Nothing short of betrayal.

[kentuck]

Rather than making a deal with the Republicans, they could have fought them in the public forum. They did not have to surrender so quickly. So, why did they do it? They chose a deal over a fight. We gave the bully our sandwich and our milk but he let us keep our apple. We called it a compromise.

For 8 long years we fought the Bush policies. The huge debt and taxcuts and the wars and Guantanamo and rendition and torture and so many other travesties. We worked hard for the Democrats and Barack Obama. We gave them a huge majority in the House and the Senate. They chose to play political games rather than to reverse the damages done by the little dictator Bush.

Somewhere there is an idiot in a village in Texas with a big shit-eating grin. He has won. They have won. We have lost. But you got your apple. Don't eat it too quickly.

We have been betrayed by the Democratic Party. They chose not to debate this issue before the election for whatever reasons. Perhaps they had no faith in the voters to distinguish between the two Parties? Perhaps they did not want to distinguish themselves from the other Party?

So the President said we were held hostage and we needed to pay the ransom. Republicans of all stripes rushed to say that the President won this battle. They were smiling with their fingers crossed behind their backs when they said it.

The President did not win this battle. He lost it and so did the Democratic Party. And so did we. But we will not see the consequences immediately.

The deal was made primarily with the hope that the economy will have improved in two years and the President will be re-elected. That is the best result that could come from this "deal".

The worst result would be that the economy did not improve and actually worsened. That is not totally unrealistic. Much depends on the world economy. Our deficit situation will play a big role.

If that happens, the Democratic Party will be weakened and discredited. It will not be able to gather the people to its side because they are cowards. The bell rang and they did not answer. They were frozen in fear and inaction. Very few in the Senate had the courage to stand up for the Democratic Party. We would hope that the House has more courage but don't hold your breath.

Call it whatever you like. It is nothing short of betrayal.

[we can do it]

1. Oh Come On Now, We Lost Our House Majority By Being Grumpy

Put on that shiny happy face! We are doing a fantastic job in DC, we just need to hug and cave (ooops I meant compromise) and hand everything over to the corporations and the rich..............

[Heads or Tails]

2. We have tried being polite,

reasoning with people, documenting the truth, respecting and considering people's complaints that we are being too harsh, too radical, that we are making attacks, that we are alienating allies, that we are hurting "the cause."

None of that has worked.

The years slip by. Conditions grow worse and worse, The danger grows and grows. The ruling class gets stronger and stringer. Polite nicey-nice "can't we all get along children and play nice?" is bringing no positive returns and there is nothing to lose by speaking the truth as harshly as needs be to get the message across.

Maybe the bottom line is whether or not we all seek the same depth of changes in our society. There is no doubt in my mind that whether under the control of Democrats or the Republicans, the number one beneficiary of political decisions, be they foreign policy or domestic, will be large industries/the extremely wealthy - that is, the general protection of the status quo, and the continuation of a capital-before-people mentality, the right of the US to impose its will on nations for the benefit of its corporations.

[donheld]

41. Welcome to DU Heads or Tails

:hi:

[somone]

3. Too bad the RW crazies don't give him proper credit

for single-handedly resurrecting a moribund GOP and, at the same time, sowing the seeds of destruction for Democrats.

[elocs]

4. Considering that after his election in 2008 and more Dem gains in both houses of Congress

we had so many people and posters singing, "Ding, dong the witch is dead" and dancing on the grave of the GOP. How is that looking now, I wonder?

[Kall]

11. They would have been dead

With an administration without its head up its ass.

[Hydra]

17. They were dead, and they even admitted it

President Obama is truly capable of miracles- he single-handedly revived a discredited party that should have been dusbinned, revived the market system that even Greenspan admits was a mistake, and sold us an insurance manditory buy-in as "reform."

Too bad his miracles are against the normal people.

[bobbolink]

31. Shambolized.

[liberation]

35. When the then Dem candidate to the presidency was gushing over the GOP's patron saint, Raygun

I knew something was not passing the smell test. Regardless of all the gushings I was being told in this site about what a great n-dimensional chess play was for the candidate of the Dems to say sweet nothings about the father figure of reactionaries in this country.

