Calling All Progressives

[onmyknees]

I'm not sure what to make of this...Obama being flanked from the left ?? How is that possible ? One of the left's most strident and important ( and obnoxious) voices is in openly attacking the man that only 2 years ago brought tears of joy streaming down his face...How could this be?

So...how about it....Africian, Hippifried, Ben, Trish ...any takers? I need help understanding all this.


http://www.eyeblast.tv/public/checker.aspx?v=hd6UuzVr4z

[trish]

I know Chris Matthews got a tickle up his leg thinking about Obama, but I don't recall Keith being moved to tears. But then I watch MSNBC about as little as I watch FOX. I don't believe you when you claim not to know what to make of Keith's disappointment. You're just trying to get a rise out us. Okay, here goes.

Obama was always pragmatic, always willing to compromise and never the radical socialist his conservative enemies made him out to be. Of course you knew that. Look at the health care bill. Fox would have you think he shoved it through the legislature like Suzanne Holmes ramming her long, black, turgid cock down gulping conservative throats. It's a nice image. But of course that's not the case. Obama made a lot of concessions to get that legislation passed; concessions that upset his base even back then (e.g. single payer health-care went by the way-side). The exasperation of the democratic base with Obama's willingness to compromise has been a long time baking in the oven. The oven bell went off when he made this latest deal extending the Bush Tax Cuts for another two years even though giving it to the wealthy (who are already making record profits) will add 700 [billion] dollars to the deficit over the next decade. A lot of things aren't going our way lately; e.g. nixing DADT got indefinitely delayed today. Obama could've done away with DADT months ago, but insisted on a bipartisan solution. Yet a bipartisan solution is not visible on the horizon. And so it goes. That's politics. When you disagree with your party leader's political tactics you let him know.

Personally, I'm not a political tactician, nor do I like to think about political strategies and tactics all that much. I'm mostly a issues person. So yeah, I think health-care got compromised and watered down; I think we should get rid of DADT immediately; I think we should extend the Bush tax cuts on the first quarter million dollars everyone makes but not the second quarter million. I also realize compromises have to made to make progress. I'm unwilling at the moment to say Obama made the wrong compromises or unnecessary compromises, but it seems a lot of people are entertaining that proposition. I do think the conservative wing plays very good poker and rarely compromises, even if it means American will lose jobs, health and homes.

[onmyknees]

I know Chris Matthews got a tickle up his leg thinking about Obama, but I don't recall Keith being moved to tears. But then I watch MSNBC about as little as I watch FOX. I don't believe you when you claim not to know what to make of Keith's disappointment. You're just trying to get a rise out us. Okay, here goes.

Obama was always pragmatic, always willing to compromise and never the radical socialist his conservative enemies made him out to be. Of course you knew that. Look at the health care bill. Fox would have you think he shoved it through the legislature like Suzanne Holmes ramming her long, black, turgid cock down gulping conservative throats. It's a nice image. But of course that's not the case. Obama made a lot of concessions to get that legislation passed; concessions that upset his base even back then (e.g. single payer health-care went by the way-side). The exasperation of the democratic base with Obama's willingness to compromise has been a long time baking in the oven. The oven bell went off when he made this latest deal extending the Bush Tax Cuts for another two years even though giving it to the wealthy (who are already making record profits) will add 700 trillion dollars to the deficit over the next decade. A lot of things aren't going our way lately; e.g. nixing DADT got indefinitely delayed today. Obama could've done away with DADT months ago, but insisted on a bipartisan solution. Yet a bipartisan solution is not visible on the horizon. And so it goes. That's politics. When you disagree with your party leader's political tactics you let him know.

Personally, I'm not a political tactician, nor do I like to think about political strategies and tactics all that much. I'm mostly a issues person. So yeah, I think health-care got compromised and watered down; I think we should get rid of DADT immediately; I think we should extend the Bush tax cuts on the first quarter million dollars everyone makes but not the second quarter million. I also realize compromises have to made to make progress. I'm unwilling at the moment to say Obama made the wrong compromises or unnecessary compromises, but it seems a lot of people are entertaining that proposition. I do think the conservative wing plays very good poker and rarely compromises, even if it means American will lose jobs, health and homes.

