Seriously--how did this happen?

[jpgray]

Congress drops the ball as members want to avoid a tax cut vote on the record before the election. Obama decides he must act to save UI and the middle class cuts, and goes over their heads, apparently without any consultation, to make a deal with the GOP. Congress then rejects the deal, even though in the wake of it our position is weaker than ever. Our message on tax cuts is now thoroughly divided, inexplicably tardy, and in every possible sense it could not have been more poorly planned.

I don't know who ought to have the chief blame, but that's almost immaterial when there is so much to go around. If Congress was adamant on putting up a fight, why not do so sooner? Why not consult with the president? If Obama felt compelled to make the deal to save important provisions such as UI funding, why not sound Congress on it? Can it be that our Congressional leadership and president each felt free to wing this without a united plan of attack? Did neither ever know what the other was thinking? Planning? Anything?

"What might have been" is a speculative and wasteful game, but I believe we had the strength to win this if we put it to a decisive fight. The public was on our side. All our demands were nonpartisan necessities. All the GOP's demands were reckless hyper-partisan garbage.

In any case, we've lost many of our advantages. Intransigence from Congress now belittles the president as he's stuck his neck out. Their tardiness compelled the marginal deal, which no one in the administration (Obama included) or Congress really likes. The deal's existence completely undermines any fighting Congress finally wants to have over the issue, as they will fight in part against their president. The deal sounds less scary than "tax cuts for the rich or else," so our public support for the fight is bleeding away.

Seriously, how could this ever go wrong on so many levels? You can defend Obama's decision to act given events to that point, and you can defend Congress's dislike for the deal in isolation, but the whole process taken as a whole is just indefensible. Where was the coordination? The planning?

[hlthe2b]

1. It is unfathomable to me...

how someone I believe to be so intelligent, could have seemingly abandoned all political instincts (not to mention his professed values pre-election). I think some day, we will get a good psychoanalysis of what has occurred. I truly believe Obama's temperament-- that is so conflict-avoidant-- may have something to do with growing up black in a world that still had plenty of racist remnants and expectations for African Americans. It is certainly possible that the firestorm that arose from the whole Reverend Wright issue and the concerted efforts of the RW to paint Obama as a "radical black man" had its intended effect, (along with the racist aftermath of the teabaggers) leaving Obama unwilling to mount the kind of challenges and take the risks that are necessary to defeat a belligerent "take-no prisoners" RETHUG party.

End of my own unqualified analysis, but to the extent I am right at all, this does not bode well for the next two years, with RETHUGS asserting themselves more and more. I still hold out hope that Obama will receive and react to a REAL wakeup call-- this time from those who support him, as I still do.

[PurityOfEssence]

10. And people wonder why we call this a cult

It's just beyond belief. The very premise of supporting Barack Obama is based on assumptions that defy any logic or observation, and the entire universe must be manhandled with brute force to square his actions with reality. Arguing any dissent against his actions is like arguing against religion: this one goes to eleven. He is what they say he is and that's that, period.

Yes, he's quite intelligent. So what?

His masterful, chess-playing political acumen has NEVER been demonstrated; he's a one trick pony: avoid all controversy and chart a middle course of being all things to all people. There's a big fucking problem with this short-term maneuvering: YOU GET CAUGHT. It's also the curse of moderates to always be fighting a two-front war, and he's bungled his dealings with both extremes repeatedly.

His "progressivism" is nothing more than a dewy-eyed bit of projection from those looking for someone to lead them out of the wilderness.

He's got an Achilles' heel of narcissism, much akin to Bill Clinton's, and this need to be loved by everybody contributes to his unwillingness to take stands.

It's hero worship. We didn't elect a platform, we elected a man. The problem is that the people with the personality types who need that kind of affirmation can often be less than stellar leaders.

Getting elected is a far different enterprise than leading, and virtually every action he takes smacks of the former.

