[updated] "F-ing retards"

I had an interesting exchange on my previous post regarding who should take the blame for the abysmal outlook for Democrats. One of the basic problems I have with the party right now is the extremely bad messaging and the poor leadership which basically allows individual conservative Dems to thumb their nose at the Democratic party with impunity.

However, much of that blame I would also lay at the feet of the administration that neutered the third party progressive groups during the key healthcare and financial regulation debates by stifling their money. This was well exemplified by the incident from which I get the heading:

Sources at the meeting tell me that Emanuel really teed off on the Dem-versus-Dem attacks, calling them “f–king stupid.” This was a direct attack on some of the attendees in the room, who are running ads against Dems right now.

Tellingly, Rahm raised the specter of a loss on health care, sources at the meeting say — which suggests that the White House may be less certain about victory than officials allow publicly.

But now we hear a very different kind of whining from the bubble Democrats. They are basically seeing Republican outside groups outspending Democratic group by a 5 to 1 margin. Their latest whine:

“Where are those guys?” a top House Democratic aide demanded. “There is very real and growing resentment over these groups being AWOL.”

And this Democratic aide fired a warning shot at liberal groups, suggesting that their absence from the campaign could have “long-term ramifications.”

“When these interest groups come to Democrats and say, ‘We need you to do this,’ a lot of Democrats who survived 2010 will say, ‘You weren’t there for us then.’”

Liberal-leaning organizations answer that it’s not a matter of desire but something more simple: They don’t have the money.

One wonders how come the third party progressive groups do not have any money?

Mike Lux at Open Left, who has worked for many years in organizing progressive third party advocacy has a great piece, the gist of it is like this:

I have been fighting this battle inside Democratic strategy circles for 15 years now, but the problem is worse with the current team at the White House. The folks running the Obama political operation have always believed they could control the message and the resources of the party better than anyone else, and that they didn't need or want to empower outside progressive groups. Now embattled House and Senate candidates are paying the price, and it is a bitter price to have to pay. The groups that do have resources that are pro-Democratic- labor, MoveOn, Emily's List, the trial lawyers- are doing their best to stem the tide. But corporate money in the post-Citizens United era is swamping us, and unlike in some cycles in the past (2004, 2006), wealthy progressive donors were sent signals not to engage, or just not cultivated at all, and the result is that we are being badly outspent.

One final note on all this: the irony of outside progressive groups being blamed for not doing enough to help the Democrats when the White House has been complaining about the "left of the left" and the "professional left" for many months- and de-motivating donors the whole time- should not be lost on anyone. You can't attack progressives for being too strident and then wonder why they aren't doing more and still have much credibility.

As I have written in recent days, I still have hopes that Democrats can do better this cycle than the conventional wisdom suggests, especially if the Democrats use a pro-reform populist message that is actually effective. But the curse of the control freaks is not helping anything.

So there you have it. Poor leadership, poor messaging and now poor management by control freaks.

[update]

People on the left seem to have had enough of the administration's spin doctors like Axelrod.

That tension burst out into the open when Madrak directly asked Axelrod: "Have you ever heard of hippie punching?" That prompted a long silence from Axelrod.

"You want us to help you, the first thing I would suggest is enough of the hippie punching," Madrak added. "We're the girl you'll take under the bleachers but you won't be seen with in the light of day."

Axelrod didn't engage on "hippie punching," but he said he agreed with the blogger. "To the extent that we shouldn't get involved in intramural skirmishing, I couldn't agree more," Axelrod said. "We just can't afford that. There are big things at stake here."

Madrak replied that Axelrod was missing the point -- that the criticism of the left made it tougher for bloggers like herself to motivate the base. "Don't make our jobs harder," she said.

It's time to clean house. Summers is leaving, Rahm I fervently hope does so too, I also hope we see the end of Axelrod (who basically emasculated the administration's messaging), Valerie Jarrett, Robert Gibbs and Jim Messina. Start with a new group of advisers who know how to fight back, because god knows we need it.

Tags: (all tags)

Comments

61 Comments

Obama has destroyed the Democratic party

He really was the Manchurian Candidate in 2008.  Its amazing that the country decided to turn to a childlike community organizer during a time of crisis in 2008.  Now we are all paying for it. 

by Kent 2010-09-23 08:52PM | 1 recs
RE: Obama has destroyed the Democratic party

Easy there with the rhetoric buddy. I am uncomfortable calling anyone, esp the President, regardless which party he is from, a Manchurian Candidate.

by tarheel74 2010-09-23 09:20PM | 1 recs
RE: Obama has destroyed the Democratic party

I am very angry about this all.  All of the hard work we did in 2006 and 2008 to elect Democrats up and down the ballot is being destroyed by this self-centered administration and tone-deaf administration.