Well Trish....I'm as into the politics as much as the policy. You can't get the later without the former. Hard to separate the two anymore...but in a way I was asking a legit question. I can't figure progressives out. Name me a more progressive President in the past 40 years? They got their man , the press and the libs did what it took to get him elected...and look at them now. Cannibals! You see, Obama has a progressive problem...not a conservative problem.

I totally and completely disagree Obama was always this big consensus builder you portray him to be. He worked with Dick Luger while staying long enough in the Senate for a cup of coffee. Other than that....I'd like some proof of this great compromiser. If he didn't get all he wanted on Health Care...he can't blame Fox News, and you're too smart for that to. He had overwhelming majorities in both houses.....it's not the Republicans that took the public option out...it's members of his own party. If he had been the compromiser you tell us he was, he may have gotten the 2 Maine gals to vote with him on Health care, but not one Republican vote in either chamber, and the reason he didn't get them because he didn't try. A skillful Pol could have peeled at least several Republicans away. . I think you're really off base on this assessment. This guy is as ideological driven as anyone I've ever observed. There's no history to support your thesis. None.
He put on a great dog and pony show at that Health Care Summit, but never included anything that was suggested by the Republicans that day.Nothing. It was a made for TV show. In fact...just 2 days later they had their first draft of the bill. It was 9 months before he met with the Senate Minority leader. That's fine....he didn't have to...he had plenty of votes to ram through what he wanted and tried, and now that the policies are seen as largely unpopular....suddenly he's centrist?? Not buying' it. Not for a second. He may yet become that....but as of today he isn't. Progressive love to point to the war in Afghanistan as proof he has some sort of moderate cred....That's laughable. Deep down he despises this war and everything to do with it, but at this point....to cut and run would be political disaster. It has nothing to do with his will to win. I'm sorry, but I read the Woodward book and that's the conclusion I've come to. None of this makes him a bad guy....but it also doesn't make him a moderate ! He's said some over the top shit about the opposition party....stuff that cuts deeper than the usual political one upsmanship. ( shall I furnish you a list...??) And when he gets the back of their hand...he has only himself to blame. He was the progressive Messiah...did he change ? Did they change? Or did he fool all of you?

[onmyknees]

Trish...."like Suzanne Holmes ramming her long, black, turgid cock down gulping conservative throats. It's a nice image"

...we finally agree on something baby !!!!!!! LOL

[onmyknees]

"Obama could've done away with DADT months ago, but insisted on a bipartisan solution"

No...that's not why he waited. He waited for the political cover the Pentagon study provided him, but now the political landscape is dramatically different.

He did the same exact thing with the deficit commission...( waiting until after the election as not to put any dems in danger) and look where that's heading. He could have implemented any number of these measures. Sorry Trish, but he's not decisive.

[trish]

Well he may have fooled you into thinking he's a socialist ideologue, but he never fooled me. I knew back during the campaign that he was a pragmatist. How did I know. He said so. His views on Afghanistan, even back then, weren't aligned with the liberal view. Yes of course he hated and hates that war and feels we're too invested to pull out. That's pragmatism. My thesis is that he compromises, not that he's a great consensus maker, or even a consensus maker. It seems he rather good at giving ground and getting little or nothing in return. I do find it amusing that there was not one single republican vote for the health-care bill and you take that not as evidence of republican intransigence but evidence that Obama didn't compromise enough.

As far as DADT goes, the public is overwhelmingly in favor of repeal. It was impolitic to delay the decision. The election is over. Not only is the general public in favor of repeal, the generals and the admirals are in favor of repealing it too. Obama can repeal DADT tomorrow; but there's no indication that he will. That's evidence that he wasn't waiting for political cover_rather he delayed action for the reason he said he delayed action: he wants a bipartisan solution in the legislature. No such solution is in sight because the republicans don't know what to do with the tea-party peeking over their shoulders.

