The President's Unseemly Attacks On Progressives DEFY LOGIC

[Segami]

Wow! President Obama is finally taking the gloves off and focusing like a laser on publicly demolishing his opponents in so far as he is able to without literally throwing tomatoes at them. Great news, right? Isn't it about time? Who can even begin to explain how he tolerated the birth certificate crap, the "he's a Muslim" stuff, the planning to take over Texas coup, and all the other completely bogus charges that have been leveled at him by the Right over the years without blowing a gasket. Ummm. . . . see there's the problem. The people that President Obama has determined deserve the full brunt of his finally unleashed frustrations are not, as it turns out, the Right and the obstreperous, recalcitrant Republicans who have blocked his every move. No, the people on the receiving end of his derision, ridicule and contempt are his fellow Democrats, specifically those "Progressive Democrats" who are refusing to get with the program and pass what apparently is supposed to be his final signature, legacy cementing piece of legislation, the TPP and his ability to fast track it. Someone explain this to me, because it defies logic and common sense and plain old-fashioned political horse sense. How has the President managed to align himself with Republicans on this trade agreement and to be on the wrong side of the majority of Democrats and labor and workers and environmentalists and consumer advocates?

Seriously, what the heck is going on? befuddled Democrats would like to know how things came to such a pass. The internecine food fight among Democrats is not going unnoticed:

Obama mocks the opposition

(The following quote is President Obama describing TPP opposing Democrats):

"Their arguments are based on fears, or they're fighting NAFTA, the trade deal that was passed 25 years ago - or 20 years ago," he said with a laugh. Sighing, he added, "I understand the emotions behind it, but when you break down the logic of their arguments, I've got to say that there's not much there there." He said one of his Democratic critics' arguments "doesn't make any sense," another is "pure speculation," and others are "made up" or unrealistic.
"There's no logic that I think a progressive should embrace that would make you opposed to this deal," he said, accusing those who disagree of taking the "not smart" position of trying to "ignore the fact that a global economy is here to stay" and of acting to "shrink the overall economic pie just because we're mad about some things that have happened in the past."

The rhetoric suggests that Obama has given up trying to persuade Democrats to join him in supporting "fast-track" approval of the emerging Trans-Pacific Partnership trade deal and that he's lashing out at them in anger. Without Democratic support, the fast-track legislation faces a tough slog on Capitol Hill, especially in the House.

http://www.philly.com/philly/columnists/20150513_Obama_mocks_the_opposition.html

The Prez was overly verbose as is occasionally his wont. He could have been more concise by simply saying ,

"You see, these so-called "progressives" are fearful, ignorant, grudge-carrying Luddites living in a fantasy world where they are still tilting at NAFTA windmills. Sadly, they refuse to recognize my superior logic and won't just trust me to negotiate this global agreement with long-term lasting economic, environmental, and legal impacts without some input and supervision. Can you believe that?!"

Gosh, I don't know, but maybe some of the Democrats recall how they were sandbagged on the public option in the ACA or maybe they have memories of quick the President was to put chained CPI on the table during budget negotiations in 2011 and how they had to fight him on that as well. One hates to voice the thought, but perhaps some Democrats have learned that the President hasn't been exactly the best negotiator, often asking the least and ceding the most in his so-far failed efforts to forge bi-partisan consensus that have failed to move the implacable Republicans. Until now. Incredibly, the President has found an issue that has completely unified BOTH the Republicans and the Democrats, just not in ways that one would expect.




cont'

http://www.dailykos.com/story/2015/05/13/1384435/-The-President-s-Unseemly-Attacks-On-Progressives-Defy-Logic

[libdem4life]

1. I have one hand clapping...Zen...and two hands clapping...not Zen. Nail, meet Head. n/t

[SCantiGOP]

20. I thought this was Democratic Underground

Not Liberal Democratic Underground. Leave me out of trashing the President (or Hillary for that matter).

[libdem4life]

28. Huh? Say what?

[Skittles]

162. Tiger Beat Logic

[libdem4life]

169. Got it.

[randys1]

30. Nothing liberal about trashing Obama.

I am mad as hell about this TPP thing and I am not happy about trashing Obama.

No sir, I am a liberal, LIBERAL and I dont trash Obama or Hillary, I criticize the hell out of them but with respect.

Did you mean LIBERTARIAN>?

[red dog 1]

84. Well stated!

[fredamae]

176. :)

Couldn't agree more.

The way I feel...after the caves on the budgets over the years, Sequester, Chained CPI and so much more......Now the TPA to Pass TPP, TITP, TATP.
For more than 6 YEARS the GOP Obstructed Everything, even their Own damned Bills IF PBO was For it...So Wall Street Dems and he signed off on their Toxic Plans to CUT SNAP, ED, Senior Services, Meals on Wheels, Veterans, Housing, The EPA, FDA, Awarding Drilling Permits, Keystone XL, Banksters get off Scott free, Transparency issues, etc and Now they are tripping over each other to Support and Promote His Trade Plans???
Screw that.

[CanonRay]

33. I rather think he's trashing us

those are his quotes, not Elizabeth Warren's. All I have to look at is the list of who is in favor of TPP to know it must be a shit deal for the rest of us.

[Nite Owl]

79. Right on

[LeftOfWest]

99. Agree.

well said.

[Enthusiast]

102. Precisely.

[whatchamacallit]

107. ftw

[historylovr]

182. + 1

[staggerleem]

37. Perhaps you missed the point, here.

Our Democratic President is now trashing Democrats. That essentially means that Democrats MUST choose sides.

The Democratic Right favors Free Global Trade, negotiations conducted in secret, and no ability of our elected Congressional Representatives to amend the agreement.

The Democratic Left favors FAIR Global Trade, OPEN negotiations conducted in the clear light of day, and constitutional checks and balances.

I, for one, am on the left on this issue. Each of us will need to decide for themselves where they stand. While you are thinking about this, SCantiGOP, remember that the President is on the Right in this fight, and the Trea-publicans are lining up behind him.

[SCantiGOP]

42. staggerleem:

your quote:
Our Democratic President is now trashing Democrats. That essentially means that Democrats MUST choose sides.

Remember this if you are watching a Republican taking the oath of office in January 2017. Remember that you 'chose sides.'

I support our President, even when I don't agree with him.

[rurallib]

58. o good grief.

We support the president. But I refuse to roll over and accept really bad policy just because he is a Democrat.
Support does not equal blindly following and acceptance of all policies.