I should have figured out that chess sets do not come in brightly colored boxes labelled "Parchessi"...

[CrispyQ]

72. I remember some claiming the democratic brand would rule for decades.

I'd be :rofl: if it weren't so damned :cry:

[nckjm]

33. Well said!

[movingviolation]

57. No shit!

:hide:

[bvar22]

5. Nothing short of betrayal.

K&R

[Hawkowl]

6. The economy will not improve

How can the economy improve if we keep pursuing the SAME EXACT POLICIES THAT FUCKED US? Obama is put all his eggs in the faith based economy. He just hopes that it gets better by magic. He is still offering tax cuts, disastrous wars (sucking us dry of money), free trade (South Korea is the latest), tax credits for oil companies and offshoring (his happy speeches in India praising offshoring).

The economy is completely FUCKED for the next two years. Consequently Obama is as well. He either won't run, or get his ass kicked so hard, he'll have to climb a ladder to lick Mondale's boots.

[defendandprotect]

29. Stimulus was 25% of what economists told Obama was needed....

those who created the financial crisis and profited from it, are now at Obama's

side refusing to remedy it -- or to create jobs!!

Some are saying stimulus is fading and another 1 million jobs will be lost!

[blindpig]

7. Depends upon where loyalty was placed in the 1st place. n/t

[Better Believe It]

8. We need more bi-partisanshit!

[Kall]

9. It's more like...

It's more like giving the bully your sandwich and apple, and him telling you he'll be back for the apple tomorrow.

[Oldtimeralso]

56. No It's More Like...

The bully took everything then ate the apple in front of you and gave you back the core.
He then told us if we want apples take the seeds and grow our own apple tree.

[chimpymustgo]

68. Hammer meet nail.

[Poboy]

10. recommend.

[meow mix]

12. china loves it.. anything to helps us hasten our own demise.

were toast

[emald]

13. we've been sold out

no doubt about it. This congress, and this president, are less than useful as far as I am concerned. Waste of my vote. Disgusting. No more.

[Name removed]

14. Deleted message

Message removed by moderator. Click here to review the message board rules.

[MrScorpio]

15. The betrayal would have been to watch middle class taxes go up...

And unemployment insurance run out, all the while Obama stood his ground, if he went your way. So, short of storming up to Capitol Hill with a baseball bat, the fact is that results were achieved.

How many people would be suffering on 1 Jan as the two sides would stare at each other and not have budged... Taxes raising all over the place and unemployment insurance running out for real people? You and I know that it wouldn't be pretty. There would be a whole heck of a lot suffering would be happening, of course.

More times than not, "All or nothing" only gets you NOTHING. Had that happened, Obama would be accused of fiddling while Rome burns.

Woooo, that would have been fun to watch, wouldn't it? NOT.

He chose to get some results now with a sense of urgency.

Sure, the Bush tax cuts were extended for two years and THAT was the GOP's Holy Grail, their Staff of Life, their "principled" stand. Yet he got them to compromise and to NOT make them permanent. Amazing, I say.

So in the interim, his position to keep them from becoming permanent has not changed AND he now has some room to work diligently to quash them, WITHOUT poor and working class families and the unemployed being held hostage by the calendar and the God Damned Republicans. Two years to continue the fight. Yes, a delay, but it's better than nothing.

Now, the purists can afford to sit on their high horses and huff and puff all they want, because they're NOT trying to get ANY results in the face of stiff opposition.

They're only trying to look pretty, as Obama is doing ALL of the dirty work and taking hits from all sides as he's getting something out of freaking Congress rather than a "principled" nothing.

On the other hand, they are NOT in the process of trying to govern the nation.... the President IS.

So sure, play the blame game as much as you'd like... It's much easier to do that than to make a deal with the GOP devils that allows the American people from incurring immediate suffering and a bashing of the economy.



Lastly, I want to say that in order to build on success, you have to actually have some success, however small it may be. The goal should never try to create the perfect scenario on the first try, because in government, "perfect" will always get you nowhere.

