Got up this morning and asked myself, "So, really, is it worth the time to continue the meta pie fights?"
It's actually an important fight, maybe the most important one of all when we're trying to counter a propaganda machine this likes of which I never believed possible in an open society...but still, the guy to whom I'm responding does this for a living and I've got different kinds of deadlines coming up fast.
But what the hell, the Patriots aren't playing until tomorrow...
So, is Cenk Uygur stupid?
Answer below, unwrap it like a Christmas present...
No, he's not stupid at all, as much as I, in my anger at what I see as incredibly self-destructive behaviors want to scream at him, and others here for that matter.
Does he believe the mud he throws? I don't know. In my previous retort to him, I said I didn't believe him. I don't think that was fair, because it certainly is possible that he believes, strongly, that his tactics in diaries like this are going to help move this country in a positive direction.
So I'm not going to psychoanalyze someone I've never met in person - and let me apologize, Cenk, for doing so last time. I'm just not going there anymore. There's too much more important work to do, for all of us.
However, allow me to disagree with Cenk's diary, point by point.
New CBS News poll out confirms every other poll we've seen on the topic - the American people are solidly against tax cuts for the rich.
53% of respondents said there should only be tax cuts for the middle class and no tax cuts for people making over $250,000. That's the number most people in the media are using, but that's not quite accurate. Another 14% said they don't want tax cuts for anybody, including the top bracket. So, the reality is that an overwhelming 67% of the country don't want tax cuts for the rich (including 52% of Republican voters!). Only 26% said that everyone should get a tax cut, including the rich.
A couple of things here:
First, you can't claim the 14% on your "side." Many of those people believe strongly that all the tax cuts should expire and will vote against measures to extend any. Ask Russ Feingold, rightfully one of our favorite politicians.
Note this part of the middle sentence in that paragraph again, particularly this phrase: "and will vote against."
Because there's the rub. President Obama is not a king. He doesn't write the bills, he signs them, and I'm sorry, but all this talk of him "twisting arms" and pounding podiums...well, in a weird way, the powers that be have established the US Senate as the stalking ground of cowards; the rules of that body are purposely and specifically designed to allow people to hide from their own votes.
And by the way, I shouldn't have to point this out, but if 37,000,000 Californians say YAY! and 544,000 people in Wyoming say NAY!, we have a tie in the Senate, right? 98.55% say YAY! and the vote is 2-to-2 and all four of the Senators in question represented their constituency perfectly!
How messed up is that?
Democracy has always been ugly, though perhaps never as ugly as the current incarnation. Whenever I hear people here or elsewhere crying for an FDR, a Truman or an LBJ, I just quietly chuckle. Any of those three would be lambasted here on a daily basis (look at the details of their legislation and look at some of the lesser known actions), much as President Obama gets. The rosy filter of history paints them, and Kennedy and Reagan (for conservatives), in a more favorable light - like those legendary athletes of yesteryear: Shoeless Joe and Joe Louis and Rocky Marciano and Ted Williams and...
So, let's do the math for people who are a little slow. That's 67% to 26%. That's a crushing 41% lead. If it was an election, that margin would be so large they would think it was rigged. The group that doesn't want tax cuts for the rich is more than two and half times the group that does.
If that weren't enough, there is an internal memo being sent around to Democrats on the Hill by Anzalone Liszt Research that shows that 77% of Americans would let the Bush tax cuts for the rich expire if the extra money went toward helping small businesses and balancing the budget. 77%!!!
Now, as a politician, how stupid do you have to be on the other side of this issue?
If this last remark was aimed at President Obama, then it's totally unfair. He's not on the "other side" of this issue. He has never been on the other side of this issue. His position on the tax cuts hasn't changed since the earliest days of the campaign. Not once. There is something else at play, however: this President has shown time and time again that he is more interested in getting the best legislation that he can pass for the American people...the key phrase always being "that he can pass."