[red dog 1]

81. + 1

[florida08]

91. Thank you

[PumpkinAle]

93. Well said.............. we are not Republicans

we are thinking Democrats and will point out bad policy when it happens as it is now.

[RiverNoord]

94. I'll be more specific.

I do not support the President's position concerning the 'fast-tracking' of a major international trade agreement that the general public is barred from examining. It would definitely be a treaty under the terms of the Constitution, which means it would be the supreme law of the land, subordinate only to the terms of the Constitution itself.

I voted for him twice, but if he is attempting to push an agenda that I believe is fundamentally at odds with the democratic process, I will criticize what he is doing and contribute to efforts to prevent it, regardless of which political party he belongs to.

Does the phrase 'support the President' mean anything outside of the context of the official actions he takes in the conduct of his office? Makes me think of the 'support the troops' bumper stickers - doesn't mean anything of substance.

[Enthusiast]

103. +1 You nailed it.

[Skittles]

164. MORE TIGER BEAT LOGIC

[Fast Walker 52]

167. Yes exactly

it's funny how hard it is for some people to get that straight

[whatchamacallit]

108. Servile much?

[DisgustipatedinCA]

171. So your entire political outlook could be written in 6 lines of BASIC.

Congratulations on the efficiency.

[LiberalLovinLug]

186. ...

[bvar22]

188. WOW.

I posted mine before I saw yours.
Great Minds yadda...yadda....yaddda

...but there must have been something about that post that evoked the Brittany response in both of us.

[LiberalLovinLug]

193. Ha

yes. Its difficult to see so many Brittanys in here sometimes.

[bvar22]

187. You are not alone.

[PosterChild]

150. A clarification....

... there is no such thing as free trade. There is no such thing as fair trade. Trade is either, on balence, advantageous to the nation or not.

I trust Obama to negotiate a deal that is, on balence, advantageous to our nation. And I trust the legislature to reject it if it isn't. Which is the fast track process.

As far as open, transparent , and so called "constitutional" concerned, you can't put together a trade deal at all - free, fair advantageous or not - any other way than the way Obama is doing it.

[bvar22]

189. That just isn't true.

"you can't put together a trade deal at all - free, fair advantageous or not - any other way than the way Obama is doing it."

Trade Deals can (and have) been negotiated on a bi-lateral basis for centuries.
That leaves BOTH sides with autonomy, and NO secret tribunals stacked against workers.

Multiple "Free Trade" Zones is an invention of the last 1/4 of the 20th Century.
It is/was a scam perpetrated by the Global Banks and the IMF for Corporations to avoid Human Rights, Minimum Wages, Environmental Protections, and, the cherry on top, Bust UNIONS in the USA.
It has worked perfectly as designed for the 1%.

[PosterChild]

195. I think you are confusing two issues...

... negotiation procedures vs. number of participants. Most, if not all of the recent bilateral trade agreements were made under fast track authority:

Under the second period of fast track authority, Congress enacted implementing legislation for the U.S.–Chile Free Trade Agreement, the U.S.–Singapore Free Trade Agreement, the Australia–U.S. Free Trade Agreement, the U.S.–Morocco Free Trade Agreement, the Dominican Republic–Central America Free Trade Agreement, the U.S.–Bahrain Free Trade Agreement, the U.S.–Oman Free Trade Agreement, and the Peru–U.S. Trade Promotion Agreement. The authority expired on July 1, 2007.[9]

In October 2011, the Congress and President Obama enacted into law the Colombia Trade Promotion Agreement, the South Korea–U.S. Free Trade Agreement, and the Panama–U.S. Trade Promotion Agreement using fast track rules, all of which the George W. Bush administration signed before the deadline.[10]

https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Fast_track_%28trade%29

It really isn't possible to negotiate complex trade agreements parlementarily - it requires an executive with the authority to represent the national interest and who can make reasonably binding promises and trade-offs during the negotiations.

The reason trade agreements are benifical to the participants is because of the size, extent and diversity of the economic markets that are integrated as a result. The more participants, the more opportunities can be had for everyone.

The world is moving away from bilateral and becoming more and more multilateral and global. That's progress and I'm a progressive.

[BlancheSplanchnik]

174. I hope the Democratic Left uses this OPPORTUNITY for all it is worth:

To get an unambiguous, unified, populist message out there by any means necessary.

This could be a huge window to illustrate, even for non-political people, what the Liberal, Left, Progressive, people-focused, sane side really stands for.

I sure hope wisdom and action come together.

[A Simple Game]

88. Not liberal DU? Perhaps you should read the About page linked at the bottom of every DU page.

From the Mission statement, The first line. The emphasis is mine.

Democratic Underground is an online community where politically liberal people can do their part to effect political and social change by:

Democrats aren't even mentioned until the fourth bullet point.

Sorry if it sucks to be on a liberal web site.

[Enthusiast]

104. +1

[Aerows]

113. I didn't abandon Obama

Obama abandoned me with this "trade agreement" aka further destroy the middle class.

[HereSince1628]

132. When DU was back in DU 1.0 I joined...the admin said it was for Liberals AND other Progressives.

So, I think you're out of touch with the history and original direction of DU.

Now, I know Skinner backs a candidate on the right wing of the democratic party. And I know that DU 3.? is open and tolerant of people who are on the right side of the party.

But it's BULLSHIT to claim this didn't start as a liberal/progressive site, and the tolerance that was shown has resulted in your intolerant post about the orientation that started this place

I see colonization and displacement of what is a pro-bullying position limited to less liberal views than long time members were promised

[cali]

2. Let's get this over with

Opposition to the President is racism whether it comes from Democrats and liberals or Republicans and wingnuts. President Obama has earned our trust. If you trust him on Iran and you don't trust him on the TPP, you're schizo. The Senate Dems are jealous... or something like that. Speaking of "schizo": They're just speculating and don't know anything. The TPP isn't secret and members of Congress can read it. They're all ingrates with no respect for the greatest President of modern times. All democrats should trust him 100% on everything, 100% of the time.

You know the saddest thing about the above? I've actually seen all of that posted here within the past couple of days.

[Segami]

6. And then some...

[Blue_In_AK]

9. I've noticed that, too.

[Maedhros]

11. You forgot the most mind-numbingly stupid talking point:

Congress is opposing Fast Track because they are trying to keep the TPP secret!

There were a number of certainly-not-sock-puppets (?) parading that little gem around yesterday.

[neverforget]

73. You left out Nationalists and xenophobes if you oppose TPP. Also, the 44 Senate Dems and

Tbaggers are made for each other.

