservative" or whatever from the start. Nobody listens to them anyway, ever.

              This was not a close election in which someone purely negative, like Nader, with a few supporters could make a difference. This was a landslide. Obama DID alienate millions upon millions of his base, and he also alienated many millions of independents, people who voted for Bush, but voted for him in 2008, because the Republicans sucked so bad. He has been a terrible political leader. Results speak volumes.

              If I knew it was comin', I could pull a jet plane.--Reggie Jackson

              by LongTom on Wed Dec 22, 2010 at 06:15:58 AM PST

              [ Parent ]

              •  No, 24/7/365 negativity (0+ / 0-)

                is EXACTLY what Obama got from the left 99.99% of the time, and a large reason the results were as bad as they were.

                Look, it's really simple- when the average voters turns on Fox , he hears "Democrats suck and their ideas are terrible", and he goes other places looking for balance.

                If at those other places(like this site)the majority of what he hears is "Democrats suck and their ideas are terrible" he throws up his hands in despair and gives up on politics and stays home.

                And that's mostly what there was coming from the left in the midterms-"Democrats suck and their ideas are terrible". Oh, there was the occasional pro-Obama diary or attempt to remind the left that this was the most progressive, productive Congress in a generation, but they were quickly washed away in a flood of anti-Dem, anti-Obama sentiment.

                If the left had wised up, given Obama and the Dems the credit they deserve, and focused all that negativity squarely on the Republicans (where it belonged) then I firmly believe we would've had a lot more turnout and a lot more people pulling the lever for Democrats.

                Oh we still would've lost some seats, and I won't argue that Obama could've done a little better (I will argue that he could've done a LOT better- anyone expecting more than say a 10% improvement over the deals that were actually struck is being exceedingly unrealistic, IMO)- but without the constant blasts from the left, the losses would not have been anywhere NEAR as bad as they were.

                And until the left recognizes this, and adjust their tactics accordingly, they're going to keep losing-and driving the party right in the process.

                "The future of man is not one billion of us fighting over limited resources on a soon-to-be dead planet. . .I won't go back into the cave for anyone."

                by Whimsical on Wed Dec 22, 2010 at 09:26:42 AM PST

                [ Parent ]

                •  You're in a fantasy world. (0+ / 0-)

                  Obama was beaten by the people he refused to fight back against: Republicans. Blaming the people who urged him to fight back is just childish and ridiculous--as are your use of imaginary numbers like "24/7/365" and "99.99%."

                  If I knew it was comin', I could pull a jet plane.--Reggie Jackson

                  by LongTom on Wed Dec 22, 2010 at 02:24:15 PM PST

                  [ Parent ]

                  •  So you've got no ACTUAL counter to (0+ / 0-)

                    my points then. Thought not. Addicts never can deal with facts.

                    You're a perfect example of what's wrong with the left- addicted to negativity, and so unwilling to give it up, consequences to the country be damned, the fact that your negativity is actively damaging the chances of getting what you claim to want passed be damned- so addicted to negativity  that you can't even discuss it maturely, resorting instead to childish ad hominems when someone points out its repeated failure as a policy.

                    If you ever give up your addiction and decide to deal with reality, you're welcome to help me move the Democratic party left (unlike your negativity, MY way will actually work- it just wont give you the emotional high you currently get from Dem-bashing).

                    Until you decide to get clean and deal with the facts as they are? You're useless to me.

                    "The future of man is not one billion of us fighting over limited resources on a soon-to-be dead planet. . .I won't go back into the cave for anyone."

                    by Whimsical on Thu Dec 23, 2010 at 06:00:44 AM PST

                    [ Parent ]

                    •  But you haven't offered any facts. Not one. (0+ / 0-)

                      You're all hyperbolic catch phrases, like "24/7/365" and half-baked opinions. The "average voter" doesn't watch Fox news. Over a hundred million people voted in 2008. The highest rated Fox news show draws like 6 million, and most of them are right wingers to begin with.

                      Right wing republicans excoriated Bush the same way lefties attack Obama now. He didn't suffer historic losses. He didn't flinch in the face of a Democratic minority, or majority for that matter.

                      Just what is your "way" to move the party forward? There's nothing wrong with honest self-criticism. Obama's political tactics have been absolutely terrible. The election result speaks for itself. Do you trsut him to win the next one? I don't.

                      If I knew it was comin', I could pull a jet plane.--Reggie Jackson

                      by LongTom on Fri Dec 24, 2010 at 02:06:14 AM PST

                      [ Parent ]

                      •  Wow. (0+ / 0-)

                        If you cant simply look around and just see the 24/7/365 negativity, I'm not sure I can be of any help to you. Its blatantly obvious and staring you in the face.