Because he gets something that a lot of people here don't: not everyone in this country agree with our particular point of view, whatever that point of view might be on any given issue.
So your diary is based on a poll...let me counter:
McClatchy-Maris 72-22
Bloomberg 80-16
CBS/NY Times 78-15
Look at those margins. What's the choice in those polls? Should the parties work together and COMPROMISE to get things done, or should they stand firm on their positions?
How stupid do you have to be to ignore those numbers?
But that's not entirely fair because the Republicans have built their entire party on being on the other side of this issue and they're doing well. Why? Because they get handsomely compensated by those same millionaires and billionaires who benefit from the tax cuts. They use the money they collect from those guys into deceiving the American people into voting for them during the elections. That sucks for the rest of us, but at least that makes sense. There is a logical reason for them to take the more unpopular side of this equation.
And there it is, Cenk. And you want to know where they're REALLY doing well? In messaging - not from the party itself. The days of the bully pulpit are long gone, dissolved into the din of 500 channels, the internet and crisis journalism that breathtakingly turns a shark bite in Florida into a national emergency. I once heard a startling statistic: at the height of Oprah Winfrey's popularity, she still drew fewer viewers than "Gilligan's Island."
How 'bout that?
I had a comment exchange with another guy here who was insisting that President Obama had to quit being a fool and had to say "X, Y and Z." I pulled my hair out, because X, Y and Z were EXACTLY what President Obama and Joe Biden ARE saying, at every opportunity. I wanted to ask if what the poster really meant was: "President Obama has to get Cenk Uygur to say that he said X, Y and Z!"
You see, the Republicans aren't winning the messaging because of snappy framing, savvy politicians and all the other marketing tools, they're winning because they dominate the radio, almost every station, and because Fox News will say anything they want.
Meanwhile on the left, we have you, Cenk, and your every diary for months has been attacking...the President.
For those who might see this as a call for lockstep, no, that's not it at all. It's really not. It's never been. But when I see Chris Hayes (filling in for Lawrence O'Donnell) sitting around with Adam Greene and a couple of other far-left wingers mocking - not just criticizing, but mocking and laughing - at a Democratic President, I know we're doomed, especially when, yes, the other guys have the Koch Bros. et al filling their coffers and building their support networks like talk radio and Americans for Prosperity.
This President does not deserve that - if what many claim they want is what they really want, then they're working against their best interests by SOLELY ranting against the negatives.
Democrats on the other hand just got their ass kicked by that money spent to make sure they lose. Now, they would like to do a favor for the people who just killed them in the election and in the meanwhile take a position that 67% to 77% of the American people are against. How stupid do you have to be to do that?
That is the position of the Obama administration right now as they argue for a "compromise" where they extend the Bush tax cuts for the rich for another two years. Even Pat Buchanan laughed on-air and said that's no compromise at all. That's complete victory for the GOP. Remember, in two years there will be a new president - and if it's a Republican, the tax cuts will be extended forever. Complete and utter victory for one side. Complete and utter capitulation for the other side. Pathetic.
A few things about these sweeping and hyperbolic generalizations... I can guarantee you that Mike Capuano and Vicki Kennedy were thrilled by what happened in the Senate yesterday because it was a clear cut in Scott Brown's very solid armor - very solid armor. He is leading any and all contenders for the 2012 seat here in Massachusetts, by the way.
I don't know if that will hold, but I wouldn't bet against him. However, his vote yesterday will not sit well with Massachusetts voters.
I really don't care what Pat Buchanon says, by the way, but let's look at it this way. There is a solid argument, politically, to allow all the tax cuts to expire, then introduce new middle class tax cuts as soon as Congress gets back in session. It seems clear the the Republicans and a few blue dogs believe they will win on this issue - the GOP is probably slavering over the possibility that the President will break his pledge to not raise taxes (I know, it's not technically a tax increase by HIM) on people making under 250k. They probably see it as a "read my lips" moment, and it might well be.