I predict that by January 2012, Obama's approval ratings will be down in the 20's. 

by Kent 2010-09-23 11:50PM | 0 recs
RE: Obama has destroyed the Democratic party

Kent you seem to forget who the bad guys really are, Conservadems, Bluedogs and most of all the Rethuglicans, the wingnuts on the SCOTUS,Corporatists, Faux, wingnut radio, etc. You are right about this administrations inability to retaliate or mobilize it's base. But you over dramatize Obamas responsibility for this mess. There are certainly many things to be angry about but because of all the Rethuglican and MSM constant negativity we all can get depressed whilst ignoring all that has been accomplished by this President and this congress.

by Ed beckmann 2010-09-25 02:47PM | 0 recs
!!!Howard Dean for Last Second DNC Chair!!!

What a mindless, analysis devoid bunch of drivel, Kent.

I'm pretty annoyed with Obama, but he hasn't destroyed the Democratic Party, and Hillary would have been in the same kind of crap if she'd been elected.

That said, the best idea in this thread is to apologize to the troops and do this by gently asking Tim Kaine to go away like tomorrow, (as if he was ever here to begin with), and have Howard Dean step in during the last month of the campaign.

Dean'd get the money reallocated, would get troops on the ground, (hell, he could rehire a bunch of his old state organizers), and would let the Democratic wing of the Democratic Party know that their long, sad time in exile was over.

Barack, you want change we can believe in? There it is. This would be Elizabeth Warren times ten for the base and it could turn the entire election. So, you want to win, or do you just want to keep Rahm from yelling at you? It's your choice, and your presidency at stake.

by Hoomai29 2010-09-29 02:28AM | 0 recs
Obama is not a bad President

Obama is and was a very good president, a huge upgrade from the Bush Administration and his presidency is on track to become historic.

Step back for a second and gather in the magnitude of the global crash of 2008  - this was the worst financial crisis in 75 years, and it shocked the entire market with a toxin level unheard of in everyone's memory - huge banks collapsed and folded, and disappeared overnight. Not just big. Huge. Trillions of dollars evaporated.

 

It's been 18 months. The housing market just ticked up 8 points, the economic recovery took hold and the financial markets are stable.

 

Americans are taking way too much on - their fixed expenses are almost 75% of a two - income family take home, and they just don't have any safety net anymore. The GOP gets traction on the whole "obama sucks" riff simply because things are so bad for most families -

 

Why? Unprecedented control of American institutions by corporation.  Healthcare, for me, was always the best example of how this goes so incredibly wrong.

 

In the past, if someone got sick - there was a partner at home that could enter the work force. Families had, perhaps - half of their income freed from fixed expenses. Taxes were 20 percent less than they are today - all adjusted for inflation.

Today, if a child gets sick, the wife or mother may lose her job - taking care of the child. The insurance won't cover it.  And they just can't afford the base expenses.

But the banks have been cranking up their profit, and sucking new graduates from the universities into the cottage industry of creating new financial vehicles and stock market scams - and then leveraging all of that money through lobbyists to keep the American institution of governance on track to give them free , unaccounted for cash like TARP -

 

Obama did alot right. He made a mistake when he appointed Emmanuel Rahm - and when he tried to appoint lobbyists into positions of power. Some of his appointments were just bizarre, in fact.

 

But when he went after Elizabeth Warren, and overall -what he has accomplished - in 18 short months after eight years of the most corrupt republican administration ever - we're looking at a guy we want to keep around.

 

Who is the leader of the Democratic party? I vote Alan Grayson.

 

by Trey Rentz 2010-09-24 09:35AM | 2 recs
RE: Obama is not a bad President

Well there are two aspects to Presidency, getting legislations passed and leadership. The first entails passing good legislations. Americans are not stupid, for the most part they applaud the Financial Regulation law, because it does a lot to curb the habits of the big banks. Now what it does not do is break up the big banks, in fact "too big to fail" is kind of made the new reality. Is it disappointing? Sure, but it would be far more disappointing if the derivative markets and hedge funds were not controlled. Overall it was a very good bill.

But on the other hand take the health care bill. Are there good things in it? Sure. But where it fundamentally fails is keeping cost down for consumers. There are so many loopholes that insurance companies can do any damn thing with impunity and legally no one can stop them (evidence, the recent change in their child only insurance policy). The problem with insurance companies that no one talks about is that there are 3 or 4 giant ones and they all collaborate to fix prices. So if premiums go up in one, the rest will follow. The only option that the government has is to kick them out of their "exchanges" that do not come in to effect until 2014. So essentially the Affordable Healthcare Act ends up saving the government a lot of money, but the consumers don't get to save much and moreover there is this nasty mandate which forces people to buy insurance from private companies. There is a reason why it is so unpopular. What flummoxed me is the WH did not anticipate this, or maybe they took the AHIP assurances at face value. Whatever it might be, that they did not fight for a much stronger bill is a big disppointment because this bill is not even a good half-measure.