The key is actually getting your foot in the door and after that, pry it open bit by bit. That's something that happens over the long term. It's the long view and the most effective way to enact change. The things that Obama has passed today will be bigger, better and more effective later on. They are successes that will be built upon.

Standing on the side, cursing the wind for being windy doesn't get results.

Frankly, it's quite silly to watch.

[sabrina 1]

16. This is such a specious argument.

First, there should be no connection between the Bush Tax Cuts and UI extensions. How did that happen? Why did Democrats ALLOW these two totally different issues to be tied together??

We just had an election, the Democrats, or rather the WH, chose NOT TO MAKE UI PART OF THE CAMPAIGN. Why???? It was a winning issue for them. So, what was the reason for 'waiting until after the election?' I know why. No more insults to our intelligence. You DON'T give the opposition a bargaining chip like that, especially when you don't have to, UNLESS YOU WANT TO.

And why was the issue of the Bush Tax Cuts not a huge part of the Campaign? Why were Democrats virtually silent about, again 'wait until after the election'? WHY??

And WHY were the 'recommendations' of the Deficit Commission kept off the table 'until after the election'???? You may wish to remain blind to facts, but these were ALL WINNING ISSUES for DEMOCRATS, and they were IN THE MAJORITY with the power to set the agenda for the elections. And they chose to help the Republicans out by NOT DISCUSSING these WINNING ISSUES for DEMOCRATS until 'after the election'.

Why did Democrats not force Republicans to have to state their positions on these very important issues DURING THE ELECTION SEASON?? Did Democrats NOT WANT TO WIN, are they that stupid, or was this the way it was meant to happen. I think many of us know the answer.

Please, open your eyes. We are not blind. We begged for them to bring these issues up before the election and if they had, they most likely would have won. But they didn't and the reasons are clear to me and millions of other Democrats even if not to those who still believe this administration can do no wrong, when the truth is they know exactly what they are doing, and we have been punked.

[MrScorpio]

18. Riddle me this...

How would have you gotten sixty votes out of the Senate before the end of year?

In the end, it's about what you can get, not what you have have lost.

That's the name of the game in politics. As I said before, "All or nothing" mostly gets you nothing. Now frankly, you can afford to homestead on your principles, while decrying that the other side is getting something in that deal and that we didn't get everything. Other than being hard-hearted to the prospect of millions of people suffering greatly had this deal NOT gone through, it's pretty impractical indeed to think that anyone on Capitol Hill can be forced to do anything that they don't want to by the President.

It makes great political theater for all the wonks on the fringe, but where the rubber hit the road, you're looking at a major disaster.

Actually, I think that you've put your finger on the pulse of the problem in placing some of the blame on the failure of Congressional Democrats. But let's face it, all they've done is stand aside and watch Obama take the hit for this. Something that he willingly stood tall for.

He's going to have a bigger problem Congress next year, of course... But that's another story.

However, let's take a look at the results, shall we?

Middle class tax cuts: Check.

U.I. extensions: Check.

No permanent Bush tax cuts for the uber wealthy: Check.

No big hit on the economy from an immediate rise in middle to lower income and payroll tax rates: Check.

Pure as the driven snow bloviators with no real answers to my initial question: Triple check with a cherry on top.

[sabrina 1]

22. Explain to me how a Republican candidate would answer his/her

constituents about extending UI especially when he is going to be forced to vote on the issue and cannot lie about it? And then explain how when he votes against it, his Democratic opponent won't use that against him in the campaign?

Explain how a Republican candidate can expect to be elected if he or she decides to cut Social Security?

And how would a Republican candidate have explained extending tax cuts for the rich when his opponent is bashing him daily over representing the wealthy and caring nothing for the working class?

On all these issues, the public opinion was overwhelming on the side of the working class, crossing party lines. But the Democrats decided not to embarrass Republicans by forcing them to show their hands on all of these issues. Now, explain to me 'why would democrats do that'?

I think there is only one answer to that question.

[disillusioned73]

84. I'd like to here the answer to that question as well..

but things do tend to go silent when it is so eloquently asked, thank you.