I don't know which way that will play out, but I can guarantee you that the average middle class American is not going to be happy when his/her paycheck shrinks considerably - I've seen estimates that the average family of four making $50,000 will pay between $1,600 - $2,900 more each year. remember, that $1,000 child credit reverts to...what was it? $400? That alone is $1,200 per year gone, because it's a credit, not a deduction.
I know of very few economists who think such tax increases will be a good thing for the economy right now, and such deficit hawks are also the same ones who want Social Security and Medicare SLASHED. Not tweaked, but slashed.
I also know that many people are suddenly without any income at all, and again on this issue, somehow the Republicans are convinced that their message machine can get them past blocking unemployment extension - and for their hard-core ditto-head base, sadly, they're right. (Read that again: what I'm also inferring is that low enthusiasm, low turnout, etc., are the GOP's only chance.)
What's the point of all of that rambling? This is not a black and white issue; real people are going to be badly, critically hurt if the unemployment benefits are not restarted, and the real economy is going to take a beating if taxes increase on the working class.
So if the President has to give away $70 billion to the upper-middle and wealthy in order to prevent both of those things, should he do it? (A disclaimer here: yes, I will benefit from extension of cuts above the proposed thresholds, and no, I don't care about that.) Look at those three polls I used to counter your own.
So what should the President do? Personally, I don't know, and also, please don't scream at me that unemployment shouldn't be tied to this. I agree. I know, I wish that was the way it could be. I get it, but being reality based, I know that's not the way it is because the GOP knows that it can get its base to the polls no matter what they do. A Democrat has an affair, he's history; a Republican has an affair, he's re-elected.
Of course, there are two other explanations for the actions of Obama White House. The first one is that they're not dumb, they are embarrassingly weak. They know they should side with 67% of the American people, they know they shouldn't help the people who crushed them in the last election, they know they are showing no leadership by constantly cratering to the other side, but they can't help themselves. It is in Obama's nature to always compromise, no matter what the situation is. He hates to fight. He is No Drama Obama. He will do anything to avoid a confrontation, including giving the other side exactly what they want in the guise of a sage and tempered compromise.
He is the same man he was in the campaign, from where I'm sitting. He has governed exactly as I expected. Did I want a firebrand? Well, here's the thing: I wish we had a climate in which a firebrand could get something accomplished. We don't.
Where you see "weakness," I see a man accepting the slings and arrows and quietly going about the process of governing. I remember watching C-Span book TV a few years ago with an author imploring politicians to just talk to us like we're adults. President Obama is doing that - right now, he's doing that.
The American people overwhelmingly told Washington to work together to get things done (see the three polls), so the President is going out of his way to do that. He's not demonizing the other side (yeah, I know, most of you think they deserve it, but please consider that you're, by extension, demonizing half the country in the process, because, yes, half the country AGREES with them).
He's not scoring political points at the expense of policy potential, except for those who are, without left or right ideological bias, paying close attention to the debate. And yeah, it won't work, because Americans generally don't pay close attention. What I mean by that is, the distinction between President Obama and the GOP leadership could not be starker than right now, both in temperament and in quality; I pray that the American people are smart enough to register this, and that the Republican propaganda machine isn't yet strong enough to twist it with enough voters to defeat him in 2012.
Maybe I'm wrong. Maybe President Obama is wrong and won't win re-election. But maybe a few (million) families won't become destitute for the sake of my ego or the now-wealthy President's job, and maybe the fragile economy won't crater again for the sake of self-righteous heel-digging.
The last possible explanation is the worst of all. He is complicit. He is among the top 2%. So is nearly everyone he knows. Everyone in his bubble is rich, fabulously rich. So, all of the people he knows thinks it's a brilliant idea to give more tax cuts to the rich, namely them. Plus, most of the Democrats also get campaign donations from the millionaires and billionaires. Though it's self-destructive in the long run because those guys will always give more to the Republicans, they can't wean themselves off of that money. So, they go along with whatever their rich funders want.