[LondonReign2]

74. You know what Rahm said about us is how they really feel

Sometimes they play nice because they need our votes, but other than that not so much

[Enthusiast]

105. +1

[bvar22]

190. Isolationists and Protectionists...

Isolationists and Protectionists...


Some things are worth protecting....like American Jobs.

[samsingh]

3. he takes the gloves off on us but is a timid pussycat in front of the repugs.

i don't understand what is happening here.

[Caijoe]

40. No...

He does what he does to please his overlords. If that means he has to take on the Dems, so be it. Corporate America is what drives policy and the TPP is a Corporate wet dream. Why you think the Repugs are down with it?

[Vincardog]

83. It is easy to understand. Can you grasp sellout?

[Orsino]

4. Let TPP fail, then, Mr. President.

Yes-it-is-no-it-isn't isn't making your case.

Make concrete promises, and start making them publicly, if TPP is so damned good. Tell us something precise about what makes your treaty different from all the others.

[Dragonfli]

14. If it truly is a progressive solution to regressive past FTAs as he implies

One would think he would declassify as needed the proof of his claims and argue on substance rather than ridicule those that have good reason not to simply blindly trust his implications, all while taking cheap potshots at them that are demonstrably false.

Accusations of stupidity and neo-ludditeism or supposed political positioning of certain opponents is an ineffective argument as well as petty and beneath a man in his position.

[Enthusiast]

106. +1

[leftstreet]

148. +1

One would think he would declassify as needed the proof of his claims

[CharlotteVale]

5. K&R

[grasswire]

7. I believe he's a surrogate mouthpiece for enemies of progressivism

That's what it seems like. The people who influence him probably talk like this.

[mitch96]

10. I agree

If your working for the deep pockets that helped you get elected, it makes perfect sense..
m

[FlatBaroque]

29. Jim Kessler n/t

[Dragonfli]

60. This is an interesting article about Kessler

http://www.huffingtonpost.com/rj-eskow/real-life-frank-underwood_b_6788674.html

[FlatBaroque]

76. Thanks for the link

not surprised, though I have not seen the TV show.

[grasswire]

49. that's exactly what I mean

Exactly.

[Robbins]

8. Let's be blunt here

Obama has showed we were all idiots and fools for supporting him.Things would be no different if Hillary won In 2008.

he has sold out all those who supported him.

he is promating TPP and going after true liberals like a republican.

[Maedhros]

12. I never expected Obama to act like a progressive - he's a Chicago Machine Democrat, after all.

However I was surprised to see him fold like a wet blanket in the face of Republican opposition. It's like he didn't even try to fight them, especially on the public option. He's from Chicago - I expected a little toughness.

Now, watching the TPP fiasco unfold, I'm convinced he's a corporate wolf in sheep's clothing.

[840high]

17. ...^ that

[swilton]

77. You forget that Obama came into office

with quite the thin resume (imho)....There has been evidence after evidence (beginning with his advisors who were neo-con holdovers from the Bush Administration in State and in Finance)....it just kept accumulating and I guess it was the cognitive dissonance....his fans kept believing his rhetoric rather than his actions....

The TPP performance - it's not just the failed policy it's the trashing of the base of his own party...which is so undignified I find it repugnant. If you have to lose at least show a little dignity...


There are numerous ways to read this - this is mine

I have seen the accumulating evidence for the past 6+ years

End of rant....

[raindaddy]

181. Very well stated!

[ieoeja]

125. FYI: Obama was not part of The Machine.

He never worked in City government. He had no Machine sponsers. He was first talked into running by Liberal Reformers who opposed the Machine. They, like much of DU, were disappointed to discover Obama was a compromiser who worked in the system, not against it.

The Machine jumped on his bandwagon. Not the other way around.

It turned out well for him. Bill Daley took over Al Gore's campaign when he fell behind in 2000. He turned that around and did a great job for Obama.

[Maedhros]

130. Ah - thank you for that bit of clarification. [n/t]

[bvar22]

192. Then HOW do you explain Rahm?

*

[ieoeja]

194. Clinton

Given that Rahm's is a Chicagoan whose political career began as a money man for Bill's presidential campaign, I assumed Rahm was brought into Obama's administration because:

1. part of the deal to get Hillary's support after the primary,
2. they're both from Chicago, and
3. as I already stated, the Chicago Machine had jumped on Obama's bandwagon.

Of course, by that point Rahm was "dead" to the Clintons. But as that was an insanely unreasonable response to Rahm not picking sides during the primary, I doubt that weighed into the decision. I know it took me awhile to realize that the Clintons are serious about their hatred.

On the plus side, it got Rahm out of the House where he used his position as leader of the DHCC to undermine Dean's 50 State Strategy. And Rahm was replaced by an actual Liberal.

[DryHump]

196. I think, overall, he's been a B-

on Dem issues, i.e. Repub light....now, re TPP: looks like he's doing his payback to his corporate buds at the end of his term(s).

[tritsofme]

13. Obama routinely breaks Washington's Cardinal rule.

He speaks the truth. Even to those who refuse to hear it.

[BrotherIvan]

18. So calling the Senator from Massachusetts a liar and just in it for campaign contributions is truth?

Has he EVER said that much about ANY Republican?

[lark]

21. He's not being honest here

He's lying about the TPP, even though it's inconvenient for some to admit the truth that our president isn't truly "ours", but "theirs".

[Demeter]

26. Ah, that would be a negative

He is telling you a story, a lie, complete BS. And we have the documents to prove it, from Wikileaks.

[d_legendary1]

44. The TPP is not truth! Otherwise NAFTA would have had us

rolling in dough! We'd have little unemployment due to oursourcing, the wouldn't be thirty people to one job opening, and wages would be up instead of down. All these trade agreements he's signed into law are going to destroy us even further.

[arcane1]

111. Which true statement(s) would that be?

[BrotherIvan]

15. Why are people still scratching their heads?

Follow the MONEY and everything becomes clear. That's why we need campaign finance reform NOW. Not 8 years from now. NOW.

And the browbeating for criticizing a single Democrat who goes after other Democrats while defying the entire party and screwing over his base, is well, comical. What is a DUer to do?

[99Forever]

16. Well bless his heart. n/t

[lark]

19. Three words explain this travesty

Trojan Horse President.

[Demeter]

24. +several brazillion

"W" with better elocution.

[lark]

39. LOL

+1,000,000,000 TIMES BETTER ELOCUTION

[Demeter]

62. made you smile!

your pleasure made me LOL. Best thing that's happened to me all day.

