"these people, politically, want to cut his heart out and throw his liver to the dogs."

[babylonsister]

http://politicalwire.com/archives/2013/05/06/bonus_quote_of_the_day.html

May 06, 2013

Bonus Quote of the Day

"All of these things we've said about what the president could do, should do, might have, could have, but the central thing to keep in mind is his opponents -- you talk about taking them out to dinner, making nice with them -- these people, politically, want to cut his heart out and throw his liver to the dogs."

-- Dan Rather, in an interview on the Chris Matthews Show.

[freshwest]

1. He knows that, too, babylonsister! Who else will walk into the lion's den?

[Doctor_J]

2. then he should stop appeasing them,right now

Period. Try, for once, to serve the people who voted for him instead of the ones trying to kill him.

[babylonsister]

6. He's proving to us, once again, he's better than them.

I see no loss in that.

[Doctor_J]

7. and that he is willing to get nothing done rather than work with the DEMS

he would rather grovel to the Repukes and get nothing in return than work with the people who elected him and make some progress. That's not "better" than anything - it is decidedly stupid and likely a symptom of a deep emotional disorder.

[babylonsister]

8. Baloney!

Who hasn't he tried to work with, Dems or rethugs, name names, because he's trying to do everything he can to resolve what's going on. And a deep emotional disorder?

[cliffordu]

10. Thanks for sharing!

Your's is a wonderfully enlightening and fulfilling post!

[pnwmom]

41. The Dems don't control the House. It is IMPOSSIBLE

to get anything done without working with at least some people on the other side.

[Bake]

21. That's a pyrrhic victory at best.

Or the oft-cited "moral victory." A moral victory is still a loss.

The Reukes care about one thing and one thing ONLY: WINNING. No matter the cost. WINNIG. They're like Vince Lombardi: Winning isn't the main thing. It's the ONLY thing.


Bake

[1StrongBlackMan]

9. You do realize that in this political environment ...

he has been attempting to cast and re-enforce and re-re-reenforce in the mind of independent voters and that slim sliver of republicans that have not gone completely insane that the problem is the gop (and it's working). It is that tact that is necessary in order to flip the House and hold the Senate in 2014.

If that can be done, then I suspect we will see a more progressive agenda.

[Addison]

16. We've been waiting for that "more progressive agenda"

since January 2009.

[1StrongBlackMan]

17. We'll get that ...

"more Progressive agenda" when we have 218 in the House AND the Speaker of the House spot AND 60 in the Senate.

Absent those ... we get compromise legislation that still wouldn't get to the House floor OR survive closure.

[Addison]

18. Appointing a bunch of Goldman Sachs alums

to his economic team didn't require a majority in Congress.

[1StrongBlackMan]

19. True ...

but the economic team don't write laws, either.

[Bake]

22. Then we won't get it. Maybe not ever.

We may take the House in 2014. But 60 in the Senate? I'll be surprised if I see that in my lifetime.

Bake

[1StrongBlackMan]

23. Well ...

If we take the House ... we might not need 60 in the Senate. In fact, if we take the House in 2014, I suspect that Reid's first act will be to kill the filibuster rule, as we'll no longer need it to play defense against the wingnut House.

[Bake]

24. I have absolutely no faith in Harry Reid.

He's had his chance, and failed to kill the filibuster. Hence we need 60 votes in the Senate to pass ANYTHING.

If you're waiting for Harry, you'll be waiting a LONG LONG TIME.

Bake

[1StrongBlackMan]

25. But ...

while the 60 votes stymie Democratic legislation from the Senate, it also serves as a defensive backstop against the crazy House.

I stand with Reid killing the filibuster rule, if and when, Democrats take the House.

[Bake]

27. When you have one party bent on obstruction

If not DEstruction, the filibuster rule is very counterproductive.

Bake

[1StrongBlackMan]

28. I disagree ...

It serves as a line of defense against that party bent on obstruction/destruction.

[Bake]

29. That depends on which side of the majority you're on.

A minority in the Senate bent on obstruction can filibuster everything.

Wait ... that's what they do NOW.

Bake

[1StrongBlackMan]

30. And the Majority ...

can block anything coming out of the House, using those same rules (Remember the Concealed Carry Reciprocity Bill that failed after getting 57, but not 60 votes?)

[Bake]

36. Exactly. That's why NOTHING gets done.

It's called gridlock.

Bake

[1StrongBlackMan]

37. Which ...

underscores the importance of every Democrat, progressive and anyone associated with the Left, stopping this bickering and work our BUTTS off to flip the House. That way we won't had the Senate backstop.

[davidpdx]

31. I don't see is getting the majority in the House in 2014

We may pull closer by picking up a few seats, but I think we'll lose some on the Senate side making both the Republican House and Democratic Senate very narrow majorities.