[DemocratSinceBirth]

87. The Last Time Unemployment Insurance Was Extended

The last time it was extended in July it took five weeks to extend it because they couldn't find three Republican votes. They had to wait for Carte Goodwin to be sworn in to reach the magical sixty to invoke cloture:


http://www.aolnews.com/2010/07/14/senate-sets-date-to-vote-on-unemployment-extension-july-19/

In the next Congress we would need eight Republicans to extend unemployment insurance. If we couldn't get three how we are going to get eight?

[disillusioned73]

89. Your ignoring the most important point..

of sabrinas question. The leverage that the election would have afforded the Dems then and yet it was never utilized. Why??

It's easy now to state the obvious after the trouncing of the elections, the Repubs have been enboldened and have gained the upper hand. This could have been avoided.

[DemocratSinceBirth]

90. In The Midst Of The Campaign Season They Exhibited Near Universal Opposition To Extending UI

They see tax cuts as a hand up and unemployment insurance as a hand out. They can no be shamed. They just recently blocked bills to set up a fund for 9-11 First Responders and a one time $250.00 increase for SS recipients that didn't get a COLA.

Mr. Scorpio was correct. The choice wasn't between this and a bill more to our liking but between and a bill we would absolute hate in three weeks when there are sixty four more Republicans in the House and six more in the Senate.

[EFerrari]

25. Well, 2/3s of the unemployed won't be collecting UI or paying taxes.

We won't be getting jobs either because the money we needed to used for job creation is being pocketed.

And now, they have their foot in the door to loot Social Security.

Well done.

[sad sally]

42. Just wait until the rumbles in the new ruling party become

shouts - they want to turn UI into loans, and don't be surprised if they become retroactive loans. So, if a person is lucky enough to get a job, Mr. Uncle Sam will take his payment first and new ruling party will boast they are reducing the deficit.

[riderinthestorm]

37. Actually only a small fraction of the unemployed got extensions.

The rest got shit. While the middle class, millionaires and billionaires got their tax cuts today, it was at the expense of the USA's long term financial health which will have an impact so far beyond reckoning that our children and grandchildren will curse us for this. There WILL be a big hit on the economy from these cuts, mark my words. Every single damn economist agrees with this - go google it yourself before you spout shit.

The Congress (with rare exceptions) does NOT work for us anymore, capiche? They only work for their own bottom line and it ain't about maintaining the health and stability of "our country". Congresspeople are the real bloviators and it really, truly sucks ass that you would call out anyone who dares to tell the truth.

In this end, it really IS about what we have lost: our way as a nation and our way as the planet's guiding light as a democracy. We are as corrupt as any 3rd world shithole - our shits however, wear better suits. This argument exposes every last wrong about our society and our "leaders" (cough).

[guzzie]

45. With the money from the Rich tax cuts expiring

Obama would have been able to create waaay more jobs and stimulate the economy far more - helping more people than by handing out very temporary insurance to a select few unemployed.

This deal hurts America in so many ways, financially bad for the books, financially bad for debt, financially bad for credit rating, financially bad for jobs, stimulus, and growth. Bad in almost every way - the only potential positive was UI - would it not be better to have people working than on benefits ? Yes !

You are so wrong, so, so, so wrong - time to wake up and get with the intelligent people - Dunning Kruger.

[rhett o rick]

58. You cant deal with blackmailers. They wont keep their end of the bargan. THEY got the foot in the

door. They will be back for more and more.

[WCGreen]

38. Mr. Scorpio, I understand and intellectually I am with you....

But in my gut, in my emotional self I feel betrayed and played and am losing hope...

[liberation]

39. Explain, without using Republican talking points, how are we supposed to pay for UI benefits...

... while reducing tax revenue. Esp. at a time where deficits are of such importance as for the President to create a Deficit Commission by executive order (a commission which is actually looking at things like SS which actually do not contribute to the deficit, but that is neither here nor there...)


BTW, for what it is worth I personally consider sillier to witness Dems resorting to use talking points based around lowered taxation, given how protective republicans are of their IP portofolio.