[Jackpine Radical]

69. It was indeed a great line.

You may now relax and enjoy the coming pummeling by socks. Just think of it as a massage. They really don't hurt much. I get one or 2 a day.

[SusanCalvin]

145. Sad but, I think, true. nt

[kacekwl]

22. I think his

anger translator Luther has quit.

[LastLiberal in PalmSprings]

136. 'You don't need me, Mr. President, you need counseling.'

-- Luther, President Obama's Anger Translator.

If we'd support the TPP if only we knew the facts (his words), then release the current version. Otherwise, quit these childish personal attacks on those who oppose your political positions. They are not challenging you personally, they are challenging an allegedly bad trade agreement, based on what little evidence they have been able to glean from leaks and observations (only corporate participants are allowed to participate in the drafting process comes to mind).

It seems his "ignore NAFTA, trust me" position echoes his unwillingness to hold members of the Bush administration responsible for their crimes. Ignore the lessons of the past, live in the imaginary future.

I don't have enough evidence to decide whether the TPP would be beneficial or NAFTA on steroids. I don't think it's too much to ask for facts.

[treestar]

141. He did quit by the end

he was no longer needed.

[Demeter]

23. It's his pattern; why anyone is surprised at this late date baffles me

[SusanCalvin]

146. Good point.

This is just (possibly) the worst.

[SoapBox]

25. It's bizarre and a total disappointment.

And it's gonna leave a big, bad bruise on his legacy...too bad.

[polichick]

27. The WH has been trashing Dems since liberals ran ads against Blue Dogs years ago.

[bvar22]

199. The White House has been trashing Liberals a lot longer than that,

......really since Day One over the Rev Wright fiasco.

[Fuddnik]

31. " I've got to say that there's not much there there."

Funny. That's exactly the observation I had about your candidacy in 2008. You were a blank slate, and mouthed just the right platitudes to let people paint onto you, just what they were hoping. Out of eight democratic candidates running, in my order of preference, I had you ranked #7, and Clinton at #8. However, I must confess, that after spending an hour talking with Chris Dodd, he dropped straight to the bottom. Dumber than a box of rocks, that one.

I also remember your speech, to your buddy Robert Rubin's Hamilton Project, where you stated, "Make no mistake about it, I am a New Democrat". And you're proving it more every day.

Kill this and all free trade agreements right now. American workers have gotten the short end of the stick on all of them.

[Hoyt]

32. Sometimes a Prez has to come out an be truthful. Our economy is going nowhere except down, without

new approaches.

Fortunately, he's not running again, so he can speak the truth to myopia.

Probably won't do any good among that bunch, but others will get it.

[djean111]

109. You know, you have done more to convince me that I need to leave the Democratic Party than anyone

else could ever dream of doing. I honestly do thank you, I will save a lot of time and a little money and a lot of angst. I will switch to unaffiliated after the Florida primary, after I vote for Bernie. And then I will vote for Bernie no matter whose name is on the ballot.
Again, sincerely, no sarcasm, thanks! You have been a real eye-opener!

[Hoyt]

110. Sorry to hear that, go in peace and may you find what you are looking for.

Some of the myopic, Obama bashers, here have just about pushed me out too. It's quite disgusting.

I suggest you open your eyes a little further before leaving.

[bahrbearian]

138. +1

[tennstar]

170. He got me

He also got me to finally make my first post on DU, having lurked for years. I did not vote for O in the last election and I will not vote for anyone who votes for this fast track.
Oh but than you are voting for a repub! Or the loss of a good supreme justice.
Well it looks to me like a lot of people in the last 2 elections voted for a republican.
I am not doing it anymore!
With this trade deal not much will matter for the American people, the middle class will not continue, the environment will be toast, cause no state will be willing to protect it for fear of the corporate courts and the fact that they do not have the tax base to fight them. People around the world will not be able to get medicine. No TPP is nothing more than a coup, by the 1%
The main employer will be the military, because war is big business.
No I am done with voting for corruption.

[Fuddnik]

175. Exactly!

I just changed my Florida voter registration back to DEM, from NPA, just so I can vote for Bernie in the primary.

And, I'm a former Democratic Congressional candidate. I dropped the party in 2007, after they continued voting to fund the Iraq War, which we voted them in to stop. Then Telecom Immunity, and the Patriot Act. Just couldn't take the sellouts anymore.

And, I'll be going back to No Party Affiliation again after the primary. If I ever bother to vote again.

[whatchamacallit]

115. You just say stuff huh?

[arcane1]

117. Yet there is no evidence what these "new approaches" are and if they will help anyone.

Being "new" isn't enough. Empty pablum masquerading as fact is also not enough.

If there is evidence that rank-and-file American citizens will benefit from this, I have yet to see it. Not from Obama, or from the TPP supporters on DU.

[Hoyt]

119. Sometimes it's hard to convince "rank-and-file" Democrats or Republicans of anything.

Obama has done nothing that convinces me he's going to sell you and me down the river.

[arcane1]

121. Of course it's hard, there are no actual facts to convince them with.

"Because I said so" is meaningless.

[Hoyt]

122. Works both ways, even when you "say so" without facts.

[arcane1]

123. Thank you for proving my point, again.

Get back to me when you have something of substance to say.

[Hoyt]

124. Like you've said anything of substance.

[FlatBaroque]

34. I am very pleased that the real

Obama is revealing himself. No more elections. Nothing to fear.

[Eleanors38]

35. Unfortunate reputations of Democratic "leaders:" Just enough juice to attack their own...

This has happened repeatedly. Look for comparable attack by Democrats on the Far Right, and you chase Unicorns.

The other reputation is a corollary: Too scared to go after the Far Right lest they be seen as opposed to RW corporate policy. (And the FR knows this.)

[Eko]

36. I have a question.

Have the other countries involved in this released information about it?

[rurallib]

46. good question. My guess is that with the internet we would have heard the second they did

[Duppers]

53. good question

[AgingAmerican]

38. If the deal is so wonderful, why aren't we allowed to see what's in it?

[1StrongBlackMan]

45. I seem to recall you were/are a member of a Union(?) ...

Were you EVER privy to the agreement BEFORE the negotiating committee reached agreement (subject to the approval of the membership)?

[AgingAmerican]

48. They have been negotiating this for five years

If we aren't allowed to see what's in it, then they are obviously hiding something.

[1StrongBlackMan]

51. You didn't answer my question. n/t

[AgingAmerican]

57. If it is made public before it goes to congress for a vote

Then you are correct.

If it is not made public before it is up for vote in congress, then my worst fears are correct.