But that's legilsation, you have good bills and sometimes you have bad ones. I can live with that.

Finally to the leadership issues. You correctly point out Obama did a lot right. But when the narrative of the day is that the WH is becoming toxic, Fox News hosts go and badger conserv-Dems if they will ask the President to campaign for them. They demur. And if that's not enough they come back and actively work against the Democratic agenda overall, but the DNC still sends them money. Now because there is so much consolidation of money at the top, there is no way to field challengers against these people, because third party groups just don't have that kind of cash and if you donate to OFA, chances are you are sending money to these very same people.

Getting back to the narrative, I have to say remember Kerry? Why did he lose? Because he did the same thing Obama is doing now, stay above the fray, and what happened? A good man's reputation got tarnished. Right now Obama's reputation is tarnished. He is seen as divisive, not beause he is but because the narrative says so. He is seen as weak, and anyone can say or do anything to him, and he is seen as an ineffectual anti-American. Why? Because he refuses to come down from his pedestal and hit back. Whose fault is it? Obviously the leadership and the senior strategists like Axelrod. If they act as control freaks and are unable to control the message, and their idea of fighting is "hippie punching" then they deserve the problems. This president needs a new set of advisers, brawlers even, people who can throw back a punch rather than feeding the stereotype of an "effete liberal".

by tarheel74 2010-09-24 10:23AM | 0 recs
RE: Obama is not a bad President

I wish Obama campaigned in 2008 as poorly as he is governing.  Then we wouldnt be dealing with this nightmare. 

by Kent 2010-09-24 02:59PM | 0 recs
RE: Obama is not a bad President

No. You're wrong.

by Trey Rentz 2010-09-24 07:07PM | 0 recs
RE: Obama is not a bad President

That is seriously your argument?  This is a nightmare, and in a redistricting election to boot.  We probably wont get the House back for 20 years because of the gains Republicans are going to make through redistricting. 

by Kent 2010-09-24 08:22PM | 0 recs
RE: Obama is not a bad President

What part of the sky fell on you? Is the end really the near?

by Ed beckmann 2010-09-25 02:51PM | 0 recs
RE: Obama is not a bad President

What a rediculous statement.

by Ed beckmann 2010-09-25 02:49PM | 0 recs
RE: Obama is not a bad President

Now, now, Trey, don't go asking for perspective and all that other "look at the big picture" stuff.
This is the liberal blogosphere. This is PUMAcentral.com (aka MyDD).
This is where blog birchers meet to meet, greet and try to outdo Teabaggers when it comes to Obama-bashing.
Yes, the President has accomplished more in less than two years than some Presidents accomplished in eight. Yes, he's created more jobs than Georege W. Stupid. THAT'S NOT THE POINT! We're supposed to be all gloom and doom. Listen to Jerome, traheel74 and Kent.They and Ben Quayle all agree about Obama.

America is moving to the left--whether the left likes it or not.

BAN KENT!

by spirowasright 2010-09-24 03:11PM | 0 recs
RE: Obama is not a bad President

If criticizing this administration make me Ben Quayle, then so is Mike Lux, Markos Moulitsas, Andrew Sullivan, Keith Olberman, Michael Moore, Rachel Maddow, Chris Hayes, Digby, John Aravoisis, Glenn Greenwald, Arianna Huffington, Paul Krugman, Simon Johnson, Velma Hart, Jon Stewart, and then there are people like you, true believers, hero-worshippers, completely removed from the problems of the real world. I think I like the company I keep.

Perpetual navel gazing and sycophantic hero worship is one of the reasons why the Democrats are in this pathetic situation against a bunch of nutjobs.

by tarheel74 2010-09-24 03:21PM | 1 recs
RE: Obama is not a bad President

Oh, professional journalists like Keith Olbermann and Rachel Maddow (who are paid to be skeptical of the elected leadership and are expected to hold their feet to the fire), along with Michael Moore, Andrew Sullivan and Arianna Huffington (what? no Bill Maher? You can't field a team of All-Star profeessional malcontents without Bill Maher) as well as Markos, Digby, John Aravosis, Glenn Greenwald, Paul "I-dont-want-to-join-the-administration-because-I-might-have-t0-face-the-real-wrold" Krugman and the other darlings of the Sports Talk left.