                        But given your attempt at revisionist history, I guess I should not be surprised. The right wing LOVED W, and sang his praises to the heavens. He was nowhere CLOSE to being attacked in the way the left is currently attacking Obama.

                        That's why the right wing beats us- their base makes demands, gets a little progress on their demands, goes NUTS with joy and REDOUBLES their efforts on behalf of their candidates.

                        Our base makes demands, gets a little progress on those demands goes "fuck you, that's nowhere near good enough" and turns their guns on the people that are trying to help  24/7/365, rather then the REAL problems.

                        (Although to be fair, I guess you could be confusing W with his father- Bush the Elder WAS attacked by the right wing for doing something that benefited the country- raising taxes. W had NO SUCH problem).

                        As for Obama, 2012 is a very simple question.  If the left starts giving him the credit he deserves and goes back to attacking Republicans instead of Democrats, he wins.  If they don't, he loses.

                        It really is just that simple.

                        The current strategy is one of negative reinforcement- "Do what we want or we'll let a Republican take your seat".

                        The problem with this is it sends the wrong messages-"Might as well ignore the left- if they don't get what they want, no matter how unrealistic it is they'll screw you over."; "There's nothing in it for you to move left", and most importantly, "The left has NO interest in keeping you in power."

                        As long as we keep on with that negative strategy, we're going to keep losing, and the party is going to keep drifting right. Because if we don't show we have an interest in keeping them in office, they're going to play to the people who show them that they do. That's how politics WORKS.

                        So, despite your attempt at a strawman, I'm not saying there's anything wrong with self-criticism. It just has a correct time and place, and once that time and place is done, focus needs to be put on the real enemy.

                        So lets switch to a reward strategy, and as an example, lets use one of the lefts favorite targets- Blanche Lincoln.

                        She was subjected to plenty of "honest self-criticism" as you so plainly put it, including a bruising primary- which I was/and am all for.

                        She won the primary- and what did she do? She moved left! She wrote tough derivatives regulation in the fin-reform law.

                        Was she rewarded at ALL for that? Nope. The 24/7/365 negativity continued unabated and she lost her seat- as if Boozman is somehow going to be an improvement. And it sent every one of those negative messages I listed above to her colleagues.

                        Now, lets see what happens if, as soon as she moved left, the 24/7/365 negativity ceased, and instead, we supported her because she moved left.

                        First off, we send the following POSITIVE messages: "If you move left, even if its only a little, we'll have your back"., "The left is interested in keeping you in power." and more importantly, "The left understands its going to take time to get what they want and are being realistic and mature about building up to it".

                        All of which are much better messages to send. Even if she still wound up losing, more politicians would be willing to move left because of those messages.  Its basic psychology.

                        But imagine if she wound up winning (entirely possible if we supported instead of constantly bashing)- multiply the effects by 100X.

                        We'dve shown that the left is a force to be reckoned with in politics- that people should pay attention to us.

                        Repeat that for 2-3 election cycles, and youd see a decided move left in the Democratic party.

                        Or hold on to the emotional high that comes with 24/7/365 negativity and keep losing and having the party drift rightward as a result.

                        "The future of man is not one billion of us fighting over limited resources on a soon-to-be dead planet. . .I won't go back into the cave for anyone."

                        by Whimsical on Sat Dec 25, 2010 at 05:35:44 AM PST

                        [ Parent ]

                        •  Merry Christmas! And you're wrong. (0+ / 0-)

                          You still marshall no facts. You just say, "Why just look around, and you'll see I'm right!" Bullshit. Give me some evidence.

                          Here's some from me abiut the fcat that many conservatives disliked Bush the same way many liberals now dislike Obama. Try googling conservatives bush. Here's the first page results:

                          Why Conservatives Hate Bush - GreenbergSo are conservatives unhappy with Bush because he let down their causes? No. They're miffed that Bush, in pursuing those very causes, alienated two-thirds ...
                          www.washingtonmonthly.com/features/.../0712.greenberg.html - Cached - SimilarBush 43:

                          Conservative movement is inconsequential | Washington ...Dec 18, 2010 ... What you heard less often were expressions of the deep reservations some conservatives felt about Bush's governing philosophy. ...
                          washingtonexaminer.com/.../bush-43-conservative-movement- inconsequential - Cached