[1StrongBlackMan]

61. There has never been any question as to ...

whether the agreement will be made public before congress votes on it. Has there?

[AgingAmerican]

68. The fast track vote abandons congressional oversight

And the GOP is drooling over it. Any reasonable person would be at least suspicious.

Fast-track trade authority is called 'secretive' because it is

[1StrongBlackMan]

71. No, Fast Track provided for ...

the agreement to be made public a minimum of 120 days before Congress voted on it and a minimum of 60 days before the President signed it.

[freshwest]

165. Only the Senate Resolution of the draft is available. It's in a link in this article:

Elizabeth Warren is Not Telling the Truth About The Trans-Pacific Partnership Trade Deal

...When Senator Warren calls TPP a “top secret” deal, she’s not telling you the truth. Any member of Congress can see it now, and before Congress votes on it, the final deal will be posted online for 60 days. What we can see now is the USTR summary of the deal, which, granted, isn’t the deal, but it isn’t nothing.

Finally, when Senator Warren says that the TPA bill leaves us “virtually no ability to stop it from the Senate or the House,” or concern-trolls about “fixing” a final deal through an amendments process that TPA shuts off, she’s not telling you the truth. The final deal, after its 60-day public review period, will receive an up-or-down vote, which means Congress can quite easily stop the deal. It just means that a minority in Congress can’t obstruct the deal. Ditto the amendments, which would not be a way to “fix” a final deal since the other 11 nations involved would also insist on that authority, irreparably gumming up the negotiations. Amendments, in this case, are a way to obstruct a final deal. See “nuclear deal, Iran” once again.

So, Elizabeth Warren may be right, TPP could end up being a horrible deal, and she’s right not to trust Republican majorities in both chambers to put a stop to a bad deal, but what she’s doing right now is eroding any trust Democrats ought to have in her. President Obama, on the other hand, has been open and honest about what he expects to be in the final deal, which we will all get to see and verify before anyone votes on it.

In the end, though, it boils down to trust. There will be a TPP with or without us*, and if you’re going to trust anyone to get us a good deal, it should be the person who is telling you the truth now, not the one who is nakedly deceiving you.

When ones goes to the link I underlined in the first paragraph I posted here, USTR summary of the deal it automatically uploads a 113 page PDF to your computer. Don't worry, it's not a virus or anything:

http://thedailybanter.com/2015/04/elizabeth-warren-is-not-telling-the-truth-about-the-trans-pacific-partnership-trade-deal/

*Because the other nations have been working on this for dozen years. It's like the Iran treaty the GOP tried to scuttle, where the UK, China, Russia, France and the rest were going to have that deal no matter what. And make us look like idiots.

It also goes into the start of the bogus little 'he's a sexist meme' going around and since being expanded upon. It comes from MSM, owned by billionaires, and RFing, like Death, never takes a holiday.

Hey, there an election to steal, and 'manufactured consent' by putting out outrages, one after another, gives the GOP an alternative reality to push that whoever our candidates in 2016, Democrats hated them, so that means the GOP really will win the presidency in 2016.

Hasn't Obama invaded Texas yet? That one didn't have much staying power. But it was cool while it lasted.

Crashed the Economy? Well, not yet, but you know he wants to.

Declared WW3 or declared thermonuclear war on Russia? Well, apparently not.

Deported all the Muslims or jailed all the Patriots? Sure he'll get around to it.

Signed KXL? Well, no, and after stalling for his entire term of office under grave political threats, he vetoed it when it came up to his dek, but don't let that get in the way of a damned good shit storm. Go, drama!

Thrown grandma off a cliff? Uh, no, that's Paul Ryan's gig.

Stolen the right to vote? Uh, that's not his deal, either.

Made being gay and owning guns illegal? Any day now, folks, any day. It's a-coming.

And privatized Social Security? Well no, and hell no.

Let the entire government shut down just for the hell of it? See Cruz, Paul, Cornyn. Even if you make a scrabble word of their names, still won't spell Obama.

Oh, well, there's always the next poutrage du jour!





(BTW, thanks for the update, I am just blown away. I bow to you, Sir, I bow! And you know I say that sincerely.)

[1StrongBlackMan]

168. LOL ...

"We'll only see the Senate Resolution!!!"

Yep ... I wonder how many clever DUers will jump into that Civics-illiterate narrative?

[freshwest]

178. Found 4 more, online now. Problem - big words, long sentences, complex multi-level concepts. Meh!

The intent is clear, more goodies for Americans first. Since these other nations don't need us. But we need the markets.

I'd like to see them buy from our revitalized auto industry. You know those jobs: high pay, benefits, unions, stuff like that.

Uh, wait, that can't be true, sez...

[mckara]

41. Obama has Always Been a Corporatist

There is no dishonor in disagreeing with him. He was less of a corporatist than DLC Hillary in 2008 and now, but he was always tainted.

[1StrongBlackMan]

43. So, disagreeing and stating why one disagrees is now ...

a mocking attack?

And BTW, notice all the editorial comments contained in the "quote"? ... That makes it, at best, a non-quote.

Come on, DU. We're better than that.

[Bobbie Jo]

52. Sadly

Come on, DU. We're better than that.

Nope, not anymore...

[rhett o rick]

75. When the Left is critical of Obama, bingo bango, they are "bashing". Now that Obama is being

critical of the Left, suddenly it's "disagreeing and stating why".

Lots of people have speculated on the various ways the TPP can hurt the 99%. No one has come forth with an explanation on how it could possibly benefit the 99%. We've heard rhetoric like it may boost working conditions for foreign workers. Ok, explain how that might work. Who would pay for it and how would it be enforced. How might it be different than other so-called Free Trade Agreements that have failed. Obama has only tried to belittle those that are skeptical. Are any economists backing the TPP? I know Sen McConnell loves it.

[1StrongBlackMan]

78. That's just it ...

President Obama isn't being "critical of the left" ... he IS saying that he disagrees with Warren's (and others') assessment of TPP and stating why and saying that when the finalized agreement comes out, no one will have to SPECULATE (though people will differ in their projects).

[rhett o rick]

112. Ok, but when the progressives are "disagreeing" with him, his supporters scream "bashing".

It works both ways.

He is trying to intimidate progressives into "trusting him". Well Mr. President, trust is rare in politics except for those that blindly follow. We trusted Pres Clinton and he admits he made a mistake with NAFTA. Some people trusted H. Clinton when she told us that Iraq had WMD. They were foolish.