You guys all agree with Ben Quayle? You all think that Obama's the worst President ever?

First, I'm a history buff and not a hero-worshipper. That means I know who the worst President in history was and he isn't the incumbent (try James Buchanan, Herbert hoover or Kent's boy George W. Bush on for size).

I happen to think history and the public mood have been inching towards the left since the end of the Cold War 21 years ago. Otherwise, I wouldn't be giving sites like this the time of day.

I don't what you people have against Obama, but I think you need to stop and take a deep breath. This is the only political site I'm registered at and I'm afraid that it has seen its better days.

by spirowasright 2010-09-24 04:59PM | 1 recs
RE: Obama is not a bad President

So only professional journalists are supposed to be skeptical or elected leadership and hold their feet to the fire?? Is that your idea of democracy and political activism. Let only a small group ask for accountability, while the rest of the electorate follow their leaders blindly?? Jesus!!

Yes, we as a nation might have been moving towards the left, but right now the actions of this administration has put the brakes on it. I hope you realize that.

by tarheel74 2010-09-24 06:45PM | 0 recs
RE: Obama is not a bad President

If America is moving left, then Democrats should be able to withstand a Republican onslaught in this election.  This country is moving far to the right because of Obama's failed leadership.

by Kent 2010-09-24 05:01PM | 0 recs
RE: Obama is not a bad President

See my post below. BTW, Bill Clinton was elected twice and Obama once. Jimmy Caarter would hve done better as well, had he come along later.

Take off the "hate-Obama" blinders stupid.

by spirowasright 2010-09-25 07:36PM | 0 recs
RE: Obama is not a bad President

And Republicans have controlled Congress for all but four years since 1994.  That doesnt look to me like a country moving left. 

by Kent 2010-09-25 08:46PM | 0 recs
RE: Obama is not a bad President

Your boy Ronnie had a Dem house for eight years that was even more Democratic after 1982 and a Dem Senate for two. Nixon and Ford each had overwhelmingly Dem Congresses during their presidencies, but everyone said that the country was more conservative back then (I can swap stats too, loser).

There's more to the national mood than who controls Congress, you know. If we've been so right wing over the last few years, where was President Dole? Why didn't Old Man Bush get re-elected in 1992? Why isn't McCain President?

by spirowasright 2010-09-25 09:31PM | 0 recs
Woop, woop.....here come the thought police!

"BAN KENT!"

There you go again........

 

by BJJ Fighter 2010-09-24 05:42PM | 0 recs
He's a horrible President

He has ushered in a new era of conservatism with his poor leadership and tone-deafness.  We have a new Congress coming in that plans on phasing out Social Security and destroying what little progress we have made under Obama with healthcare. 

He has realigned national politics in favor of Republicans for the rest of our lives. 

Because of him, we probably wont have Social Security and Medicare anymore. 

by Kent 2010-09-24 03:21PM | 1 recs
RE: He's a horrible President

There are some very respected academicians and political scientists who may want to take isue with you on that.

But then, The Democratic strategist is probably above your level.

by spirowasright 2010-09-24 04:39PM | 0 recs
RE: He's a horrible President

If being a Democratic strategist means flushing the entire party down the toilet, then yes it is definitely not a pay grade that I belong to, or even aspire to.

As far as academicians go, being one myself I think I fit into that niche. Maybe not quite a Paul Krugman, but his criticism of this administration has been more strident and consistent than mine, but guess what people like you have stooped down to calling him some pretty vicious names for voicing his opinion. But that's what hero-worship does for you, takes away reason and accountability.

by tarheel74 2010-09-24 04:46PM | 1 recs
RE: He's a horrible President

Im certainly a better Democratic strategist than anyone in the White House.  You dont sit back and do nothing while your party is being attacked 24/7.  You dont take a vacation while the Tea Partiers are tearing apart your healthcare bill and party during an August recess. 

Obama and his administration are politically tone-deaf and will destroy the Democratic party for a generation.  We wont have a House majority again for the rest of our lives because Obama.

by Kent 2010-09-24 05:06PM | 0 recs
RE: He's a horrible President

Yeah, it's not endless gloom and doom for the Dems...definitely above your level.

by spirowasright 2010-09-24 05:11PM | 0 recs
Here is my gripe!

Rahm Emanuel!  When he said Howard Dean was irrelevant he turned off so many Progressives and never used the man that implemented "The 50 State Strategy" and sent $$$ down to the local elections, the DNA provided help in my state, and in my town.  What a difference that $ and help made.