                          The Conservative Revolt | The Weekly StandardOct 20, 2005 ... There are six reasons why conservatives have turned on Bush. 12:00 AM, Oct 20, ... Movement conservatives feel Bush doesn't respect them. ...
                          www.weeklystandard.com/Content/Public/.../235mjdqp.asp - Cached - Similar

                          Buckley: Bush Not A True Conservative - CBS Evening News - CBS NewsJul 22, 2006 ... CBS Evening News: Buckley: Bush Not A True Conservative - CBS News Exclusive: Buckley Criticizes President For Interventionist Policies.
                          www.cbsnews.com/.../main1826838.shtml - Cached - Similar - Add to iGoogle

                          Conservative Anger Grows Over Bush's Foreign Policy ...Jul 19, 2006 ... At a moment when his conservative coalition is already under strain over domestic policy, President Bush is facing a new and swiftly ...
                          www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/.../AR2006071801373.html - Similar

                          Conservatives to Bush: Fire Gonzales - TIMEApr 16, 2007 ... In a dramatic break with the President, an influential group calls for the Attorney General's ouster.
                          www.time.com/time/nation/article/0,8599,1610738,00.html - SimilarThe Bush Betrayal - Is George W. Bush a Conservative?Oct 6, 2004 ... Resource pages for former Bush supporters - faithful to historic unifying American values, humble foreign policy, civil liberties.
                          www.republicansforhumility.com/conservative.html - Cached - Similar

                          Conservatives - Why Bush? - Yahoo! AnswersNov 27, 2010 ... Bush has a new book out and all of a sudden he's the darling of ... Why not Bush ? Beats Pelosi. ... In what way did you think that most of us ...
                          answers.yahoo.com/question/index?qid... - Cached

                          Did George W. Bush truly represent core conservative values during ...‎
                          Why are conservatives blaming Obama for illegals in Arizona when ...‎
                          Where were all of you over-night conservatives when Bush ...‎

                          Why do liberals try to pass Bush off as being a CONSERVATIVE ...‎

                          More results from answers.yahoo.com »
                          Get more discussion results

                          "Conservative" Bush Spends More than "Liberal" Presidents Clinton ...7 posts - Last post: Jul 31, 2003
                          by V de Rugy - 2010
                          Author: Veronique de RugyTad DeHaven, Published: 2003-07-31, Type: Daily Commentary.
                          www.cato.org/pub_display.php?pub_id=3184 - CachedGet more discussion results

                          Conservatives for Bush by James WilsonOct 13, 2004 ... Conservatives for Bush. by James Leroy Wilson by James Leroy Wilson. I know the temptation is still there, the "lesser of two evils" ...
                          www.lewrockwell.com/wilson-jl/wilson-james15.html - Cached - Similar Books for conservatives and bush

                          Conservatives Betrayed: How George W Bush and ... - Richard A Viguerie - 2006 - 286 pages

                          Compassionate Conservatism: What It Is What It ... - Marvin Olasky, George W Bush - 2000 - 241 pages

                          books.google.com

                          If I knew it was comin', I could pull a jet plane.--Reggie Jackson

                          by LongTom on Sun Dec 26, 2010 at 01:57:02 AM PST

                          [ Parent ]

                        •  Okay, Blance Lincoln. (0+ / 0-)

                          If I knew it was comin', I could pull a jet plane.--Reggie Jackson

                          by LongTom on Sun Dec 26, 2010 at 01:58:12 AM PST

                          [ Parent ]

                        •  Okay Blanche Lincoln redux (0+ / 0-)

                          To be fair, your example of Blanche is at leat an argument based on evidence, however flawed. Lincoln's pallid attempt at populism after her renomination was never going to do her any good. She was extremely unpopular in Arkansas anyway, and was never going to get reelected, which is a great reason for primarying her in and of itself.

                          If I knew it was comin', I could pull a jet plane.--Reggie Jackson

                          by LongTom on Sun Dec 26, 2010 at 02:02:49 AM PST

                          [ Parent ]

  •  i'm a radical left socialist (6+ / 0-)

    and I haven't become disenchanted with Obama yet.  GO FIGURE.

    "Kossacks are held to a higher standard. Like Hebrew National hot dogs." - blueaardvark

    by louisev on Tue Dec 21, 2010 at 11:03:02 AM PST

  •  Do you trust him to win elections? I don't. (1+ / 0-)
    Recommended by:
    MixedContent

    How about the group of "purists", like me, who believe that the Republican Party is the greatest threat to peace and prosperity that the US now faces? Frankly, I don't care all that much about the nuances of Obama's policies. Their results have been pretty poor over all, but that's just an opinion.