Many knowledgeable people including noted economists, have explain the many different ways this could go bad. Granted we haven't seen the final draft so we don't know which way it will go bad but NO ONE has come out to explain in any form how this might just possibly go good. How can a Free Trade Agreement go good, even if the President wanted it to?

[1StrongBlackMan]

126. It has been explained any number of times ...

Your refusing to accept the explanation should never be confused with there not having been an explanation.

[rhett o rick]

128. I've seen rhetoric. But NO ONE has come forward to explain how this TPP can possibly help the

American worker. If it's been explained so many times, maybe you have a link or two.

How is it even possible for a Free Trade Agreement to help American workers? It might make prices of products cheaper, but that's not a help if you lose your job. We used to have the best textile industry in the world. It's gone thanks to Free Trade. Will the TPP bring it back or will we lose more? Notice that the Democrats are insisting that the TPP have provisions to train American workers that will lose their jobs. Train them for what and at whose expense.

[1StrongBlackMan]

129. So you can write off the link or two as mere rhetoric, no thanks. n/t

[rhett o rick]

144. If you have something that isn't rhetoric, I would like to see it. But it doesn't exist.

I have asked and asked and no one will respond. You know rhetoric when you read it. "The TPP is intended to make all workers in the world better off."

Pres Obama could say that he won't sign an agreement if it reduces the availability of generic medications, for example. As well as other concerns. No one is refuting the concerns.

[1StrongBlackMan]

151. Again, refusing to accept responses doesn't equal no responses proffered ...

and that is what you are doing when you claim the response(s) is(are) rhetoric ... which is DU-speak for anything I choose not to believe.

[sheshe2]

153. Well here is one...

A pretty calm discussion. A lot of questions and some good answers. There is a lot of concern. I doubt you will like the link as it was in the BOG. I wish you would take a look. We are being beaten up here and TOLD that we support TPP. We can't support something that has not been published, yet some of us have a little faith in this President to do the right thing. Sad that so many think this President plans to destroy the middle class, the environment and that he is just a sell out to Wall Street.

Please take a look Rhett.

http://www.democraticunderground.com/110228517#top

[rhett o rick]

172. I have asked repeatedly for specific reasons to support the TPP

I did read the thread. Whether you believe it or not, I want the truth. If there are arguments to pass the TPP I want to read them. That thread does not include one single specific reason to pass the TPP. How possibly could it help American workers?

There are those that worry about the Chinese. I also worry that the Chinese will become a domineering world factor, but no one has explained what kind of mechanism could possibly be in the TPP that will protect the American workers. What specifically will save our jobs. For example, will it raise tariffs so American workers can compete with foreign workers? What specifically will be included to help American workers.

The same conservatives that are pushing the TPP are also currently supporting tax breaks for companies to move factories overseas, so I don't think their support means that the TPP will be beneficial to the American worker.

There are some hints that the TPP will in fact eliminate American jobs. The Democrats are fighting the Republicons over including re-training in the agreement for those that WILL lose their jobs. They are admitting we will lose American jobs.

In that thread someone posted about 10 or 12 concerns that Sen Sanders and others have. NO ONE has addressed those concerns. The President hasn't addressed a single concern specifically. He basically says to trust him and has ridiculed those that are skeptical.
No one has provided any specific benefits of the TPP.

Some say we must fix NAFTA. I agree, but how specifically will the TPP fix NAFTA? We've been lied to before (when NAFTA was passed) and need to be skeptical.

I also saw a number of posts that said that they trusted Obama or had faith in Obama. This type of blind faith scares me when so many unions, environmental organizations, economists, etc. are warning us against it.

[bvar22]

197. The Training for the new TPP jobs will be EASY!

"You want some fries with that?'

[rhett o rick]

198. Agreed but it will be contracted out to McDonalds for $10,000 per person trained. Tax

payers will pay of course.

[JoePhilly]

90. I think you are giving DU too much credit.

The combustible hair club bursts into flames regardless of how inaccurate the "quote" actually is.

I'm surprised some one isn't claiming Obama called Warren a "F**King Used car saleswoman!!!"

But some are getting close.

[Eleanors38]

47. Went through 4 pps of Googly-Woogly: NO mention by MSM of note-taking ban

laid on Boxer. Did see coverage by major & minor web sites, and by C-SPAN.

Bidness as usual, I guess.

[libdem4life]

139. Warren reported that, and if memory serves, so did Sherrod.

[Eleanors38]

185. Oh, I believe it. Just noting the lack of MSM coverage.

[Doctor_J]

50. He did this about four years ago - compared liberals to teabaggers

During one of his surrenders, he said something like, "Boner and I both have to deal with extremists in our own parties".

One hates to voice the thought, but perhaps some Democrats have learned that the President hasn't been exactly the best negotiator,

This thought only makes sense if you believe that the president is a Democrat. If you think of him as a Republican, he's been very productive.

[bvar22]

95. Can't have it both ways:

Either:

1) President Obama is the WORST "negotiator" in living memory,

OR

2)He ain't batting for the team with Unions and Working Men.

[hifiguy]

97. Hole-in one. Grand slam.

[SusanCalvin]

147. Word.

I've been saying this for years. (At least the "bad negotiator" part.)

[Enthusiast]

114. Thing is, the ones disagreeing are not really extremists.

How does he expect senators representing the rust belt to feel?

[Duppers]

54. K & R

[rurallib]

55. Yes, it is an illogical position and fight he has decided to fight

And as noted in many other posts here not the first time he has decided to take on his liberal supporters while in other cases he allows tea baggers and "conservatives" to punch him around in public with little response.

I felt from the day he announced in 2007 that he was way too corporate for me. Hillary fell into the same group.

The thing that worries me is that many of the Dems that voted against it yesterday would turn if one or two small changes were made. The corporatists will not stop until they win this one. It is the cornerstone to their next moves I believe.

[Cosmocat]

56. Sorry, this is a two way thing

Starting with the "sandbagged on public option" during ACA thing.

His party has left him hanging almost from day one, let republicans chew his ass off 1,000,000 different ways and times with absolutely no one standing to his defense, and being just short of completely worthless on the health care debate.

In an era where one party is united as one, literally never breaking ranks by so much as one fricken member in congress in opposition to the POTUS, his party has been spineless and rudderless.

He didn't write ACA, he signed it.

Had the democratic majority in congress put a public option into ACA, you think he would have vetoed it?

You got a beef with how the ACA played out, your beef is with the democrats in congress.

I get the opposition to this trade agreement, and taking a stand on it is the right thing.