Then after Obama was elected (IMHO) due to the 50state strategy...everything changed and we had this unbelievably inept group trying to organize us locally-Organizing for America.  I went to 2 meetings-terrible, depressing and uninformed!!!

Then Kaine gets the DNC-did he need a job or what?  After the wonderful job Dean did we hardly ever hear from Kaine.  With Rahm Emanuel at the influence wheel we probably will return to just giving $ to the big states.  That was his only strategy. 

I am still involved, I still work the streets...however, now we have no $ and educated help is not around.  I hope RE does run for mayor, just to have his influence reduced. 

 

by lja 2010-09-24 10:19AM | 2 recs
RE: Here is my gripe!

Losing the 50-state strategy was a mistake, as was not keeping Dean as head of the DNC.

by vecky 2010-09-24 11:37AM | -1 recs
RE: Here is my gripe!

That was the overarching theme of this WH, fill in key posts with loyalists and campaign people. People seriously expected Howard Dean to stay at DNC, if not be appointed to the HHS. Who do we have at HHS? Kathleen Sebelius. Why? Because Dean was considered too divisive. Has Sebelius done a good job? Don't make me laugh.

by tarheel74 2010-09-24 11:42AM | 0 recs
RE: Here is my gripe!

Not sure Dean is an administrator and a desk job guy, but he was an excellent head of the DNC and Rahm Emmanuel is on his way out. I vote Obama reach out to Dean in this election cycle and make another "elizabeth warren" class appointment.  It would be a huge step forward for him.

Instantly energize everyone who got him there in 2008.

What do you think?

 

by Trey Rentz 2010-09-24 07:16PM | 1 recs
RE: Here is my gripe!

It was a huge mistake.  It was torn down so Obama would be the only elected Democrat in the country.  He wanted to be like Reagan and have a Congress of the opposite party to work with. 

I wish he was never elected. 

by Kent 2010-09-24 03:23PM | 0 recs
People treated him, before the election, as the second coming of FDR

Unfortunately, he has shown himself to be the second coming of Herbert Hoover.

by Stoic 2010-09-24 02:12PM | 1 recs
RE: People treated him, before the election, as the second coming of FDR

No, the approval for Bush was the only other president that got as low as Hoover. Also, its important to note that Bush Republicans caused the toxic mess that Obama cleaned up.

So. Just no.

 

by Trey Rentz 2010-09-24 07:09PM | 1 recs
From stupid left in 2008, to stupid right in 2010

This year's empty, mindless, extreme right candidates like Christine O'Donnell are the logical descendents of 2008's Obama-mania.

The Barack Obamas/Sharron Angles of the world---non-serious people with no real background, no portfolio or resume, and no policy goals---are taking over our politics, armed with nothing but vapid slogans like "hope and change". Voters want a quick fix for everything, and are unwilling to listen to serious centrists who discuss policy: people like the Clintons, or Bob Bennett of Utah. These leaders get kicked to the curb to make room for the newest flavor of the moment. Bennett committed the horrible sin of trying to forge a serious health care policy with Ron Wyden of Oregon.

In a sick and ironic twist, this O'Donnell woman was trying to reassure her supporters on primary night that they actually can win the general election, in spite of the fact that the RNC is running the other way, and fast. And the crowd began to cheer her on with a chant of "yes we can!". Showing that we've come 360 degrees from the election of 2008: from stupid left to stupid right.

God help us all, because the leaders we're getting at the ballot box sure aren't going to help us.
 

by BJJ Fighter 2010-09-24 05:15PM | 0 recs
RE: From stupid left in 2008, to stupid right in 2010

Lol, you just tried to equate Barack Obama to Sharron Angle and O'Donnell. Just how far off the reservation are you? A comparison to Palin would have been more apt.

by vecky 2010-09-25 01:20PM | 2 recs
RE: From stupid left in 2008, to stupid right in 2010

How far off the reservation is Kent? So far he can't even see the smoke signals.

by spirowasright 2010-09-26 02:11AM | 0 recs
There's a lot of vitriol in this thread

How much of this is manufactured consent.  I for one have a good business, I sold my home when the Obama homeowners credit went through. Made 75k.

 

I've got a shot at my longtime un-insurable wife, who had a stroke - to be able to get coverage. Thanks to the only reform that has ever passed in 40 years thanks to the man.

And the economy is in total recovery right now.  The CBER is the authoritative word on it. The recession is and has been officially over not according to some empty headed TV personality but rather a panel of economists.  The stock market has roared back to life, gaining almost 2,000 points. My portfolios look great.

 

Sorry. I call bullshit on the people who just keep repeating the same old thing about how bad of a prez Obama is.