    What's NOT an opinion is that Obama has engineered the worst, most inexplicable midterm election disaster since 1922, and shows no signs of stemming the tide against Democrats. All of his supposedly wonderful policies didn't do him or the party jackshit on election day, and he shows no signs of wising up.

    Policy, shmolicy. Obama is the worst political leader of any president in living memory. Worse than Nixon. Worse even than Hoover. And far worse than any Democratic leader.

    If I knew it was comin', I could pull a jet plane.--Reggie Jackson

    by LongTom on Tue Dec 21, 2010 at 11:03:34 AM PST

  •  Be wary of statements like (1+ / 0-)
    Recommended by:
    filby

    "less than a 100 percent". Normally they satisfy emotions more than regard for accuracy.

    The cave, the Matrix, America.

    by Grassee on Tue Dec 21, 2010 at 11:04:11 AM PST

  •  What unmitigated bullshit: (4+ / 0-)
    Recommended by:
    LongTom, HairyTrueMan, Michael91, tardis10

    today's progressive activists...  perceive Obama's success as a tragic, alienating failure simply because that success has been less than 100 percent. Their ideological purity is a brutal taskmaster; it accepts no compromise with political realities.

    "Less than 100 percent" my ass. I'm pretty sure I speak for a lot of progressives in saying I would have been fucking thrilled with 50% success, and reasonably satisfied with 10%.

    When you triangulate everything, you can't even roll downhill...

    by PhilJD on Tue Dec 21, 2010 at 11:05:31 AM PST

    •  Well no you don't (3+ / 0-)
      Recommended by:
      Fe Bongolan, abrauer, Imhotepsings

      You don't speak for a lot of progressives. you speak for a small minority, and even then, you don't agree 100% on everything 100% of the time.

      For example, 80% of the liberal base of the Democratic Party support Obama. That automatically puts you in a small group.

      Second, you have examples like louisv above who self describes as a radical social leftist and Obama supporter.

      Presumption equals arrogance. Never pretend you speak for anyone but yourself.

      •  On the other hand, I've yet to see a single (0+ / 0-)

        example, on DKos or anywhere else, not one, of anyone so "pure" that they're unhappy at receiving less than 100%.

        Such "people" no doubt exist in the diarist's mind, but they're all made of straw and don't count.

        When you triangulate everything, you can't even roll downhill...

        by PhilJD on Tue Dec 21, 2010 at 12:09:52 PM PST

        [ Parent ]

  •  Reductionism is like a prize to writers (1+ / 0-)
    Recommended by:
    Eclectablog

    ...with both a block and a deadline. Unfortunately, in politics it's never productive to box in Presidents or voters into neat little categories. Sure, there's always some resonance but never depth or true understanding.

    These political "positions" also line up with personality types, and the economy, and jobs, and war and peace, etc.

    Nothing is ever inevitable in politics and a politician can't be "trusted". You can trust the woman or man but not the politician or the political, presuming you mean that whatever the result you trust the President will get the best result achievable. That's malpractice in the role of citizen/voter, misplaced virtue, wishy-washy unseriousness. I suggest that like hope and love, save your trust for home and church. You can trust me...but just try taking the food out of my mouth, or my neighbor's, and you'll see a new me.

    There's a power proposition, a fluid (doesn't seem that way but remember, nothing's inevitable in politics) and that will determine a step here and a step there. Only movements determine a path.

    Stupid over-simplified generalizations are for writers who lack experience, exposure, depth, data, analytical skills, and/or imagination. You're a more insightful writer than this Carpenter seems to be.  

    "Life is not about waiting for the storms to pass... it's about learning how to dance in the rain." (unknown)

    by kck on Tue Dec 21, 2010 at 11:05:53 AM PST

  •  I'm with you!! (6+ / 0-)

    I'm amazed by how much has been accomplished in less than two years. And I'm one of those fanciful thinkers that really does want a president who's president of the United States, not just of 20% on one end of the political contiuum.

    "Statistics are people with the tears washed away." Sociologist Ruth Sidel

    by Vicky on Tue Dec 21, 2010 at 11:06:59 AM PST

  •  Hey. (2+ / 0-)
    Recommended by:
    filby, Eclectablog

    Some of us are ok, you know.  We'll be happy to send you a pamphlet.

    -- Intense, Jackbooted, Anti-Constitutional  Bureaucrats Who Like to Enforce Despotic Socialism Anonymous

    Happy Fucking Monday. -- irony from Colorado is the Shiznit, after a long rant.

    by dov12348 on Tue Dec 21, 2010 at 11:08:27 AM PST

  •  Not sure about the veracity (0+ / 0-)

    of that healthcare quote. I've read very little, either online or off-, that references people fighting for "health care reform that achieves the decades-long goal of near universality."