[1StrongBlackMan]

34. I think ...

it would take the perfect storm of high Democratic turn-out, a significant turn-out of that independent and gop cohort that actually value governance, and a high incidence of tea-party primary victories.

The first, you and I can affect and make happen ... the other two, I think, is what the President's Budget Proposal is designed to affect. And of those two, the polls suggest that it is working.

Now, as to the final factor ... we will have to see. But the tea-party is already talking about primarying several House players, including Boehner; several players in the Senate, including McConnell.

How do you think it'll play out if/when the gop cedes to "regular order" and failing to reconcile the House and Senate budgets, the gop is forced to actually cast a vote on the segments of each budget, including CCPI and tax increases ... both of which will trigger a negative response from some portion of the electorate.

If they accept the deal (CCPI and Tax increases) they will be Primaried and loss the senior vote. If they vote "No" on CCPI and taxes, they will be primaried. If they vote "No" on taxes and "Yes" on CCPI, they lose the senior vote.

That is a box, I wouldn't want to be in ... And the Democrats can prosper, whatever the vote.

[davidpdx]

35. I agree about Republicans getting primaries especially in the House

(maybe not so much in the Senate). The question is in how many of the districts will it happen? I still don't see a huge swing happening next year even though people are fed up with how little Congress does. I wish I could be more positive about the prospect of our party winning back the House and as well as holding increasing the majority in the Senate. We need to cross our fingers we get some fire breathing candidates.

[1StrongBlackMan]

38. Nope ...

we don't need "fire breathing candidates" ... we need candidates that can win in gerrymandered districts.

[davidpdx]

39. If you are taking about people who will appeal to both sides

Then it is blue dogs. Personally I find myself frustrated with the blue dogs. There were several blue dogs in the Senate that helped the filibuster reform go down in flames.

[1StrongBlackMan]

40. Blue Dogs frustrate me, as well ...

But they help create the majorities that allow Democrats decide what bill see the light of day ... allow Democrats to head committee, etc.

[Cosmocat]

14. And, that changes things ... how?

Seriously?

Will Rs suddenly respect him and work with him? No.
Will Ds suddenly grow sacks and fight with him? No.
Will it in any way get anything done? No.

Fact is, all that BO not bending over backwards to try to be the adult in the room will do is enable the Republicans to have something to point to that actually exists when they do their poor victim, he is so mean routine.

The issue is not POTUS.

He is one fricken man dealing with 535.

About 280 who are deranged partisan jackasses.
About 150 who are true moderates that are scared little pukebags with Ds behind their names.
About 100 who are safe democrats who will fight for some reasonably progressive, common sense legislation from time to time.

[sheshe2]

3. Sad but true babylonsister.

Such unreasonable hatred.

[Cha]

4. "YOU have a drink with Mitch McConnell" is

PBO's comment on exactly what Rather is saying.

Rather's talkin' sense here.

thanks bab'sis'

[Iliyah]

5. And these people are your so called "Christians"

Their type of Christianity is pure hate. Not just against Pres O but against a lot of Americans, especially the ones who don't think like them.

[Liberal_Stalwart71]

12. ...and don't LOOK like them. :(

[Liberal_Stalwart71]

11. Dan Rather has sometimes been an asshole towards Obama, but he gets!

[Kath1]

13. So true!

There is a local radio station here that is nothing but bash Obama 24/7. It really is sickening that these people would much rather see the country suffer than allow this President to succeed.

[Jamaal510]

15. The Republican congress has been

nothing more than a dead weight on the country. Sometimes I can't help but imagine how much better off the country would be now, had Democrats won in 2010. Many of the things that Republican in congress now oppose were some of the stuff they would have supported just a few decades ago, like gun safety laws and jobs bills. Their party was pretty incompetent before Obama, but all it took was the election of a (Black) Democratic president to completely drive them off the wall.

[treestar]

20. Yes, they are just so offended at having a black man in the WH

They won't even work with him normally. Instead of having his back and shaming these racists, the progressives blame the President!

[Tarheel_Dem]

26. Yeah, but you're assuming that these "progressives" are actually who they say they are.

You Better Believe It!

[MBS]

33. " "" " "n/t

[davidpdx]

32. For once he is right on the money

Of course we knew that a long time ago. I think it was somewhat obvious before the election that if Obama won, the Republicans would come after him full force and that is exactly what they are doing.

Whether these different "scandals" (I use that term loosely) are true or not, we are going to see investigations into everything Obama does over the next 3 1/2 years.

The question is will the House Republicans try to impeach him. We know for a fact they have enough votes to put the charges up, but there are not enough votes to convict. How far will they press the theatrics?