Unless, of course, you factor in all those people who are going to get paid out of some shadow entity to post wherever they can the same messages over and over again. And hope they don't get caught rigging the game, just like their Bush Republican predecessors.

 

Ok. It's Friday Night. I'm going to go party. Peace.

 

by Trey Rentz 2010-09-24 07:13PM | 2 recs
RE: There's a lot of vitriol in this thread

Who the hell cares about the stock market.  Its gained 60% in the past two years and nobody cares.  People care about the unemployment and until Obama can get it below 8%, he's toast. 

by Kent 2010-09-24 08:32PM | 0 recs
RE: There's a lot of vitriol in this thread

There's a lot of vitriol on this thread..and you're the main cause of it Kent.

by spirowasright 2010-09-25 12:33AM | 1 recs
RE: [updated] "F-ing retards"

As Bill Maher puts it, they have a notoriously bad habit of "half-assing" things. (The Democrats that is)

by Chuckie Corra 2010-09-24 08:13PM | 0 recs
He is incompetent

He is a terrible president. He cozied up to special interests and big business, when he railed against them during the campaign. He sweore against healthcare mandates and promised real reform, instead he gave us a gift to the insurance industry that doesnt do a damn thing to lower costs. He promised a new tone in leadership and what we got was some wishy washy panty wearing incompetent, who cant lead on anything. He's as bad a President as that loser Carter was and is ensuring that the GOP will own the Whitehouse for 4-8 years at least. There isnt a chance I will vote for him in 2012....

by BuckeyeBlogger 2010-09-24 08:19PM | 1 recs
RE: He is incompetent

I agree.  I just hope that this whole episode reminds Democrats in future primaries not to choose an inexperienced and naive candidate because it can lead to disaster.

Had Hillary's campaign argued against Obama based on his inexperience and non-knowledge of the way Washington works instead of electability, she might well have gotten the nomination and we all would be better off. 

 

 

by Kent 2010-09-24 08:35PM | 0 recs
RE: He is incompetent

Both of you are arguing against each other. One is arguing that Obama is too close to special interests and big government, the other is saying he essentially isn't close enough.

Yet you act as if you agree with each other! It's hilarious!

by vecky 2010-09-25 01:26PM | 1 recs
here's the problem

My girlfriend (who works in a non-profit public interest law organization) has been upset that Michele Obama's new anti-obesity program might be taking money away from food stamps, even for children:

WASHINGTON - In her campaign to reduce childhood obesity and improve school nutrition, Michelle Obama has become entangled in a fight with White House allies, including liberal Democrats and advocates for the poor.

At issue is how to pay for additional spending on the school lunch program and other child nutrition projects eagerly sought by the White House. A bill that the House is expected to consider within days would come up with some of the money by cutting future food stamp benefits.

http://mobile.nytimes.com/article?a=667836&f=77

Michele Obama's program has been gettinga attacked by the likes of Glen Beck because of "socilism" or "fascism" or whatever fake outrage he usually comes up with.

But those on the left who are paying attention don't like the way it is going because of what it may do to that crucial aid to impoverished children, amoung others.

my grilfriend pointed out tonight that she doesn't like it for completely different reasons than the whack-jobs on the right hate it. But I told her, that's how it has seemed on EVERYTHING this administration has done. That's been the unifying theme of the Obama adminstration - the right comes up with false information and hates it, the left rightly dislikes it for it's timidity and incompetance.

Moreover, my girlfriend pointed out that those pushing for this should know that it is endangering food stamps.

Here's the thing, she's right, and we keep seeing "people who should know" (Dems) making these kinds of anti-progressive mistakes....at some point, one has to wonder if they want the same thing us progressives want.

 

 

by jeopardy 2010-09-24 10:30PM | 0 recs
RE: here's the problem

But I told her, that's how it has seemed on EVERYTHING this administration has done. That's been the unifying theme of the Obama adminstration - the right comes up with false information and hates it, the left rightly dislikes it for it's timidity and incompetance.

This here is the problem. The opposition is myopic, incompetent and frankly scarily crazy, the entire Republican party seems to be made of nutjobs on steroids. However, instead of actively marginalizing them and exposing their astroturfed tea-parties, this administration is trying to engage them. Robert Reich recently had an excellent blog post about this. Coupled with that is a fractious Democratic party, perpetual navel gazers who see any criticism of this administration as a personal affront and people like the new front-pager, who just says outrageous things. We still have the best ideas in the party, we just don't have leaders with spine or political conviction. Obama might have campaigned on a more progressive agenda, but once in Washington he became less of reactionary and more of a functionary as Jon Stewart put it, surrounding himself with advisers who made him choose the politically expedient way, rather than the right way. That is why you have half-assed health care bill, stuff like your girlfriend points out, and a total unwillingness to take the fight to the opposition or holding conservative Dems accountable, both of whom are actively undermining this administration.


by tarheel74 2010-09-25 09:03AM | 0 recs
RE: here's the problem

A bit is also hyperbole. Taking 2.2 billion out of Food Stamps over ten years is hardly going to effect a program that costs around 60 billion over the same period. And the money is also going to be spent on food in the end.