    Cuz, well, "near-universality" is kind of like "mostly dead" or "almost there": sort of meaningless, pretty much a feel-good gesture, and utterly insulting to the MILLIONS of Americans who even this President's own administration will still be left without health insurance when the law finally takes full effect THREE YEARS from now.

    Rather, I'm pretty sure that people have been fighting for decades to achieve actual, honest-to-goodness universal health care coverage. Gosh, I wonder if that makes them all "ideologically pure."

  •  Find me one liberal who is angry that Obama's... (2+ / 0-)
    Recommended by:
    dark daze, MixedContent

    ...success has been less than 100%. Or who rejects all compromise.

    One.

    You can't, of course. Which means that only a liar would say this:

    On opposite ground, today's progressive activists (known in some unmentioned circles as the "professional left") perceive Obama's success as a tragic, alienating failure simply because that success has been less than 100 percent. Their ideological purity is a brutal taskmaster; it accepts no compromise with political realities.

    And the fact that you promote a lie like that makes you nothing more than a propagandist.

    Obama stands with war profiteers, torturers, Wall Street, health insurance companies, Big PhARMA, Big Oil and Social Security-haters. Good at photo ops, though.

    by expatjourno on Tue Dec 21, 2010 at 11:18:05 AM PST

  •  my advice to all concerned: (3+ / 0-)
    Recommended by:
    Corporate Dog, dark daze, tardis10

                   follow the money

    it takes a lot to laugh, it takes a train to cry

    by memofromturner on Tue Dec 21, 2010 at 11:18:06 AM PST

  •  Nicely written! (3+ / 0-)
    Recommended by:
    agent, Niniane, Eclectablog

    When politics become so partisan, when it becomes against people (liberals and socialists), rather than about policy, there's a total disconnect from policy and governing.  Kind of frightening actually.

    "Whenever you have truth it must be given with love, or the message and the messenger will be rejected" ~Mahatma Gandhi

    by Kiku on Tue Dec 21, 2010 at 11:26:09 AM PST

    •  wrong (1+ / 0-)
      Recommended by:
      filby

      its all about policy.  The WH just cant defend their half ass "reforms", so instead they just lable their critics "purist".

      When you have no legs to stand on, you call people names.  That is what it has come to in the WH.

      Bad is never good until worse happens

      by dark daze on Tue Dec 21, 2010 at 11:34:02 AM PST

      [ Parent ]

  •  Got my boots, where do I order the socialism? (0+ / 0-)

    These boots are made for walking:  http://www.youtube.com/...

    "A city for sale and doomed to speedy destruction if it finds a purchaser!" --King Jugurtha

    by LucyandByron on Tue Dec 21, 2010 at 11:45:32 AM PST

  •  good diary (2+ / 0-)
    Recommended by:
    Niniane, Eclectablog

    Perspective is free. No idea why so many are going without. Hopefully, a few readers will appreciate your willingness to share.

    Cheers.

  •  Since I Am The Moderate Center (2+ / 0-)
    Recommended by:
    Niniane, tb92

    I can tell all you nattering nabobs of negativity that Obama will be re-elected by supporting all the things we in the Mushy Middle want. So just suck it up.We in the Mushy Middle have a whole plan.

    First and foremost,we in the MM want JOBS. Good ones that pay a living wage and have benefits. We also support Social Security and believe that an old age lived in dignity,free from fear is a fair expectation for a working man (or woman)to have. We mushy Middlites support excellent public schools and equal opportunity for all children to "be all they can be". In fact,we want to see our kids do better than we did. Pretty common parent's dream here in the middle. The Mushy Middle wants access to affordable healthcare. We will sleep better at night if we don't have to worry about one medical emergency wiping us out. We wonder if that Medicare system might work for us. We are patriotic and we support our Vets. We want to make sure the VA is well funded. Here in the Center of the Centrists we happen to like clean air & water. Green jobs are A-OK with us,too.

    There are lotsa other controversial things we in the Mushy Middle want....like an end to the wars,a fair tax system and,did I mention...we want JOBS.

    "George RR Martin is not your bitch" ~~ Neil Gaiman

    by tardis10 on Tue Dec 21, 2010 at 11:55:01 AM PST

  •  More false equivalency... (0+ / 0-)

    ...not surprising that this is at CNN, which is (along with the rest of the SCLM) constantly pushing the notion that the far left is equal but opposite to the far right. They'll cling to this notion until the bitter end--no matter how far right the jackboots march, the left will apparently always be just as culpable for everything.