[Cuchulain]

Trish has it right. You're just trying to stir shit up, but then that's what we all do here. Obama made some progressive noises when he was running - against the tax cuts for the upper 2%, the Iraq debacle, gitmo, torture, trade deals and he favored climate change legislation and cardcheck. He gave us a reason to hope that he would be a fairly progressive President

Personally, I never expected him to be another FDR, but I never thought he'd be this middle of the road. I think a lot of people on the left got carried away with their hopes for his Presidency and are disheartened by the truth. We watched the repubs ram through every damn thing they wanted when they were in power and we wanted the same from the Dems. Obviously, that hasn't happened and Obama is taking the brunt of our anger.

In politics (and many other things), perception can be just as important as reality. You suggest that Obama never really tried to compromise with repubs, but that's not the way the Party base sees it. We feel he bent over backwards to accommodate them and that pisses us off, especially after the way the gop slapped Dems around during the first six years of Bush/Cheney.

Sure, LIEbermann and a few CONservadems in the Senate are largely responsible for the failure to push through a more liberal agenda. Obama is the President though, and we wanted him to have more fire in his belly. The base of either Party needs a little red meat now and again. Barry O the candidate knew that. Barry O the President seems to have forgotten it.

[hippifried]

Well, I still don't know what the hell "a progressive" is, so I didn't think this was for me. But since you mentioned my name, I figure I might as well chime in.

Both the left & right have been whining about the president for the last year & a half. That's because they're whiners. I have no sympathy for glassy eyed ideologues from any bent. The republicans have been whining since before the inauguration of course, & they formulated a plan from the outset to be completely obstructionist. They announced the plan in 2008 right after the election. The "professional left" (I love that term. Thank you Mr Gibbs.) started whining as soon as it became clear that their agenda wasn't on top of the priority list. So what? It was never even part of the campaign. Barack Obama didn't get elected because he was black or because the country suddenly took a left turn. He was elected because he's smart & pragmatic. He was elected by an overwhelming majority, & still has better favorable ratings than any other politician or political group, because he's NOT an ideologue.

On health care: It was the right wing democrats in the Senate who gutted the original proposal. It's not that republican ideas weren't incorporated. They didn't have any, other than "not now" or "it's not the right time to do anything on healthcare" or "let the markets handle it" blah blah blah ad nauseum. We've heard that bullshit for the last century. Well now there's finally something on the books that can be tweaked, changed, & added to. I figure that my great grand daughter (on the way & due in April) will have a pretty good setup by the time she goes to school or starts thinking about a family of her own.

The tax deal will pass. If the democrats wanted the proposal that the President sent them 2 years ago, they should have taken it up at least 6 months ago, before they lost the House, where all tax legislation must originate. I don't know what makes them think they'll get a better deal if they wait till the republicans take over. There's a lot more to this than just the Bush tax cuts. Somebody needs to get a grip.

The ban on homosexuals serving in the military will get lifted. It's part of the military appropriations bill, which won't pass without it. Personally, I think "don't ask don't tell" should still be the policy after the ban is gone. It's really nobody's business, & shouldn't be any kind of an issue within the unit. They have other things to do.

[onmyknees]

Trish has it right. You're just trying to stir shit up, but then that's what we all do here. Obama made some progressive noises when he was running - against the tax cuts for the upper 2%, the Iraq debacle, gitmo, torture, trade deals and he favored climate change legislation and cardcheck. He gave us a reason to hope that he would be a fairly progressive President

Personally, I never expected him to be another FDR, but I never thought he'd be this middle of the road. I think a lot of people on the left got carried away with their hopes for his Presidency and are disheartened by the truth. We watched the repubs ram through every damn thing they wanted when they were in power and we wanted the same from the Dems. Obviously, that hasn't happened and Obama is taking the brunt of our anger.

