U.S. Politics, 9 trillion

[Former Lord of Winterfell]

And he talked about amazed he was that Mitch McConnell was so able to keep everyone in line on just saying no no no to everything. This is probably much easier to do after the flogging they were just getting, and when everyone's afraid of not making it past their primary. I will agree that the degree of unified opposition is probably unprecedented in recent times.

According to both the President and his defenders here, this "has been the most successful administration in a generation in moving progressive agendas forward." Why should it be such a surprise that there was such strong opposition to moving it even further to the left? Because if there wasn't such strong opposition from the GOP, that's exactly what would have happened. That's implicit both in his own comments and in the comments here defending him.

A lot of folks on the left are talking out of both sides of their mouths when it comes to defending him and slamming Republicans. When you want to demonize Republicans into all being extremists, you argue that Obama has been a middle of the road guy, a moderate, and so the people opposing him so strongly must be nuts. But on the other hand, when you're defending him on the left, you argue that the stuff he accomplished made this the most progressive administration in a generation. I'd say two generations, really, because you're talking about going back to LBJ.

It's the same thing with the Taibbi article. Trying to point out that tea partiers are hypocrites because they oppose Obama and (supposedly) weren't unhappy with Bush ignores Obama's own argument that his Adminstration -- not Bush's -- is the most progressive in a generation.

[Ran]

Re: the Rolling Stones article, I do have to fault them for one thing. They don't really even bothering to question him about such things as wiretapping, continuing heavy-handed denials of FOIA requests, and other things of that nature. This is an area where he seems to be happy to build on Bush's extraordinary expansions of government surveillance and secrecy, rather than rolling it back as he promised.

[Ser Scot A Ellison]

Anyone else seen this?:

http://factcheck.org/2010/09/rep-grayson-lowers-the-bar/

That's quite the twist.

[awesome possum]

Anyone have any thoughts on this? Obama has either utterly failed to lead his party, or his party isn't actually a political party at all.

I think it's a little of both. Obama should have had a more visible role in the health care debate. He allowed the Republicans to control the debate completely with their distortions and outright lies, and it wasn't until Pelosi stepped in to take over that reform even appeared possible. He seems to have been too concerned about stepping on toes and not concerned enough with looking like a legitimately strong leader.

According to both the President and his defenders here, this "has been the most successful administration in a generation in moving progressive agendas forward." Why should it be such a surprise that there was such strong opposition to moving it even further to the left? Because if there wasn't such strong opposition from the GOP, that's exactly what would have happened. That's implicit both in his own comments and in the comments here defending him.

A lot of folks on the left are talking out of both sides of their mouths when it comes to defending him and slamming Republicans. When you want to demonize Republicans into all being extremists, you argue that Obama has been a middle of the road guy, a moderate, and so the people opposing him so strongly must be nuts. But on the other hand, when you're defending him on the left, you argue that the stuff he accomplished made this the most progressive administration in a generation. I'd say two generations, really, because you're talking about going back to LBJ.

You also seem to forget that before the Republicans became the Party of NO they were offered chances to have their say in legislation. Hell, that's partially why so many pieces of reform haven't been progressive enough. Republicans were able to add to bills and then refused to vote for said bill that they had a hand in creating/editing.

You may see the Dems dripping with hypocrisy, but that's only because they've been swimming in the GOP's pool.

[Shryke]

This is what I take issue with. I didn't scrutinize every line of the article, but he never mentioned that his party controlled all of Congress and that they blew it.

Nancy Pelosi is arguably one of the more effective speakers the dems have ever had, yet everything she's done has been wasted. I realize it's an election season and he didn't want to break bad on his party, but he didn't even acknowledge this fact.

I can only be so sympathetic to "well, I tried but Congress didn't let me" when your party controls both the House and the Senate. They had the nuclear option, but wanted to keep it for themselves.

Anyone have any thoughts on this? Obama has either utterly failed to lead his party, or his party isn't actually a political party at all.

Except they didn't have the votes. (Not in the Senate anyway) This isn't like an argument. They weren't there. Stuff didn't pass immediately exactly BECAUSE they didn't have the votes.