Since your entire premise is supported by myopic thinking, this is not nearly "the last possible explanation." See above, repeatedly.
The Republicans had to go to reconciliation to get these tax cuts through in 2001 and 2003, and with many of the same Democrats we still have in office. President Obama has never supported the top-end cuts, and never once tried to justify them. You're being completely unfair here, and your conspiracy theory doesn't hold water.
Many economists believe that we should extend the top-end cuts at this time, by the way, because even the meager return to the economy is better than not having that return. I disagree for a variety of reasons that are too tangential to mention here, but there it is.
Let me also add that there are other tax cuts, business and middle class, that the President badly wants, believes we need, and knows he won't get if this whole thing blows up. There are a million details behind the "meta" simplified and generalized argument here.
The idea that this is some grand oligarchical conspiracy just doesn't play out by any facts on the table, but I will grant you that Democrats are always on the defensive regarding taxes.
You really didn't need to go here. We are fond of mocking teapartiers for thinking they speak for everyone. The far left has the same problem. Look no further than the diaries calling for primaries of Obama by [Grayson, Feingold, etc.] for evidence. There is an Alan Grayson candidate in every Democratic primary, and good for them. People like Dennis Kucinich do important work simply by running and reminding us that there are other ways to do things.
But they don't, can't, won't win, even the primaries.
All three options are sickening. But there is no fourth option. No one in their right mind can possibly think that opposing at least 67% of the American people to help the political opposition is a good political idea.
And one last note, when President Obama agrees to this and they add another $140 billion dollars to the deficit over the next two years because of these tax cuts for the rich, who do you think the Republicans will blame for that deficit? You guessed it, the man who just gave them everything they wanted -- Barack Obama.
Come on, how stupid do you have to be? Or at least, I hope they're just stupid and not the other options.
You've built your entire premise by cherry-picking that which supports your argument and ignoring all the rest. See above.
You're also, like so many here, buying into the belief that the vast majority of Americans agree with you. They don't.
You're also ignoring the reality that a Republican could eat a baby on live TV and get re-elected because of their media control.
You also keep ignoring the fact that 3/4's (45) of the seats the Democrats lost in the House were in districts that voted for John McCain in 2008.
But most of what you always ignore is the fact that, while you continually use President Obama as your target, it seems rather obvious that the Senate - the unaccountable Senate - is the problem here and has been from the beginning. Until that problem is remedied, your judgments of the President seem to fall flat to me.
I once diaried here that I measure legislation measured not against what I WANT, but against the STATUS QUO, and on that scale, this President is doing brilliantly.
So let me ask President Obama's fierce critics:
If a bill repealing DADT and DOMA got to his desk, would he veto it?
If a public option or single-payer health care bill got to his desk, would he veto?
If the House's tax bill - the one he said he wanted - got to his desk, would he veto?
The answer to every one of those questions is, emphatically, NO! And if you or anyone else here doesn't believe that, well...you're wrong.
Play that same exercise out with every issue and you might be surprised.
Watch The Young Turks Here
Follow Cenk Uygur on Twitter: www.twitter.com/TheYoungTurks
Become a Fan of The Young Turks: www.facebook.com/tytnation
No.
Let me end with an analogy. Four years ago, I joined a start-up computer game company. Our initial group of about 15-20 spent the first weeks defining our game. Our sessions always started with "how cool would it be if..."
As we became a real company with real responsibilities and expenses and investors, now with hundreds of people working toward this common goal, the other questions - how much will it cost? how long will it take? what will we have to give up to get it? - also come into play, not because we want them to, but because they have to.
We believe we're making the best game EVER. We believe that. We breathe it. We live it. We take pride in every aspect of what we're trying to accomplish. We still say "how cool would it be if?" all the time, but there is indeed a clash between idealism and realism, between the want and the can, between the possible and the Christmas wishes.
I promise not to attack your motives any more, but I still think your tactics, frankly, suck.
Peace,
Bob