Ofcourse if there are better options for raising the money, then i'm all for it. But I havn't heard the alternatives.

by vecky 2010-09-25 01:35PM | 0 recs
RE: here's the problem

Ofcourse if there are better options for raising the money, then i'm all for it. But I havn't heard the alternatives.

how about any of the ways they usually pay for things in Congress.

yes, once again we have Vecy's patented "if the Administration did it, than that's all that could be done" thinking. of course, the out limits of the possible is defined by what they actually did.

by jeopardy 2010-09-26 10:09AM | 0 recs
RE: here's the problem

I have an idea, how about congress reduce the charitable deduction limit for high-income earners to what it is for everyone else?

Oh right, Congress punted on that one too.

As I said, I haven't heard any other alternatives for raising the money - which is strange since it's congresses job.

by vecky 2010-09-26 12:49PM | 0 recs
Reap What You Sow

First off, Obama was the only choice in 2008 and will be the only choice in 2012.  Love him or hate him, seriously visualize the alternative.

It's all about the economy.  We are all suffering.  Obama looked into the face of the greatest economic calamity to hit this nation since the great depression.  He campaigned on change, he had lifted our spirits, raised our expectations and then he made his decision. 

He rounded up every disciple of Robert Rubin he could find, he selected every resume with experience at Goldman Sachs that arrived at his door and from this pile of human waste, corruption, and thievery he built his new financial team and our Department of the Treasury.  He isolated every progressive, Hell every rational voice, that had been part of his campaign and he went all in with the boys who brought us the death of Glass-Stengel, unregulated derivatives, TBTF, who created all the innovative financial products that amounted to a virtual printing press for banks.

They failed, they utterly failed, they all failed big time.  And, we the little people, are fucking Mad as Hell.  These clowns wasted an opportunity, and by and large, enriched their friends at the expense of everyone else.  So, now he and the Dems are going to pay.  For this reason alone I no longer give money to Dems: well, Progressives yes, but national Dems, no. 

Unfortunately if the GOP get an advantage this election, things will only get measurably worse.  But to be clear this was Obama's decision and he blew it.

by BSelznick 2010-09-25 11:07AM | 1 recs
RE: Reap What You Sow

I was prepared to write off BSelznick's comment after the 1st two sentences. But by the end he provided a complete and accurate description.

I will not again send $ to Obama or national Democrats and am actively encouraging people to stop getting whipsawed by the two parties. I will not vote for anyone because the other candidate is worse. My thinking has changed 180 degress on this. For those who continue to make the case that voting third or fourth party is "throwing away your vote" I would encourage them to consider that maybe their votes for the timid, cowardly, and the bought-and paid-for are "throwing away" the third party vote.

Not again guys. They've poisoned their own wells.

by Tboy 2010-09-25 11:54AM | 1 recs
RE: Reap What You Sow

No please vote. I live in PA now, I will vote for Joe Sestak for the senate, but my congressman is Tim Holden, a blue dog, I am still investigating his record, unless his opponent is an absolute whackjob I probably will not vote for him. Same applies for everyone else. See which congressman or senator represents you and what you stand for and vote for them. Send money to ActBlue or third party groups, don't send money to OFA or DNC, they will blow it on idiots like Blanche Lincoln, Ben Nelson, etc.

by tarheel74 2010-09-25 12:13PM | 1 recs
RE: Reap What You Sow

He's not the only choice in 2012. 

by Kent 2010-09-25 04:50PM | 0 recs
RE: Reap What You Sow

OK smart guy, who's your choice?

by spirowasright 2010-09-25 06:41PM | 0 recs
RE: [updated] "F-ing retards"

I have a few more questions for Upstate Kent:

1. What's the partisan makeup of your home area? (I'm an ex-Republican who still had ties to the GOP during the Reagan adminstration, but lived in a rural Illinois county that was 3-2 Democratic--and they spouted off like it!).

 

2. Who said something to you that made you feel as if you were the scum of the earth for being a Democrat? (That's the felling I got from listening to all those Democrats yelping about how theirs was the only good side in the 1980s).

3. What high-rnaking Republican elected official called you a "base lowlife" because of your politics? (Harold Washington called the GOP "base and lowlife," but beacuase I was still a Republican, I took it that Mayor Washington, whom I have never met, was calling me "base and lowlife").