Pelosi did a great job, and is still doing a great job. But if you look up the number of progressive bills that have passed the house but were or are still stalled in the Senate, it's pretty obvious what the situation is.

They didn't have the votes in the Senate and once Kennedy died, they REALLY didn't have the votes in the Senate. In fact, between Franken taking forever to get seated and Kennedy's death, the Democrats only even had 60 Senators for like 4 months. And that 60 included shit-heads like Lieberman, a guy who campaigned for McCain and basically single-handedly killed the public option in the Health Care Debate.

I think it's a little of both. Obama should have had a more visible role in the health care debate. He allowed the Republicans to control the debate completely with their distortions and outright lies, and it wasn't until Pelosi stepped in to take over that reform even appeared possible. He seems to have been too concerned about stepping on toes and not concerned enough with looking like a legitimately strong leader.

It's actually the specter of "Hillarycare" that made them go with the soft touch.

[Guest Raidne]

According to both the President and his defenders here, this "has been the most successful administration in a generation in moving progressive agendas forward." Why should it be such a surprise that there was such strong opposition to moving it even further to the left? Because if there wasn't such strong opposition from the GOP, that's exactly what would have happened. That's implicit both in his own comments and in the comments here defending him.

Nah, actually governing isn't like that. Nobody is in perfect lockstep with their party. So usually, you know, you might get 10% of the other party on any given issue (and Bush got a lot more than that a lot of the time). For that to not happen, people have to exercise leverage. Surely you don't refuse to believe that goes on?

Anyway, the usual way to get to a middle of the road solution is to have a bipartisan panel develop a bill, take comments from both sides, and pass a compromise bill, especially when the other party is in the majority - that is how you get to have any say at all.

Of course, this wasn't how it was done post-Gingrich either, so it's not like it's the first time that this has happened, as Obama asserts.

...you argue that Obama has been a middle of the road guy, a moderate, and so the people opposing him so strongly must be nuts. But on the other hand, when you're defending him on the left, you argue that the stuff he accomplished made this the most progressive administration in a generation. I'd say two generations, really, because you're talking about going back to LBJ.

No, we mean in a generation, by which he means since Clinton, IMO. It's really an empty boast. I mean, all the other guys have been Republicans. Anyway, I think you're missing the fact that this is what Obama saying to defend himself to his own base - it's not what we are saying about him. To whatever extent he's saying he is more progressive than Clinton was, I disagree, certainly.

And hell yeah I'd like to go back to LBJ-era policies. Just so that's clear. It's been nearly a perfect shit storm since then.

It's the same thing with the Taibbi article. Trying to point out that tea partiers are hypocrites because they oppose Obama and (supposedly) weren't unhappy with Bush ignores Obama's own argument that his Adminstration -- not Bush's -- is the most progressive in a generation.

This is a head-scratcher. I think the idea in the article is that tea partiers are hypocrites for bemoaning publicly-funded health care from the perch of their Medicare-funded Amigos, while fanning themselves with their government pension check.

[alguien]

It's the same thing with the Taibbi article. Trying to point out that tea partiers are hypocrites because they oppose Obama and (supposedly) weren't unhappy with Bush ignores Obama's own argument that his Adminstration -- not Bush's -- is the most progressive in a generation.

Interestingly enough, Obama's own view of the Tea Party seemed similar to yours:

I think the Tea Party is an amalgam, a mixed bag of a lot of different strains in American politics that have been there for a long time. There are some strong and sincere libertarians who are in the Tea Party who generally don't believe in government intervention in the market or socially. There are some social conservatives in the Tea Party who are rejecting me the same way they rejected Bill Clinton, the same way they would reject any Democratic president as being too liberal or too progressive. There are strains in the Tea Party that are troubled by what they saw as a series of instances in which the middle-class and working-class people have been abused or hurt by special interests and Washington, but their anger is misdirected.

And then there are probably some aspects of the Tea Party that are a little darker, that have to do with anti-immigrant sentiment or are troubled by what I represent as the president. So I think it's hard to characterize the Tea Party as a whole, and I think it's still defining itself.