I'm sorry to hear the personal tales of disappointment from people who bought into the Pied Piper schtick, but enough's enough. He's NOT the second coming. He's NOT some kind of super-person. Maybe he's not as much of a corporatist as I think, but that's damning him with faint praise.

[DailyGrind51]

12. We needed a "trial lawyer", but we got a "law professor"!

It is much easier to lecture than to confront, and Obama avoids confrontation at all costs.

[Exilednight]

13. I agree that he's intelligent, but he's not an intellectual. Intellectuals find ways to make things

happen in the face of adversity. Intelligent people can recognize the problems, and may even be able to recommend solutions, but intellectuals know how to locate the solution and the way to solve the problem no matter what the obstacle.

Obama might be the smartest guy in the room, but that's fairly easy when you surround yourself with idiots.

[HEyHEY]

2. The christmas party was a little too good and everyone's hungover?

[jpgray]

4. I wish they'd have a little hair off whatever dog bit Sanders

His filibuster is just incredible.

[BeyondGeography]

3. Obviously, the problem didn't happen overnight

I suspect there is much to be learned about intra-party discord. Listening to DeFazio tonight, who railed about Obama "wasting" $300 billion in tax cuts on the stimulus last year in a worthless attempt to get bipartisan support for the measure (or to just look bipartisan), there was no shortage of ill-will toward the President before this saga hit. And, going back to the presser on Tuesday, Obama was already working himself into a lather about progressive scorn and opposition to his efforts, not just from the "professional" left, but by congressional D's that could never muster the votes for "pure" progressive outcomes.

The fact that we had the worst electoral result in 116 years last month, followed by a deal made in private with Republicans, probably hasn't helped the atmosphere either.

Whatever, I agree with what Grayson said tonight. The point going forward isn't to find an alternative to Obama, it's to help him find ways to reignite the base. Sometimes, that starts with opposing him from within and making him see the point of being a little more aggressive with the real enemy.

[PassingFair]

5. You forgot Biden "consulting" with the House.

"The White House tried for days to quell the discontent among the House Democrats, but the efforts may have backfired after Vice President Joe Biden met with lawmakers earlier in the week and presented the agreement with the GOP as a "take it or leave it" deal, representatives said.

"Let's leave it," said Rep. Donna Edwards, D-Md."



Clusterfuck.

And they deserve it for asking us
to believe bullshit over reality.

I'm SICK of it.

[jpgray]

6. Did Obama and Biden think they had to go ahead with it anyway?

Did they know and expect Congress to balk? Did they think everyone would circle the wagons once it was public? Wouldn't it be good to have this planned out and present a unified front, to decide on a stance together? This is just so damn frustrating and no aspect of our leadership is coming out of this mess covered with glory, to say the least.

[PassingFair]

7. The house members that will be left after the changing of the guard....

are predominantly Progressives.

I think they are pushing past
the old bullshit in the House
and taking a stand on this.

I hope they don't end up like
the Communards.



I have been calling my Senators
and House member today to support
Sanders.

[high density]

8. I too don't understand why all the sudden we are rushing to pass more tax cuts

There seems to be this almost frantic feeling that if the tax cuts for the top 2% aren't extended, we are going back to the dark ages. It is ridiculous.

I agree that this should've been a debate we had before the election. We could have put the Republicans on record for supporting the rich while simultaneously voting against the middle class.

Oh well.

[democrat2thecore]

9. Lack of leadership in the White House. Period. How many times have we seen it? -nt

[jeanpalmer]

11. Maybe there was coordination

According to reports the WH negotiations with Repubs started soon after the election. How likely is it that word didn't filter back to Pelosi and Reid that negotiations were taking place? I'm thinking they were in on it from the start. They had to play dumb because what was being negotiated was going to infuriate the base. There was no way they could have been seen to be complicit. They had to keep their distance, even though they were in on it. Now that the agreement has been made, they can present it as a done deal and act like they didn't know what was going on. Although I haven't seen either Pelosi or Reid deny they were aware of the negotiations.