[Confusious]

40. Obama doesn't know how to play 2-d chess let alone 3-d

[olegramps]

75. Hell, he can't even play checkers. Maybe 52 card pickup is his game.

[gateley]

54. But what about those who make under 20K a year? That group gets a tax HIKE -

Doesn't that seem just WRONG to you? So, in addition to adding to our skyrocketing debt, some of those very people who are supposed to be helped will be hurt? Huh?

[fasttense]

63. Yeah, people just ignore the tax increase for the poor.

And when that 2% tax cut from our Social Security goes into effect, our wages will go down to match. That's what happened with the stimulus tax cuts and it's what will happen with this tax cut.

Tax cuts for working slobs don't benefit them like it does the rich. The rich hoard away their money or off shore it and the working slob gets his wages reduced.

[Gaedel]

64. Hoard their money?

I am a baseball player and I make $10 mill a year (I wish).

No extension of Bush tax cuts I pay $3.96 mill in taxes.

Extension of bush tax cuts I pay $3.5 mill in taxes.

With the extension, I have close to $0.5 mill extra in hand.

What do i do with it?

I put it under my mattress?? Not likely.

I buy gold ingots and Kruger rands to stack in the back of my closet? Not likely.

I go on a spending spree living large (or larger than I currently do)? Stimulative.

I put the money in a bank? Now the bank has the ability to make more loans.

I invest in business either directly or through the stock market? Supposedly adds to total capital at work in the economy.


While my having half a mill more might not be as stimulative as other things, my having more money has some positive effect on the economy.

[lostnfound]

67. Investing in the stock market does not actually put capital to work

It's a lie we've been told.. Only in the case of IPO's or special offerings does the capital from a stock purchase end up invested in the business. Probably 98% or 99% of stock transactions transfer cash from new owners to old owners, and the new owners are hoping the perception of the value of the ownership will rise so they can sell it to somebody else down the road. It is closer to gambling subsidized by the fruits of the labor and of the original investment (which may be 20 years old or longer).
Or you can think of holding shares in a company as owning a piece of a feudal estate; it entitles you to the wealth produced by the estate. I suggest reading "The Divine Right of Capital" if you want to consider this idea further.
Venture capital is the exception; entrepreneurs investing in their own business are the exception. The stock market is fighting over pieces to the feudal estates.

[gateley]

91. The very people they are purporting to help, the very people they're willing to

to make major concessions for, aren't being helped at all. THAT, more than anything, pisses me off. You're doing it for the middle class? How about the others who need it most? :grr:

[olegramps]

74. I didn't know one of Obama's kids belonged to this board.

[spooked911]

85. One reason your argument doesn't hold up

Is because the ridiculous giveaway Obama made on the estate tax. Totally unnecessary.

Also would like to see the guy actually make a public fight on doing the right thing. Among other things.

[obxhead]

19. The Democratic party will likely pay dearly for decades to come

over some of the things the Obama administration has done. This trillion dollars added to the deficit will likely be one of the most damaging. I'm not sure it matters too much anymore though. Both parties are acting in the interests of corporations and wealthy elite over the needs of the backbone of this country, the overwhelming majority of this country, the people.

[Name removed]

20. Deleted message

Message removed by moderator. Click here to review the message board rules.

[sabrina 1]

21. To betray the party one would have to abandon the party

platform. So I don't think the OP can be accused of that. But the party platform has been abandoned in dozens of different ways. To deny that is being willfully blind.

It isn't the first time in history that a political party abandoned its principles. The current Republican Party eg, bears no resemblance to the Republican Party under Lincoln. Todays DEmocratic Party bears little resemblance to the party of FDR.

Seems to me that Kentuck has not abandoned the principles which were used to get his vote. He is still supporting the party platform. So how do you come up with notion that it is he who is betraying the party?

Unless of course you believe that party members should just go along with the party even when it is clearly on the wrong track?

[Forkboy]

23. I think plenty of people see the landscape just fine.

[upi402]

24. This is why I just don't give a damn anymore

The "Democratic" Party is too diseased to even think about 'taking back'.

Willful blindness - so easy to see right through.

[Commie Pinko Dirtbag]

44. The natural logarithmic function is defined as the integral of 1/x.

[leeroysphitz]

26. and who says this administration doesn't know how to twist arms in th Senate?