[Shryke]

No, we mean in a generation, by which he means since Clinton, IMO. It's really an empty boast. I mean, all the other guys have been Republicans. Anyway, I think you're missing the fact that this is what Obama saying to defend himself to his own base - it's not what we are saying about him. To whatever extent he's saying he is more progressive than Clinton was, I disagree, certainly.

And hell yeah I'd like to go back to LBJ-era policies. Just so that's clear. It's been nearly a perfect shit storm since then.

Why?

Clinton failed to pass Health Care Reform, deregulated the financial sector, passed DADT and DOMA, etc.

I mean, I think he was a good President, but after Hillarycare crashed and burned and Gingrich and his fellow scum rolled in to take over Congress, he wasn't really much of a Progressive at all.

And Clinton (and the Democratic politicians of his era) ceded the defining of the debate to the Republicans. Even more so then now. Heck, it was their strategy. And most of them still pursue it to this day (see: Clinton-era guys like Rahm Emanuel)

[Ser Scot A Ellison]

Alguien,

That's a very fair assesment of the "Tea Party" from the President.

[Guest Raidne]

Shryke, I don't think we can make the comparison until the Obama years are over, but for the moment my reasoning comes not from what Clinton did or didn't do, but what Obama has managed to do or not do, so far. And, just a nitpick, DADT was, certainly, moving the country in a progressive direction. I just looked over a form from 1991 last week that had "not a homo" written on it, as an actual answer to an actual question.

[Former Lord of Winterfell]

Anyone else seen this?:

http://factcheck.org/2010/09/rep-grayson-lowers-the-bar/

That's quite the twist.

Yeah, I saw that a day or two ago. I didn't post it because only articles about slimy Republicans are worthy of comment here.

[Shryke]

Shryke, I don't think we can make the comparison until the Obama years are over, but for the moment my reasoning comes not from what Clinton did or didn't do, but what Obama has managed to do or not do, so far. And, just a nitpick, DADT was, certainly, moving the country in a progressive direction. I just looked over a form from 1991 last week that had "not a homo" written on it, as an actual answer to an actual question.

And what he's managed to do so far is, at the very least, pass Health Care Reform. When was the last time that happened? The 40s or something?

Yeah, I saw that a day or two ago. I didn't post it because only articles about slimy Republicans are worthy of comment here.

Well, they certainly won't get commented on if you don't post them, now will they?

I'm surprised you got down off your cross long enough to post even this.

[alguien]

Anyone else seen this?:

http://factcheck.org/2010/09/rep-grayson-lowers-the-bar/

That's quite the twist.

On the one hand, I find Webster's extreme views appalling. (No abortion for rape and incest? Really?)

On the other, I'm disgusted (and puzzled) by Grayson's smear tactics. I liked him when he was flamboyant in Congress. This is just so disappointing. Also unnecessary. Your opponents views are questionable enough where you don't have to use lies to attack him.

[Guest Raidne]

And what he's managed to do so far is, at the very least, pass Health Care Reform. When was the last time that happened? The 40s or something?

Clinton signed the Family Medical and Leave Act. The Brady Bill. The Earned Income Tax Credit. And the Budget Reconciliation Act, which cut taxes for fifteen million low-income families. We'll see, yet, what Obama does about taxes. He also succeeded in passing the Children's Health Insurance Program. And he raised the minimum wage.

Of course, he also signed DOMA and the repealing of Glass-Steagall. Grrrrr.

(By the way, his Wiki page is full of interesting stuff - did you know bin Laden tried to assassinate him when he was in the Philippines? Fascinating stuff.)

Anyway, I would argue that FMLA was a big freaking deal.

[Shryke]

On the one hand, I find Webster's extreme views appalling. (No abortion for rape and incest? Really?)

On the other, I'm disgusted (and puzzled) by Grayson's smear tactics. I liked him when he was flamboyant in Congress. This is just so disappointing. Also unnecessary. Your opponents views are questionable enough where you don't have to use lies to attack him.

Grayson seems to have been attention to politics the last few decades, and noticed which tactics work.