But, again, in light of the opposition party that stood behind the worst president in our lives 100 percent, framed him as TOUGH AND RESOLUTE and HE KEPT US SAFE after the twit ignored warnings and hid in a mountain during 9-11, it burns my ass to see democrats gleefully snipping at a democratic party president when the democrats in congress during his tenure have been pretty much worthless in their opposition to REPUBLICANS.

If they were 1/10th as feisty with them as they are with him, things might have been different the last 6 years.

[AtomicKitten]

59. It's a goddamn shame this is the issue he decides to plant his flag on.

We could have used this fervor for single payer or ending the wars in the ME or a better safety net for those floundering in this upside-down economy.

[Jackpine Radical]

63. Actually, Obama's actions only defy logic if you make certain assumptions

about his intentions.

Rahm Emanueladdressed the concerns of the fucking retarded Left about Obama years ago:

[raindaddy]

80. I think the White House owes the Democratic wing of the Democratic Party an apology!

[TBF]

64. Re "pure speculation" - show us the meat.

Show us the damned agreement already & let us decide whether it's good for American workers. Why are you so afraid to do that Mr. President?

[Nitram]

65. I can believe Obama is wrong about the value of the agreement...

...at the same time I believe he thinks it is necessary to make keep the u.S. competitive globally. Let's leave the hyperbole to the right.

[JDPriestly]

66. K&R.

[jwirr]

67. It does defy logic. Every time I heard him call progressives and espcially Elizabeth Warren out I

wondered if he had forgotten that he was calling us out also? Both of my senators voted against it and I support them. So when he calls them out it is me he is talking to. And he tells us that we do not know what we are talking about. Fine - then tell us what we are talking about. Answer our questions.

For heavens sake President Obama, many of us do not want the TPP or the TPA. We are the ones pressuring our representatives to stop this until we know more about it. To attack them is to attack us.

If you want this thing to go through then tell us about it.

[Geronimoe]

70. Another way of saying what Obama wants to say....

Is that the Republicans are way ahead of the Democratic Party on world economic issues. Because they are the only ones agreeing with Obama, except of course the Global Corporation CEOs that don't pay US taxes with their offshore tax havens.

[foo_bar]

72. it seems to be theatre, but for whose benefit?

There aren't 45 Elizabeth Warrens in the Senate, and I can't picture Reid turning his back to Obama for the indirect sake of economic "populism" without every blue dog bolting, so I have to go with 11th-dimension chess that they're all playing together:

Let’s suppose you are trying to bring a friend around to your point of view.

Would you tell her she’s emotional, illogical, outdated and not very smart? Would you complain that he’s being dishonest, fabricating falsehoods and denying reality with his knee-jerk response?

http://www.washingtonpost.com/opinions/why-obama-is-in-danger-of-losing-on-tpp/2015/05/11/ae4caf30-f814-11e4-9030-b4732caefe81_story.html

[RoccoR5955]

82. So first he gets mad at RepubliCONs

Now he gets mad at the Liberal Base of his own Party.
This just proves my original thought that Obama is not, and never has been any sort of Liberal.
He has done this before when he appointed banksters to his cabinet, as a payback for their large donations to his election and re-election.
Sure the corporations and investment class would have done well with the latest form of SHAFTA, while the workers get the shaft.
As usual, the folks in power just want to keep making money off of the backs of those less fortunate.

[kelliekat44]

85. I don't his attacks are any more unseemly than the progressive attacks against him. nt

[red dog 1]

86. K&R...Thanks for posting

[George II]

87. I don't think ANY of Obama's comments could be characterized as "unseemly".

[hifiguy]

89. it's simple. Incredibly simple.

BLiNDINGLY simple

Elizabeth Warren and the other anti-TPPers are fucking up Obama's post-presidency retirement plan, which is to cash in for his services rendered to the billionaire class and the plutocracy, just like the Clintons did. No TPP, no donut. You know damn well he doesn't want to end up like Jimmy Carter, building houses for Habitat for Humanity, when there is a Clinton-style zillion-dollar gravy train to be ridden.

[Demeter]

92. LOL

[red dog 1]

116. + 1000

[treestar]

142. This one is absurd

Really out there.

[sabrina 1]

96. It's not the first time this President has belittled those who supposedly are on his side, who

elected him in the first place.

When he spoke about lifting the ban on Offshore Drilling eg, he referred to those who opposed doing as 'as living in the past'. This is a talking point often used by anti-Liberal posters on the internet. 'You're living in the past, Lieberal, get with the program, we know a whole lot more now than way back when you guys thought you knew everything'.

18 days after he made that snide remark about Dems who fought for that ban, the oil rig (which is smart advisers had assured were much more safe these days) blew up, costing 11 lives and destroying the Gulf for who knows how far into the future.

I'm beginning to wonder if he even likes Democrats.

[dpatbrown]

98. roll over

We'll see just how principled these progressives are. I expect many will roll over, like so many times in the past. TPP is still terrible!

[d_legendary1]

100. I like Obama but

fuck him on this issue. How many bags of money have they thrown his way in order to buy out his loyalty? Bill Clinton said that he regrets NAFTA, but still takes the money from corporations who pay him to speak.

[hifiguy]

120. They don't need to give him anything.

They just need to promise a post-presidential future, a significant part of it being wealth beyond his wildest dreams. Just like the Clintons. And the tenth-percenters will see it as a cheap payoff for a massive return.

[d_legendary1]

133. So the Clintons are in for a pay day if Hillary gets nominated

Terrific!

[hifiguy]

135. The Clintons already got their first bite of the apple -

the tens of millions they are worth now after HRC saying they were "dead broke" when they left the WH.

They're going for a double dip now. THAT is chutzpah.

[d_legendary1]

180. Oi!

Gotta make sure Bernie kicks ass! Even in this backwater state of ours.

[Enthusiast]

101. K&R! This post should have hundreds of recommendations!

Apparently the President is getting some more bad advice. He seems to have a proclivity for bad advice when it has a Third Way stench about it.

[ucrdem]

118. Agreeably disagreeing is not attacking. nt

[Sunlei]

127. dunno, I think its going well. all the members of congress & Sen, can read the working DRAFT.

Once the Asian pacific countries sign the final, signed treaty will be public access for about 2 months and then president Obama may (or may not) sign it.

[countryjake]

131. Honestly, it doesn't defy logic, at all. It's the way our government works.

And does not surprise me in the least. Capitalism 101.