  •  Heh. I started reading this and forgot who (2+ / 0-)
    Recommended by:
    Eclectablog, Imhotepsings

    wrote it so I was holding my breath waiting for another slam against the President.  My bad.  Whew.

    Thanks for the great diary.  I really like the football metaphor.  The Prez has a great ground game that gets the ball into the end zone.  

    OTOH, that doesn't match the heart-stopping thrill of watching the quarterback drop back with the offensive line holding strong until a receiver gets open 60 yards downfield and waltzes the ball into the end zone.  

    But the qb might get sacked before he gets the ball away, or one of his linemen might get caught holding, or his receiver doesn't catch the ball, or his receiver fumbles the ball a yard or two short of the end zone as he hotdogs to a sure (hah) td, or he's intercepted.  [Sorry.  Getting carried away by memories.  Canadian football can get pretty exciting.  :)]

    We must, indeed, all hang together, or assuredly we shall all hang separately. B. Franklin

    by Observerinvancouver on Tue Dec 21, 2010 at 12:14:18 PM PST

  •  The "Purist Progressives" canard (1+ / 0-)
    Recommended by:
    Free Jazz at High Noon

    ... is one of the biggest lies the elite Washington establishment tells itself.

    Like most "Purist Progressives" I never felt the need for "100 percent" success.  I'd have settled for 90%.  Hell, I'd have been thrilled with 80%.  I would have applauded 70% and I would have tolerated 60%.  Which should give you a clue why I and other "Purist Progressives" consider Barry a "tragic, alienating failure".  It's not because he has done nothing, it's because he has done so little, that he cannot fairly be given anything other than a failing grade (hence "failure").

    For example lets grade the "extraordinary success" hailed by Carpenter:

    "a stimulus package that prevented the Great Depression II"

    The purpose of the stimulus package was not to prevent a depression, it was to stimulate the economy: triggering new growth and restoring employment to acceptable levels (5-6%).  This did not happen.  Official unemployment is at 9.8% and new hiring is largely part-time and benefit-less, rather than full-time, which places downward pressure on wages.  Demand remains depressed, which leaves businesses with excess capacity, triggering more cutbacks and layoffs.  An out and out Depression was prevented, which is not nothing, but the economy was not reignited.  We now face years of high unemployment, reduced growth and wage stagnation because the President did not do enough.

    ECON GRADE - 28% (FAILED)

    NEEDED TO PASS: unemployment <= 6%, modest growth in median income</p>

    NEEDED FOR 'A': some or all of the following; massive infrastructure investment, extensive aide to state governments, national jobs program, formal policy for promoting new technologies and renewable energy

    "health care reform that achieves the decades-long goal of near universality"

    "Near universality" was not the "decades-long goal" of Health Care reform.  The goal was actual universality.  The goal was also actual reform, i.e. fundamental change to a failing system.  Americans pay more per capita for the health care than other developed nations, and those costs are rising.  We also get worse results for the money we pay.  Paying more and more for less and less is a classic sign of market failure.  It is evidence of a system trending towards collapse.  

    Barry had the opportunity to move America away from a For-Profit health care system which prizes money over lives and is unsustainable in the long-run, and towards a For-Health health care system which would save lives and money in the long-run.  He chose instead to prop-up the existing system temporarily by shifting costs on to the general public via mandates and tax payer funded subsidies for private insurance.  More over in the process he failed to guarantee Health Care for all Americans.

    HEALTH CARE GRADE - 31% (failed)

    NEEDED TO PASS:
    Public Option or other solution providing universality and strong cost controls.

    NEEDED FOR 'A':
    Single-Payer

    financial reform that reimposes some grown-up supervision of Wall Street

    Wall Street's excesses broke the global economy.  Wall Street brought ruin not just on this nation, but the much of the world.  What was needed in the wake of such calamity was massive structural reforms to eliminate the possibility of it happening again.  What we got was the candid admission from a high ranking Democrat in the Senate that "The banks own the place", clearly "some grown-up supervision" is wholly inadequate.

    FINANCIAL REFORM GRADE 12% (failed)

    NEEDED TO PASS:
    In depth public investigation of the causes behind the crash, prosecution of those who committed criminal acts of fraud, termination of regulators who failed to enact or enforce appropriate regulations, "to big to fail" institutions forced to provide more transparency and to reduce their size and other systemic risk factors.