In politics (and many other things), perception can be just as important as reality. You suggest that Obama never really tried to compromise with repubs, but that's not the way the Party base sees it. We feel he bent over backwards to accommodate them and that pisses us off, especially after the way the gop slapped Dems around during the first six years of Bush/Cheney.

Sure, LIEbermann and a few CONservadems in the Senate are largely responsible for the failure to push through a more liberal agenda. Obama is the President though, and we wanted him to have more fire in his belly. The base of either Party needs a little red meat now and again. Barry O the candidate knew that. Barry O the President seems to have forgotten it.

Well of course you think Trish has it right...that could have been left unsaid ! And as far as stirring things up....I'd like to think we talk
politics under the "POLITICS" section. I like to hear what Trish has to say. I'm not trying to jab a stick in anyone's eye here...lord knows it was not a fun time being a Buckley conservative during the last few years of the Bush administration, but the downplaying of the current situation is in stark contrast to much of the exuberant posts on this forum 2 years ago.

My point to Trish and you all is that Obama has really boxed himself in. I referred to it as his "progressive problem". His base wants him to deliver, but the reality is that only 25% of the population identifies themselves as left wing. That's not where elections are won. If he seeks to mollify his base, he'll alienate the 30% of moderate independents ( witness this past election) and his party will continue to loose ground. There are about 5...maybe 6 congressional districts that Nancy Pelosi could get elected in outside of S.F. and that's part of your problem. Add to that, he allowed her to pretty much set all the legislative agenda the past 2 years and you can see why you guys are in such trouble. But hey...there's hope. I heard Slick Willie himself was at the White House today ! Here is what I truly don't get about you progressives despite studying you for many years...Let's take Congressman Anthony Weiner from NYC, and the issue of the death tax that the Dems have thrown down the gauntlet over. I know Trish knows who he is. My observation is that he represents the far left progressive wing of your party....along with Pelosi and others. When Meghan Kelly ( Fox News) was questioning him the other day about the death tax and the fact it's insidious, because the accumulation of one's lifetime of work and assets, has already been taxed. For example you purchase most assets with after tax dollars over the course of a lifetime. That means the vast majority of your assets have already been taxed once...perhaps more. Upon your death, the government comes in ( Probate) places a value on the assets and hands a tax bill to the heirs. In most cases, the heirs can't possibly pay the hefty tax and sell off their parents lifetime body of work at 35% tax. When questioned about this, Weiner actually said...yes of course the earners of that estate have paid taxes on it through a variety of taxation mechanisms , but the heirs haven't.......?????? He almost wanted to say...we'll their dead...what do they care?? The point is Congressman Weiner...THE ASSETS HAVE ALREADY BEEN TAXED. I'm honest with you when I tell you I really can't comprehend that kind of thinking, and from the looks of it..........neither can the vast majority of Americans.

[trish]

I don't think anyone who has been in Congress for more than decade is far anything. If Pelosi and Weiner are far left progressives, then Bonner and Sessions are far right regressives.

First of all, dead people don't pay estate taxes. Seems to me any argument for or against a gift tax could be used to support or counter the validity of inheritance tax, which is just a tax on a gift left to you by the deceased. I don't see the inheritance tax as insidious. Just the opposite. What is insidious and dangerous is the accumulation of inherited power in a single family over generations. Such accumulation amounts to an effective aristocracy and a generational consolidation of power. Moreover, the inheritance taxes that have existed in the U.S. have never been a burden on anyone but the extremely powerful. When the estate tax was under consideration under W's administration the right got farmers all upset claiming they won't be able to pass on their family farms, or that middle class families won't be able to pass on their homes because the estate tax is way too exorbitant. But no family farm, nor any middle class home has ever been subject to an estate tax. What has put the family farm and middle class homes in danger are the bizarre banking practices that the powerful have utilized to grasp even more power.

I will admit, the term "death tax" was a stroke of genius. Two simple words. The republicans are masters at creating the most compact lies in the known universe.