[JDPriestly]

27. I read that this deal was Summers' idea.

I suspect that it was negotiated some time ago. I have no other reason for thinking that is the case, but I just have that suspicion.

[eilen]

86. The meme that the deal was made to "help the poor and

unemployed" is a line. It is used to hit the Left when we protest the deal. I personally heard an article read aloud by Stephanie Miller accusing the Left of "not caring about the poor." Seriously.

It is more than a line, I believe it is a lie. Whether he is lying to himself or just to us, I don't know. There was a different reason he acceded to this and I don't know what it was. If he was really concerned about people having money to feed their families with and shelter themselves-- he would have pushed a jobs bill through, he would not have gone to S. Korea and made a Free Trade Agreement, he would not have dragged Bill Clinton out (the man from TANF and NAFTA) to tell us how great a deal this was. Summers is good place to start. I've noticed all the usual suspects out there pushing the message.

So all the faithful can keep telling how neutered this President is by the big bad Republicans when he holds the veto power and the Democrats hold the Senate and how surrender is his only way of protecting us little people. Well, you can believe that if you want to. If it makes you feel better. I refuse to buy into the victim mentality.

No he is charging the CEOs with the responsibility to provide jobs. The CEO's will save us! Can anyone listen to this guy anymore without laughing or crying once you realize it is not satire? Did he think if he gave all these CEO's tax cuts they would hire people? Where's he been for the last decade? (Yahoo laying off 4% of their workforce).

I think it is pretty sad (okay, stupid) when a nation hopes to rely on unemployment insurance to stimulate the economy.

If I ever have the chance I will hook a luggey on Milton Friedmans grave. I'm pretty sure I can get away without getting caught. I'll be like one of those old Romanian women spitting on the ground every time "Chicago School of Economics" and its evil spawn's names are uttered.

[defendandprotect]

28. B e t r a y a l .......

[killbotfactory]

30. Republicans are a minority party, they aren't powerless.

I don't know what lessons you learned from the Bush years, but if you think the president can act belligerently towards the opposition, talk tough, use the "bully pulpit" and get his way through reasoned or impassioned arguments to motivate the public, you have a lot to learn about how our government functions and what we can realistically expect from voters across the country.

[Octafish]

32. SCOTUS wouldn't let Gore win in 2000.

Eight long years of Bush treasons, warmongering and all manner of Reverse Robin Hood and not a peep.

Why would the PTB now allow the Democrats to actually govern in a humane, logical and progressive way?

[Enthusiast]

69. That is right.

There is more here than meets the eye. We are trying to see through the smoke screen -it's hard to do.

[OnyxCollie]

82. "Nothing is true. Everything is permitted."

The last words of Hassan I Sabbah.

The totalitarian economy, as many have observed, has been developed in keeping with plans oriented to
a final (if not yet precisely defined) goal. It is thus a goal-oriented economy, the goal being communism capitalism.
Those in charge of the Soviet American society have assumed that economic and social development in all its
aspects can be purposefully steered by man in the direction of an ideal solution.

This produces consequences not only economic but also political, where, to a large extent, economic life
is self-directive and ultimate goals, such as plenty and progress, are purposely vague.

~snip~

To be less totalitarian such operations would have to involve some degree of withdrawal on the part of
those in charge from their commitment to total social and economic engineering, thus granting to those
living under the system the opportunity to make important choices not in keeping with the goal.

But such a politically meaningful development would in turn involve a further condition, which at the
present appears highly unlikely, namely the decline of ideology and a basic reconsideration of the firmly
instituted schemes of economic development. Barring that, the totalitarian economic system would
continue to exert pressures for the maintenance of a dictatorship capable of enforcing the kind of
discipline that such total plans demand. It is doubtful that as long as the party remains in power the
tendency of the regime to stress unattainable goals will vanish. Indeed, it is these goals, inherent
in the current ideology, which justify to the population the sacrifices which the party's domination involves.
Thus, as long as the party continues to hold its successful grip on the instruments of power, we can
expect it to continue stressing first the long-range goals of an ultimate utopia, and then the consequent
sacrifices to achieve them, even though possibly at a diminishing rate of effort.