    NEEDED FOR 'A':
    Nationalization and break-up of "too big to fail" financial institutions.

    CONCLUSION:

    Less than 100% "purity" would have been acceptable.  We would have accepted economic stimulation that worked, even if the programs didn't focus on progressive priorities.  We would have accepted a Public Option in place of Single Payer.  We would have accepted investigation and regulation in place of nationalization.  We would have accepted any number of measures that were adequate to address our nation's varied crises, even if they were not our preferred solutions.

    It is not the absence of 'purity" which is the issue, it is the absence of adequacy.

    When you vote, you are exercising political authority, you're using force. And force my friends is violence. The supreme authority...

    by Thought Crime on Tue Dec 21, 2010 at 12:21:28 PM PST

  •  I reject this framing (4+ / 0-)

    This is a framing of the discussion that the Obama administration, which I broadly support, has used many times to characterize sentiment on the left--and I reject it. When critics say, "the left is not satisfied with the amount of progress we have made," I find it to be a (sometimes disingenuous) re-framing of what I actually hear voices on the left saying. The people I am listening to are not saying "Obama didn't win enough for our side," but rather, "Obama did not fight enough for our side (or did not fight in a way that makes any sense to me)."

    I think if the President were leading and communicating and fighting in a very different way, then we'd find a very different reaction from the left. Of course, there will always be ideological purists, and reflexive ideology should always be questioned. There will always be disappointment with how much good stuff we got in a bill and how much bad stuff we had to live with. But if that disappointment were framed at the culmination of a real fight for a larger set of progressive principles, for a longer term game, without so much capitulation to and acceptance of right wing frames, we'd be having a much different conversation.

    •  That's the fairest criticism... (3+ / 0-)
      Recommended by:
      fcvaguy, OIL GUY, Onomastic
      ...of my diary and the essay I am commenting on that I've seen yet.

      To be clear, it's "EClectablog", not "Electablog".
      Visit me at Eclectablog. You could even click an ad!

      by Eclectablog on Tue Dec 21, 2010 at 12:35:34 PM PST

      [ Parent ]

      •  Very nice of you to say... (3+ / 0-)
        Recommended by:
        Meteor Blades, Onomastic, Eclectablog

        ...I respect your contributions the discussion and to the fight. We're on the same side. President Obama is too, of course, despite my periodic doubts and frustrations, but I think it's so critical that the left keep making its voice heard loud and clear to the President. He is on our side, and of our side, but he now exists on a whole different plane because of the office he holds. It's painful when he and members of his administration use this frame to characterize, en masse, the voice that the left is trying to raise for him to hear.

    •  I disagree (1+ / 0-)
      Recommended by:
      Meteor Blades

      Yes, the failure of the administration to fight hard enough is part of the problem, but for myself and many others it is precisely the amount of progress which is the issue.  Too many of the "victories" hailed by the President and his followers have been wholly inadequate to address the scale of the crises facing our nation.  

      The stimulus did not do nothing, but it was too small to actually stimulate the economic growth needed to provide job growth and an increase in shared prosperity. As a result, it is fairly considered a failure by many progressives.  The Health Care reform bill passed will help provide health insurance for millions of Americans, but it does not address the systemic flaws which are driving up our health care costs, not does it provide universal coverage.  As universality and meaningful cost containment were arguably, minimal requirements for real reform, that legislation is also fairly considered a failure.

      When you vote, you are exercising political authority, you're using force. And force my friends is violence. The supreme authority...

      by Thought Crime on Tue Dec 21, 2010 at 12:44:56 PM PST

      [ Parent ]

      •  I suspect... (2+ / 0-)
        Recommended by:
        Meteor Blades, Onomastic

        ...that we agree more than disagree. The failure is mine, I think, in not doing as good a job as I could explaining my position.

        The result of this process of not fighting, not framing, not trying to change the Reagan narrative, compromising too early, leading with only vague principles to allow declaration of victory later--the result of all of this is of course that we don't get enough of the good stuff and too much of the bad stuff. And of course you and I both are frustrated by that.

        I guess what I'm saying is that having some level of disappointment about the "amount" is inevitable--a constant. But what we fight for, how we fight for it, what conversation we have with the American people about it, the people we bring to the table when we fight for those things--these things matter a lot. A political defeat, a compromise, is much easier to accept when it comes at the end of a real fight.

        Peace.

  •  I am part of the Professional Left. In the past (6+ / 0-)

    30 years we have seen the standard of living of the bottom 90% of Americans stay totally flat ( while that of Socialized Europe has soared . At the same time education and healthcare costs have doubled and tripled in cost while they declined in quality.