I remember back to the way NAFTA was steam-rolled thru, despite the tremendous working-class opposition to it.
I remember how my own state played a part in that deal, ignoring the well-organized progressive local demonstrations against it and also, all of the pleas to our own Congresspeople that mostly went unheard. I remember how both of my current Senators (one of them was still in the House then) kept responding to my letters with, "NAFTA will be good for the state economy", and I will never forget that both of those women voted "Yea" to pass it.

They may have voted "No" on the fast-track yesterday, but, make no mistake, huge businesses like Boeing and Microsoft keep my democratic Senators over a barrel when it comes to trade. One of them is up for re-election next year, she even has hopes of becoming the Whip, and I'd love to see that happen, but I hold no illusions...she is a politician and will always be beholden to the corporate masters, in the end.

Thus, by hook or by crook, I think that the TPP will eventually become President Obama's legacy, no matter how determined progressives are to stop it. Those of us who were left shaking our heads (and our fists) when Clinton did it, remember.

(a side-note on those "completely unified Democrats&quot
Both of my Senators met with our prez, after fast-track failed yesterday)

[fadedrose]

134. I am very sad

That's it.

[JonLP24]

137. Logic?

He hasn't read my posts on TPPA

[treestar]

140. He does not have to agree with them or obey them

Merely because you agree with them.

Very mild expression of disagreement.

And he's right, some people have no more than NAFTA bad therefore TPP bad.

And the progressives have been attacking him rather than the Republicans for 6 years, so that complaint is hypocritical.

[awoke_in_2003]

143. Well, he is retiring soon

and why shouldn't his daughters get to marry investment bankers, too?

[Dont call me Shirley]

149. As the saying goes "It's going to take a Democrat to undo the New Deal"

[sendero]

152. Only if your "logic" assumes...

... he is working for the 99%. he never has, and now he makes that clear to anyone with an IQ over 80.

[glinda]

154. Politicians should resign when they break away from what they said to get elected.

I don't care who they are.

[dflprincess]

155. He's not going to need our votes again

so why shouldn't he make sure those who can make sure he has a comfortable retirement are happy?

[bvar22]

191. He is going to be surprised when he goes to join Bill Clinton at the Bush Table,

...and the Bush Family makes him use the back door.

[F4lconF16]

156. No, they don't defy logic.

What did you expect? Obama is as corporate of a democrat as they come. He is part of the elite. He is the head of a 200 century old political party in a two party system designed to protect wealthy capital owners. He wasn't going to change jack shit, and if he has to attack liberals to maintain his support for wealthy interests, he will.

[JayNev]

157. Obama is, and always was an establishment man...

Obama was always an establishment man. He became enormously successful by working within the establishment, though he may have sometimes given the impression that he was fighting the establishment and those who were desperate for hope chose to believe him.

The establishment did not want him to do campaign finance reform, single payer, Glass Stegall etc. so he did not do those.

Right now the establishment is telling to get passed a trade treaty that corporations can see but individuals can't, and he is putting in his best effort.

His logic is simple "I have been very successful personally by working within the establishment, so that's what I will keep doing".

This may seem harsh, but to believe otherwise is being gullible.

[C Moon]

158. I've stood with him on most things, but this pissed me off.

How can he align himself with the likes of McConnell while keeping the document a secret, and expect us all to follow?
Fuck that. I wouldn't sign any document without reading it fully. It's class A bull shit.

[Cha]

159. Wah wah wah.. poor little "progressives" can't handle straight talk from the President.. oh wait

I bet they can. Just Sherrod Brown had to start whining because bad Obama called Sen Warren "Elizabeth".. her first name!

When Obama has called other Senators by their first names.. oh yeah and they were MALE.

Ben White
✔ ‎@morningmoneyben
Contra @SenSherrodBrown, transcripts show Obama has referred to male senators by their first names (including Brown) many times.

12:33 PM - 12 May 2015 · Manhattan, NY, United States
27 27 Retweets

http://theobamadiary.com/2015/05/12/the-presidents-day-51/

Ask AG Loretta Lynch if the President is sexist. Ask SCJ Sonia Sotomayor and Elena Kagan, too.

"Gosh, I don't know, but maybe some of the Democrats recall how they were sandbagged on the public option in the ACA or maybe they have memories of quick the President was to put chained CPI on the table during budget negotiations in 2011 and how they had to fight him on that as well."

Oh yeah, that's all bullshite but BOLD it and PILE it on. There were not enough votes for PO.. the President got what he could.. but don't let facts stand in the way of your ignorant rage.. that CPI shite was all political.. and so many saw it for what it was.. but not the "progressives'' who reach for it as one of their favorite whines.

Oh Do Carry ON and ON and ON. Don't let me interrupt your little Shark fest.

[freshwest]

161. The lioness has spoken! Don't hold back, let me hear you roar! Love ya, Cha!

Last edited Thu May 14, 2015, 03:10 AM - Edit history (1)

[Cha]

163. Too true, freshwest.. Too true! Mahalo for that visual.. my son would get a huge kick out of it!

Had Just about enough.

The "progressives" have lied about and insulted President Obama for 7 years.. but their sensibilities can't take straight talk from Obama?

This President is being "nasty".. give me an effin break. They're projecting.

Love you, freshwest!

[betterdemsonly]

166. Not if you are paying attention. He has done this many times

as have others from the centrists minority of our party. We really would make life nicer for ourselves if we would stop giving the presidency and the congressional leadership to centrists.

They like it when our party loses Congress because it is with republicans they can get their agenda passed. Clinton will be no different. We are highly unlikely to get congress back if she wins, because she hates other dems. She is a centrists too and would prefer to work with the republicans.

The centrists were not unhappy about our loses in 2010 and 2014. They gloated and blamed liberals some more. They are workin for the other team.

[colsohlibgal]

173. "Inside Job"

I suggest the diligent and dogged Obama defenders/operatives watch that film. Don't take anybody's word for it, see what Obama said running, see what he said, who he appointed, and how he acted after elected. Night and day.

I voted for him twice, the first time enthusiastically, the 2nd less so, the best of the two main choices. Some of us are weary of voting for not so good because the alternative is truly awful.

[RiverLover]

183. Exactly!! So well said, so true, we need to wake the hell up! /nt

[Kablooie]

177. Lame ducks can do what they REALLY want.

perhaps this is who he has been all along and we are only seeing it now.

[peace13]

179. While I support the President and worked my butt off to get him elected...

...my bag was barely unpacked from his inauguration when he struck out against the whining folks who got him into office. I forgave him that, but it happens from time to time. I can't think about it because it makes me feel hopeless.

[raouldukelives]

184. I have to say I didn't expect the comfortable shoes to be made by children. nt