I'm a history buff sir and I happen to think that the political climate over the better part of my life has transpired in a way that refelcts the mood of the people. Otherwise, we would not have had the elected lofficials that we have.

There's a school of thought that the Teabaggers are like the antiwar radicals who took over the Democratic Party in 1972, a noisy contingent that was going in one direction while the rest of the country was heading the other way. I have had the misfortune of spending most of may life among people who are going the wrong way in the eyes of the public mood, whther it was  antiwar liberals growing up or loud-mouthed conservatives now.That has created a somewhat warped attitude on my part towards politics, as well as bitterness over the tendency of my profession (I work at a newspaper) to overhype the politically obsolete.

 

Finally, I have one other question:

Are all those lost Democratic legislative, statehouse and municipal offices really so important that we needed four years of "The Geezer and Gidget" to hold on to them? (you once quoted former Gov. Corzine of NJ. I understand that he wasn't that successful of a Governor and like a lot of the causes Obama has had to defend, wasn't much of one). And are those sub-Presidential positions so important that we have to entrust our country to the failed policies of the past in order to reclaim them?

That lat question is also posed to tarheel73, Jerome and everyone else at MyDD who have turned this site into teardownobama.com.

by spirowasright 2010-09-25 07:11PM | 0 recs
RE: [updated] "F-ing retards"

At least in 1972, Democrats controlled Congress and most other offices.  Statehouses and legislatures are who are in charge of redistricting.  Because of Obama, we are going to lose a whole load of these offices and hand redistricting to control of Republicans, who will draw themselves a House majority for a decade. 

Because of Obama, we will likely get a Republican House majority that is going to phase out Social Security and Medicare and healthcare.  We wouldnt even be talking about these things had McCain been elected.  We would have been looking at getting a two thirds House majority in Congress this year under McCain.

by Kent 2010-09-25 08:53PM | 0 recs
RE: [updated] "F-ing retards"

And if Jimmy Carter had been re-elected, the GOP would have taken over Congress 12 years earlier, with more reasonable people than Newt Gingrich in charge.

This is what you're so paranoid about.

The consolation prize?

Which Presidential campaign gets the lovely parting gifts?

I understand how you feel. I felt the same way when Reagan was President, but can't you see beyond that?

Unfortunately, bad midterm elections come with the territroy for the party in the White House. It annoys me too, but that's the way it is and a lot of times, the midterms have a way of backfiring on the winners.

by spirowasright 2010-09-25 09:43PM | 0 recs
RE: [updated] "F-ing retards"

But this is a redistricting election, unlike 1982.  If Democrats lose this time, they wont be able to recover like Republicans could from 1982. 

by Kent 2010-09-25 10:09PM | 1 recs
RE: [updated] "F-ing retards"

I understand that, but that's beside the point, since it was beside the point two years ago when we elected a President.

It makes me sick to think that we the people are going to be so stupid that we're going to follow up on screwing ourselves over while in a conservative mood with screwng ourselves over when it's supposed to be going the other way.

I don't know what else to tell you.

 

 

by spirowasright 2010-09-26 12:26AM | 0 recs
RE: [updated] "F-ing retards"

The part that kills me is that Obama should have never won the 2008 election.  He wasnt ready for the job of President and I wish the voters understood that.  Now its probably going to cost the party for years and just prolong the pain if he is reelected in 2012. 

by Kent 2010-09-26 01:34AM | 0 recs
RE: [updated] "F-ing retards"

And I was a Republcian who little use for Ronald Reagan or the people around him. to say the least mine wasn't a majority opinion.

BTW, if Obama's done one thing right, it's improve our standing overseas, something has been happening almost from the moment he was elected The rest of the wrold thinks we're nuts fro treating hims like a dog and a poster on another site said that they'd like to see him ride off into the sunset after two terms to Europe, where he'd be better appreciated than he is with his spoiled brat countrymen.

Spiro was right and so is Eugene Robinson. We're a naton of spoiled brats.

On both sides of the spectrum.

Nsally, tunnel-visioned response from the MyDD community in 3..2..1

by spirowasright 2010-09-26 02:23AM | 0 recs
Article title unacceptable

Using "retard" as a perjorative signals a lack of intelligence on the part of the writer. It is on a par with using the N word. I'm tired of name calling on both sides. There are plenty of adjectives, nouns and verbs in the English language that one can use to illustrate effectively a point and aptly describe individuals. Until such time tarheel74 elevates the vocabulary, articles are not worth my attention.

by SuznAZ 2010-09-26 02:17PM | 0 recs

Diaries

Advertise Blogads