    On top of that those of us who once had company pensions now have none and there is a growing threat that Social Security will also soon be taken away from us.

    I am 74 and still working at half of what I used to make in 1980.

    I graduated 3rd in my High School Class, first in a 2 Year Technical College, and 21st out of 210 at a 4 year college ( SUNY Binghamton )  while working full time through each.

    Meaning only I am not dumb and I am not a slacker but I am certainly disappointed in the way this country has moved over the past 30 years.

    I think the only thing that can restore us to our former greatness is the Socialism that we are so afraid to embrace but which has raised the quality of European Life far beyond ours over the very same 30 year period.

    Free market Capitalism has proved to be a disaster.

    It is time for real change we can believe in.

    The Right is wrong and the Left does not have the answers either.

  •  The arrogance is astounding. (4+ / 0-)

    Yes, I would have preferred that the Administration not insult those who are supposedly on their side. But I can totally understand that it is in their best interest to put some distance between themselves and those who are seen as extremists. That anyone should think that the WH should accept the anger and insults without retort is bizarre. Most of this country will see it as a GOOD thing that both sides are angry.

    But, I am amazed how many people on this site take those insults personally. When the WH talks about the Professional Left, they don't mean those of us sitting in our homes, arguing on comment boards. Unless you are nationally syndicated or have been on the TV, they don't mean you. So, please, leave the insults to the media, and worry about policy rather than these ridiculous games.

    "We live now in hard times, not end times." Jon Stewart

    by tb92 on Tue Dec 21, 2010 at 12:49:00 PM PST

  •  I think I'm just gonna hang out over here (3+ / 0-)
    Recommended by:
    OIL GUY, Eclectablog, Empty Vessel

    for a bit. Since I just got HR'd without explanation, of course for telling someone to quit using "Dear Leader" in another diary. Argh!!!!!

justinb, Mimikatz, Dissento, Terri, fcvaguy, Jeff Simpson, TrueBlueMajority, mem from somerville, eeff, BillyZoom, redtravelmaster, DaveV, opinionated, KMc, mkfarkus, Aquarius40, Suznyc, someRaven, itskevin, Cedwyn, wader, DustyMathom, psnyder, danthrax, missliberties, Lawrence, laderrick, westyny, peterborocanuck, laughingriver, chrismorgan, Catte Nappe, lcrp, Sophie Amrain, Mark Warner is God, KayCeSF, Vicky, tomjones, CanYouBeAngryAndStillDream, lyvwyr101, snowbird42, Sybil Liberty, sebastianguy99, historys mysteries, radarlady, DianeNYS, Unit Zero, blueyedace2, Lying eyes, PBen, vgranucci, Alice Venturi, ChemBob, boofdah, eru, lcbo, sunbro, Southside, Rusty in PA, Rogneid, begone, Whimsical, Jennifer Clare, Keone Michaels, ferallike, Yellow Canary, KenBee, abe57, fou, Lefty Coaster, global citizen, el cid, ER Doc, soccergrandmom, MBNYC, Pilgrim X, agent, Eryk, Aaa T Tudeattack, oklacoma dem, Femlaw, Jimdotz, bnasley, jayden, second gen, millwood, OIL GUY, DamnThatOjeda, madgranny, chicago minx, alba, Niniane, kafkananda, fayeforcure, gundyj, lockewasright, NewDealer, Fe Bongolan, lineatus, Mother of Zeus, DanK Is Back, MsWings, mofembot, glendaw271, Hawkjt, xysea, briefer, maggiejean, in2mixin, AD in SC, Fogiv, seanwright, pvlb, bigmikek7, shopkeeper, hyper, allep10, kevinpdx, XNeeOhCon, Kiku, aberghuis, citisven, nocynicism, JaceInVA, Larsstephens, smileycreek, henlesloop, Vacationland, Observerinvancouver, amk for obama, FrankCornish, Polly Syllabic, sharonsz, abrauer, USHomeopath, cocinero, science nerd, wwjjd, mallyroyal, weathertom, Onomastic, ban nock, Gracian, freesia, QuestionAuthority, scenna, GrogInOhio, Muskegon Critic, BarackStarObama, Kantro, Imhotepsings, blue aardvark, SoCalSal, StepLeftStepForward, Nashville fan, Rejoinder, Monsieur Georges, Prairie D, JTinDC, SouthernBelleNC49, Susan G in MN, Deep Texan, TBug, MartyM

Subscribe or Donate to support Daily Kos.

Click here for the mobile view of the site