Although reading the article, I'm disappointed in him on this too. His opponent has enough idiocy that's real, you don't need to go inventing fake stuff.

[Guest Raidne]

Both Grayson and the author of that article are misrepresenting the facts. What he said is that while the Bible says that women should submit to their husbands, that's a concern for women - it's directed at them. Men shouldn't worry about it. Men should pay attention to the part that's directed at them, which is to love their wives.

That does not mean that Webster doesn't think wives should submit to their husbands - I'm sure he does. So the author of the article is a liar.

ETA: Or authors, I see. And probably not liars, but they didn't get it quite right when they said "quite the opposite."

But he clearly doesn't think it's his place as a man to tell them so - that's between them and God. So Grayson is also a liar.

[Former Lord of Winterfell]

Nah, actually governing isn't like that. Nobody is in perfect lockstep with their party. So usually, you know, you might get 10% of the other party on any given issue (and Bush got a lot more than that a lot of the time). For that to not happen, people have to exercise leverage. Surely you don't refuse to believe that goes on?

But the Dems did peel some Republicans away on things like the stimulus package, judicial nominees, the auto bailout, etc. On some other issues, like cap and trade, there, was Democratic opposition as well. And in terms of the health care bill, I think the opposition was wider than just Republicans. The bill was too much for many Democrats, and the leverage was applied to them to get it passed. None of which, of course, has anything to do with whether opposing even more legislation from the most progressive administration in a generation is extremist.

No, we mean in a generation, by which he means since Clinton, IMO.

But as you pointed out, he actually took a shot at Clinton, so it doesn't make sense for that to be his point of reference. The more logical one is when he really went off on his accomplishments when Wenner compared what he did to LBJ's Great Society.

It's really an empty boast. I mean, all the other guys have been Republicans. Anyway, I think you're missing the fact that this is what Obama saying to defend himself to his own base - it's not what we are saying about him. To whatever extent he's saying he is more progressive than Clinton was, I disagree, certainly.

But okay. If you guys don't think he was any more progressive than Clinton was -- on which I'd strongly disagree, but whatever -- then at a minimum, he is being disingenuous in portraying himself as a moderate except when he's trying to placate his progressive base, and in characterizing folks who oppose him consistently as extremists. By his own terms, even moderate conservatives should have been opposing "the most progressive legislation in a generation."

[alguien]

Speaking of lies and videotape:

James O'Keefe attempts to strike again

...but seems to fail miserably. Kind of a disturbing guy actually. Specifically this bit:

According to the document, O'Keefe was to record a video of the following script before Boudreau arrived: "My name is James. I work in video activism and journalism. I've been approached by CNN for an interview where I know what their angle is: they want to portray me and my friends as crazies, as non-journalists, as unprofessional and likely as homophobes, racists or bigots of some sort....

"Instead, I've decided to have a little fun. Instead of giving her a serious interview, I'm going to punk CNN. Abbie has been trying to seduce me to use me, in order to spin a lie about me. So, I'm going to seduce her, on camera, to use her for a video. This bubble-headed-bleach-blonde who comes on at five will get a taste of her own medicine, she'll get seduced on camera and you'll get to see the awkwardness and the aftermath.

[TrackerNeil]

Re: the Rolling Stones article, I do have to fault them for one thing. They don't really even bothering to question him about such things as wiretapping, continuing heavy-handed denials of FOIA requests, and other things of that nature. This is an area where he seems to be happy to build on Bush's extraordinary expansions of government surveillance and secrecy, rather than rolling it back as he promised.

Agreed, and it's an area in which Obama could scale back significantly without congressional involvement. You can blame alot on the filibuster (and I have), but you can't blame this one. I suppose you can hardly expect any president to voluntarily give up power, but Obama's failure to do so is still a disappointment.

[alguien]

Agreed, and it's an area in which Obama could scale back significantly without congressional involvement. You can blame alot on the filibuster (and I have), but you can't blame this one. I suppose you can hardly expect any president to voluntarily give up power, but Obama's failure to do so is still a disappointment.

Always reminds me of this cartoon.