A lot of what's going on is just theatre. Obama had no objection in principle to any of it. That he was fighting for a compromise is preposterous. He went to the Repubs with the entire deal in hand. Does he look like a person compromising core beliefs? He doesn't have any core beliefs on these issues. But he had to make it look like he was compromising. His supporters have been programmed to accept what appears to be compromise.

Watch how fast this goes through. A few liberals in the House are objecting, but they're inconsequential. They're just tinkering around the edges of the deal anyway. They'll hold out a few days, be thrown a few bones, and cave shortly.

We're being played, again. How many times can people be fooled like this? Haven't they learned anything from his campaign?

[Creative]

14. "How did this happen?" It's really quite simple, there was an election.

And unlike many who do not acknowledge that fact, Obama decided to make a deal with this Congress rather than the next.

However, the are many on the other side have figured out that this is a pretty good deal for Dems. Thus, there is now talk of holding out and negotiating a better deal when they return with a stronger hand.

The folks with their heads in the sand had better hope this deal goes through; for if it does not, they will be astonished at what the see when they raise their heads from the sand next year.

[lunatica]

15. I suspect the lack of coordination and planning may have been planned

Remember that they all, and I mean all need re-election money and that the corporations' money spigot has been turned on full force by the Supreme Court. Where else will they get such wealth in order to be re-elected? Not from us, the people.

[jeanpalmer]

16. Yes

that's why the money overwhelmingly went to the rich and financial aristocracy. They're the ones who contribute. The recipients of unemployment or other benefits in the tax package do not make campaign contributions. That's why the amount they got was the bare minimum.

[zulchzulu]

17. It's simple. The Democrats have to deal with Blue Dogs who vote with Republicans

We can split hairs on this or that regarding why it's all where it is right now. But the simple fact is that there are about 49 Democrats in the Senate with 11 Blue Dogs who stray to the Republicans consistently.

There were votes to try to pass legislation that didn't include the Millionaire Bailout (Top 2%) and it didn't have the 60 votes. Then it was attempted to include up to $1M earners and THAT didn't pass.

Why?

Blue Dogs. Even when many of them were in a lame duck Senate where they weren't coming back, they STILL voted like Republicans.

It's all about votes. Obama isn't a monarch.

Any other twisting of these simple facts is parlor talk that is essentially meaningless.

[mmonk]

18. No coordination. That was the right question.

[hulka38]

19. As we all know,

the Dem personality is far more independent that the other side. We like to think before we fall in line behind the leader and I wouldn't have it any other way. I think it's the same for the pros in DC. So there's that trite old explanation. I get the sense that communication between the Congress and the WH was never very good, but that it was especially lacking with the House. Maybe that has to with the House having an established majority before the Dem Prez comes in instead of the other way around. Who knows? But I also think there's a sense of distrust and even betrayal among the House leadership and its members with the WH due to it's handling of the HCR issue. I think the Senate and the WH was angry with the House for passing a strong HCR bill with a PO, especially after the PO issue started going nuclear in the blogosphere and spilling into liberal radio and tv. HCR certainly contributed to the blood bath in November where the pain was disproportionally felt in the House. The Senate lost a few seats but they weren't getting shit done anyway and seemed to be very comfortable in that mode. I think that has further alienated the two more than most people realize and is one explanation for the latest big issue clusterfuck.

So I think that's what happened. Thanks for posing this question. I'm interested to see what everyone else's take on this debacle.

[senseandsensibility]

20. kick, but it's too late to rec!

I know this was a rhetorical question, but I can only surmise that it turned out just as the Dems wanted it to, including Obama. They are professtional poliiticians. If they wanted to have a gameplan, they would have prepared one. They did not. The reason(s) for this are interesting to speculate about, but the fact is our party in dysfunctional.