Brzezinski, Z. (1956). Totalitarianism and rationality. The American Political Science Review, 50(3), 751-763.

[DeSwiss]

34. K&R

Liars ALWAYS betray. ALWAYS.

[4dsc]

36. Good time for a new Democratic party

and lets leave the DLC and republican to their own affairs and have a party that actually believes in the average joe.

[patrice]

43. I too blame the party about as much as I blame Obama and about as much as I blame "us", but WAIT a

minute, "... huge majorities ..."?????????????????????????

[Martin Eden]

46. "The deal was made primarily with the hope that the economy will have improved in two years"

The only possible excuse for the deal President Obama made would be his conclusion after careful evaluation that any other course of action given the current political reality would have a worse effect on the economic recovery. If such a conclusion is behind his decision -- but he is mistaken in that conclusion -- he has made a grievous error but has not intentionally betrayed us.

If his conclusion is correct, he nevertheless must accept a large measure of blame for the current political reality that would necessitate such a deal. He has squandered the political capital that got him elected, and failed to use the bully pulpit of his office and his preeminent position of leadership to smack down the forces arrayed against the people he was elected to represent.

Personally I have doubts this deal is the best course economically in the short term, and I am pretty well convinced this course (unless reversed in 2 years) will be economically disastrous in the long term.

I am still undecided as to whether President Obama is at heart an enemy of our Progressive goals or if he is merely ill-advised and/or not up to the task this presidency requires.

[PurityOfEssence]

47. Obama is the soul of style over substance

It's more important to impress Ishmael Reed by being the "coolest man in the room".

It's pretty important to hang out with the Lakers, too.

It's a tiresome bit of grandstanding schtick to hide behind the maneuverings of Congress and not come out and say specifically what he's for in Health Care or Financial Reform legislation, yet he's front and center to claim the triumph with pen held high. Of course, if he senses that Congress may go awry, he has NO PROBLEM completely circumventing them and making a deal that's not really even his to make.

It's MUCH more important to "win" legislative "victories" than fight for their specifics ACTUALLY being what they pretend to be.

It's more important still to be viewed as the prophet of a "new" politics and airily hopeful saintly way than it is to be confrontational.

It's SUPREMELY more important than anything else to win reelection.

There was no fight. There will be no fight. He needs our love. He needs their love. He knows that the big power blocs will love him too if he just gives them a little bit more. He knows it. He really, really does.

He's the Sally Fields of politics.

[NCarolinawoman]

50. You know, that Sally Field analogy has crossed my mind as well. n/t

[David Zephyr]

48. I love this guy called Kentuck. He didn't arrive at this point easily.

Kentuck, you have a fan with me.

[sirthomas66]

49. Excellent post. I agree 100%,

[mitchtv]

51. K&R # 141

great post

[lonestarnot]

52. I think that the economy will become worse. Richies will continue to hoard and syphon money. We

are on borrowed time now.

[Caretha]

80. We are out of time

We don't have another 2 years to see if the "same ol same ol" works this go around. WE ARE ALL OUT OF BORROWED TIME!

Don't believe me? Just look at the other nations that are going bankrupt, Iceland, Greece, Ireland, Spain, Portugal...individual states in the US are on the brink of bankruptcy, the US federal government isn't far behind. "Economic Riots" all over Europe.

You don't just drop newly minted trillions from the helicopter and expect to have a stable currency or economy. But yet, that is exactly what the fed just did by another 600 billion. China has cut buying the US debt by a huge percentage in the past 2 years. Moody's is getting ready to downgrade our credit rating, China already has.

The immediacy everyone felt that we must tackle the gigantic problems our country was facing 2 years ago was very real then and is even more so today. That's why people were very mobilized to vote in 2008. We all knew then we were on "borrowed time", and IMHO that is why so many today are truly feeling anger, frustration, an overwhelming feeling of hopelessness and confusion of what the hell happened to "change we can believe in".

Unfortunately this slippery slope of economic lunacy hasn't been stopped or even slowed, it is just being greased by more fool headed policies from the people we entrusted to fix this mess.

[gulliver]

53. Gotta disagree.

Obama made the right call. There will be a lot of Dem kabuki on it. Then it will pass. Unfortunately, there was not enough time to do a fight. That's a week for the first salvo, followed by about a month of fighting through the news media...all during the holidays. If Obama had tried to take it to the mat, we would have had millions of people eating snow for Christmas. If it were as easy as everyone thinks to fight, he would have done it.

[olegramps]

77. What makes you believe that a seperate UI bill could have been the tactic?

This is how it got shoved up our ass by Obama and his cadre of DINOs.

[mckara]

55. Our Team Has the Same Corporate Lackeys!

The just try to hide it more than the other bastards.

[rhett o rick]

59. Well put. nm

[movingviolation]

60. I prefer Bill Hicks theory!

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=IX2jcNlofO4&feature=related

[abq e streeter]

78. Welcome, and I've posted this more than once here (but glad you did so again)

and I've begun to wonder more and more if this isn't exactly what is really happening.

[gtar100]

61. We had a majority in the Senate?

I didn't notice.

[me b zola]

62. Recommended n/t

[Name removed]

65. Deleted message

Message removed by moderator. Click here to review the message board rules.

[Myrina]

66. 47-layer holographic chess ...

... and this is what happens to your agenda when you try to get all fancy ....

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=pMeooVB3olE&feature=related

[jillan]

70. And when Amerika is officially a 3rd world country, historians will point to this bill and the Pres

who signed it. Oh yeah - the welfare for millionaires crowd will get some mention.... but it will be about the President that signed the bill.

That's why Presidents have VETO pens.

[MissDeeds]

71. Well said

K&R

[olegramps]

73. Dump Obama for the 2012 election. Get a real Democrat. to run.

I will absolutely not give him one damn dime. If he wins the nomination I will be forced to vote for him while holding my nose, but I will not work to get him reelected as I did when I fell for his bullshit the first time around. I doubt that he will even be reelected in first place if he even runs. We need a real Democrat to run for president, not some wimp sell out-out creep.

[Kaleva]

94. Care to name a "Real" Dem who could win even a primary?

I don't think one will step forward to challenge President Obama.

[olegramps]

95. I can name several, but they will not run. Howard Dean would top the list.

[Pacifist Patriot]

76. I want to know what happened to the policy of not negotiating with terrorists.

Seems to me a group coordinated to ruin your very way of life would quality as a terrorist organization. I know it scares the shit out of me.

No, I'm not implying anything. I am stating it outright. The GOP perpetuates and expands its power base by engendering fear in the electorate. If that's not terrorist aims I don't know what is.

[WinkyDink]

79. "they could have fought them in the public forum." EXACTLY. So why DIDN'T our Democratic President

do so, when he clearly loves to speechify?

Hmmmmm......

[CrispyQ]

81. Fight. That's what has been missing from this administration.

You don't have to win the fight, but you do have to fight like hell. I haven't seen this prez get in the ring at all. Instead, he stands safely on the sidelines, making deals with the other side, while chastising the liberals. I've been pissed since "looking forward." I'm finished with him.

[oldlib]

83. Yes it is a betrayal.

It's sad that Obama has done this. Apparently he hates confrontation and will use extraordinary measures to avoid it.

[treestar]

88. Try looking at it from a Republican's point of view and you will feel better

Since it is all about the fight and who wins (nothing else) then why not?

Go to some right wing web pages and buy some right wing publications and read them.

You'll be pleased to find how tough the Democrats are, how they are shoving so much down right wing throats, how Obama is a Chicago style bully, how the left has taken over the media (especially entertainment) and right wing values are trampled upon.

[lonestarnot]

92. Bwwwwwwwwwwwaa ha ah ah ha hahahaha.

"buy" "some right wing publications" :rofl: OMG :rofl:

[kentuck]

93. I'm afraid you have finally exposed yourself.

:-)

[lonestarnot]

96. Did he take off his clothes too?

[TexasObserver]

97. They fold every hand before all the cards are dealt.